Sitting of 23 May 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 6 June.

  GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 6 June.

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

    Youth Unemployment
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: If he will make a statement on the impact of the new deal on the level of youth unemployment. [121870]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): Youth unemployment has fallen by 71 per cent. since April 1997, and the new deal has made a significant impact in achieving that improvement.
    Mr. Donohoe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive answer. [Laughter.] I should like to bring to his attention the fact that, since 1979, there has been an immense drop in youth unemployment in my constituency—in fact, one could say that it has fallen like a stone—but much is still to be done. What is being done under the new deal for over 55-year-olds?
    Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend will appreciate just what an impact the new deal has had on young people in Scotland. The mockery of Scottish National party Members is the same as they showed when we introduced the new deal. However, it is not a laughing matter for the 23,000 young people in Scotland who have benefited from it. If this Government had said in 1997 that we would slash youth unemployment by almost 75 per cent.—by 71 per cent.—in three years, no one would have believed us.
    My hon. Friend is right that not only the young faced the terrible spectre of dole queues under the previous Government. I am glad to say that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scotland Office only yesterday
    844
    extended the new deal so that those aged over 50 will be able to benefit, as our young people have. That is another step forward in recognising that, although we have made major achievements, there is still much to be done.
    Sir Robert Smith: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the success of the new deal is about getting people fit for work and helping them to find work when it is available? Therefore, crucial to the long-term prospects of the young unemployed and over-50-year-olds is investment by manufacturing, agriculture, the oil industry and tourism in job creation for such people in the Scottish economy. Does he therefore recognise, like the Secretary for State for Northern Ireland, that that investment is put at risk by the stresses of the high pound on those industries?
    Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman is correct that the Government themselves cannot create jobs; we can only create the economic framework in which those jobs are created. That is why I am extremely pleased that that is exemplified in Scotland by the highest employment for more than 30 years—2.3 million—the lowest unemployment for 25 years and the lowest sustained inflation in generations. We are reducing the national debt and we have a surplus on the current account of £17 billion compared with the £20 billion deficit that the Tory party produced.
    The hon. Gentleman is correct that one effect of that strong economy is a strong pound—in the face of a very weak euro. That has caused problems, but I am glad that manufacturing in Scotland has overcome them by increasing its output in the past year, increasing exports by 8 per cent. over the past period and increasing employment. So, I would be the last to say that we cannot do any better, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise just what significant advances have been made.
    Mr. Desmond Browne: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, although unemployment in my constituency has fallen by more than 25 per cent. in the past three years and youth unemployment has more than halved, there is still a systemic difference between local unemployment in some areas, including east Ayrshire, and the Scottish average of about 2 per cent. That is despite the many thousands of job vacancies in the market. It is for that reason that the Chancellor announced the special initiative for certain areas, including east Ayrshire, of job action zones—special targeted help to match unemployed people to jobs. Will my right hon. Friend cheer up the people of east Ayrshire by giving a general indication of when they may expect some action in the job action zone?
    Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend is right that, despite the success of the new deal, we are not content that enough has yet been done. We introduced it for the long-term unemployed and, as I said, have extended it to those aged over 50 and to the partners of those who are out of work. In addition, the Chancellor has announced that we shall be introducing employment action zones. I obviously do

    845
    not wish to pre-empt any decision on that, but I do not think that the people of east Ayrshire or my hon. Friend will have long to wait for that decision.
    Mr. John Swinney: Is the Secretary of State aware of the report of the Education and Employment Committee, which calls for
    greater decentralisation within the New Deal so that it can respond to local needs?
    Will he reflect on the contents of that report? Does he believe that it strengthens the case for devolving responsibility for the new deal to the Scottish Parliament?
    Dr. Reid: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to Westminster again.
    The new deal has been an outstanding success in Scotland, but we are always considering ways to improve it. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman—he probably has not noticed—that we are establishing a Scottish task force on the new deal. We also work hand in glove and in partnership with the Scottish Executive on this, as on many other issues. We genuinely believe that devolution is a constructive partnership of the Parliaments within the United Kingdom. That is why so many of our areas are covered by British and Scottish Ministers working together.
    I fully understand that that is not the view of the hon. Gentleman, that he wants the two Parliaments to be in confrontation, and that every subject he raises, from the boxing ring to the unemployed, will be raised with one objective, which is to push the Parliaments apart and set them in confrontation. In that context, I am surprised that he was not here yesterday, when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was at the Box. After all the shouting by members of his party last week, they could not even be here to take up the matters in question. It is the usual old story: all talk in Scotland from the SNP and no action at Westminster.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency since the election unemployment among young people has dropped by two thirds and unemployment generally has dropped by a third? That is very welcome. But is my right hon. Friend also aware that unemployment there is now the worst in Scotland? Does he accept that the removal of assisted area status from a large sector of my constituency is unlikely to be helpful in generating jobs, and that it is important that Govan shipbuilders be given a clear assurance that work will be found to make sure that that yard remains in operation until the new orders come through for the type 45 frigates? Would he further agree, since he himself mentioned boxing, that Mike Tyson coming to Glasgow gives exactly the wrong impression—
    Madam Speaker: Order. These questions are far too long. We have not even reached the end of question 1 yet.
    Dr. Reid: In deference to what you have just said, Madam Speaker, I shall answer only the first three points that my hon. Friend raised.
    First, I thank him for his congratulations on the reduction of unemployment in his constituency.
    846
    Secondly, the decisions on assisted areas were very difficult, because we had to negotiate them with the European Union. But I think that Scotland has had a good deal out of that.
    Thirdly, everything possible is being done to make sure that fair and full consideration is given to Govan when it comes to the placing of Ministry of Defence orders.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: We welcome the reduction in the level of unemployment, but we are not wholly convinced that the new deal, rather than the overall revival of the economy that started under the last Government, has had a great part to play in it, Will the Secretary of State confirm that of those going through the new deal some 36 per cent. either go back on to welfare or disappear from the system, so that it does not appear that they are traceable? Will he also confirm that about a quarter of those who obtain work come out of work shortly thereafter, whereas the whole purpose is to reduce long-term unemployment, and that all this costs £19,000 per person found a job? Would he, then, agree that the new deal's success is in fact far less than he seeks credit for?
    Dr. Reid: It is significant that in the face of a huge cut in youth unemployment the hon. Gentleman chooses not to talk about that, but to have a philosophical discussion on the factors potentially underlying it. It would have been better simply to say that we are all very pleased that three out of four young people who were on the dole under his Government are no longer on the dole under the present Government.
    As for those young people who go on to the new deal and do not immediately enter a full-time job, it is of course a high percentage—higher than we would like. But it still means that we get 64 per cent. of them in a job. We have a client group that is very difficult precisely because the new deal is targeted at those who, for generations under the Tory Government, were not in jobs. They are a very difficult group to place. They are being placed only because of the economic climate, which is allowing jobs to be created, and because of the assistance the Government are giving to them. By anybody's standards, a 71 per cent. cut in three years is not a bad figure.
    Mr. Grieve: The Secretary of State misunderstands the role of the Opposition, which is to welcome the reduction in unemployment but to question the method and the credit that he claims. I shall try to illustrate one of the difficulties so that we may have a sensible question and answer session. It was said about the new deal that the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive would take 50 trainees. In fact, they have never managed to take more than 12. What is the reason for that?
    Dr. Reid: The reason is that my total staff has been reduced from 4,200 to 86. The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that, but as he is always the first to accuse me of empire building, that is a bit cheeky.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that we can make a little faster progress. Both questions and answers are far too long. It has taken us 15 minutes to deal with one question.

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Mr. John McFall: What representations he has received from political parties on publicising the working families tax credit in Scotland. [121872]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I shall try to speak quickly. The Government are determined to maximise the take-up of working families tax credit, which is why it has been well publicised in Scotland, through television, newspapers and magazines.
    Mr. McFall: Is the Minister aware that some of the poorer families to whom I have spoken in the past few weeks are receiving upwards of an extra £60 a week from WFTC? Does he agree that it is one of the main planks of social justice in Scotland and is he proud to be a member of a Government who are trying to take poverty out of Scotland rather than just trying to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Wilson: I am very proud of the anti-poverty measures being taken by the Government. It is important that people see them as a cohesive philosophy that joins up measures to attack poverty at the root and provides, through educational policies, the means to raise aspirations and give people in our society better prospects. The WFTC could provide help to 130,000 families in Scotland at the significant level that my hon. Friend mentioned. [Interruption.] I have no idea why the SNP sneers at those 130,000 poor families in Scotland. The important point is that of those 130,000, some 99,000 are claiming WFTC. Some 31,000 more families could claim that substantial additional income and if one family sees this broadcast from the House and claims as a result, we will have spent our time well.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Minister is right that the WFTC is an important benefit. It has only been paid since October and the Government should do everything they can to publicise eligibility and improve take-up. Will the Minister accept that we should consider not only absolute numbers but the percentage of those who are eligible who claim? The benefit replaced family credit, which had a high take-up, and it would be a shame if WFTC did not reach the same proportion of those eligible. Will he also bear in mind the extreme importance of the success of the new child care tax credit? The old family credit assistance for children was very restrictive and I hope that publicity will also be given to the child care tax credit.
    Mr. Wilson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that constructive contribution. He is absolutely right on all counts, but I can assure him that everyone who was on family credit has moved to WFTC. I can also assure him that by the end of March 10,300 awards had been made of WFTC containing elements of child care tax credit, and that compares favourably with the 4,900 who gained from the child care earnings disregard under the family credit scheme. We have doubled the number benefiting from the child care element and, in general, more people qualify for WFTC. It is a substantial benefit for low-income
    848
    families and I want every eligible family to claim it. It should be the job of us all, from whatever party, to ensure that that happens.
    Miss Anne Begg: I am sure that my hon. Friend must be as distressed as I am to meet people who still believe that WFTC will not make them better off if they enter work. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), I have met families who are between £40 and £60 a week better off, but a few people are still convinced that it would not benefit them. Would not it be better if the SNP, instead of being cynical about WFTC, encouraged those people to get back into work and get out of poverty?
    Mr. Wilson: I am not interested in stupid point scoring. I am interested in action and in the money that will be paid to less well off families, as is my hon. Friend. No family with a weekly income below £238 will pay income tax. From June, the figure rises to £245. In April 2001, it will increase to £255. If any such family is paying income tax, it should not be. That is an important message. As a result of the Budget and previous Budgets, a single earner family with two children on £12,500 a year will be £3,000 better off. These are important statistics for low-income families. They should be understood and the benefit should be claimed.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Minister give a commitment to talk to businesses in Scotland that have to administer the working families tax credit? He will know that the burden of rules and regulations has increased and now amounts to £10 billion since the Government came to power. Smaller businesses find it proportionately more difficult to tackle the problems of the administrative burden. Will he talk to them to ascertain what can be introduced to alleviate the extra burden?
    Mr. Wilson: I visit smaller businesses all the time. The issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised is not something that comes up as a big problem. We always try to simplify systems. I think that the vast majority of companies are well attuned to administering such a system. If there are complaints which they want to raise with me, I shall be pleased to discuss them.

    Electricity
    Mr. Michael Connarty: If he will make a statement on the Government's plans for the future regulation of electricity supply, generation and distribution in Scotland. [121873]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): The provisions of the Utilities Bill will put service to consumers at the heart of the regulatory process.
    Mr. Connarty: Does my hon. Friend share my pleasure that the Utilities Bill will establish a new and independent Gas and Electricity Consumer Council, which will be responsible for forwarding the interests of the consumer?
    My hon. Friend will be aware because I told him that my spouse was caught by basically a mis-selling trick by signing what she thought was an inquiry form for a

    849
    transfer from electricity to gas. She found that she had signed a contract. I had eventually to write to Sir Ian Robinson, from whom I received a letter of apology for the mis-selling. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the new independent council will stop rogue mis-selling by agencies that are not part of utilities but receive money for getting people to sign up by basically conning them into signing forms?
    Mr. Wilson: I am glad that my hon. Friend acted so effectively on behalf of his constituent. His point speaks for itself. Any form of rogue mis-selling is clearly improper. A strong consumer body will be empowered to consider that sort of practice. It is important also to say that it will have an office in Scotland. The exact structure is being finalised, but we shall have a more effective consumer body to ensure that the consumer interest is at the heart of the entire process.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Given the imminent construction of the electricity interconnector from the west coast of Scotland, what plans are there for extra patrols on the foreshore to warn of the washing up of phosphorous devices as a result of the construction?
    Mr. Wilson: I am aware of the problem with phosphorous devices. If additional measures are necessary, I shall be happy to hear from the hon. Gentleman. I will take up the matter with the various agencies to ensure that public safety is of paramount importance.
    Mr. David Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of electricity and other forms of heating is still far too high for many poor families in Scotland? Will he therefore agree to bring to the notice of his colleagues on the interdepartmental group on fuel poverty the real hardship in terms of health and economic cost that is faced by many thousands of families in Scotland as a result of fuel poverty and the adverse climatic conditions that occur every winter? Does he agree that even more urgent attention needs to be paid to the problem?
    Mr. Wilson: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is necessary constantly to ensure that nobody is impoverished by the need to have warm, dry homes. That must be a primary objective of government. I need hardly point out to my hon. Friend that we have done much in this regard by means of insulation programmes and grants, for example. We have also substantially increased the winter fuel allowance for pensioners to £150 next year. However, I would be the last to pretend that there is nothing more to be done. My hon. Friend has a very honourable record of contributing to that debate.

    Tax Raising Powers
    Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will meet the Scottish Executive to discuss the implications for the Scottish economy of devolved tax-raising powers. [121875]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I meet regularly with Scottish Executive Ministers to discuss a range of issues.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that an additional rate of income tax, apart from doing economic damage to Scotland, would create a bureaucratic nightmare—particularly, for example, for self-employed organisations that do work both north and south of the border and for people moving house during the year? Will he at least have a discussion with the Scottish Executive to ensure that, before the system is implemented, it will work? Will he personally urge the Scottish Parliament not to get involved in a tartan tax?
    Dr. Reid: I always have the feeling that the hon. Gentleman is arguing the case from where he left off when he departed Scotland. All of those issues were settled many years ago, and the Scottish people voted for a tax-raising power. However, it is obvious that if any Scottish Executive wished to implement the power, they would ensure that it worked before going ahead with it. As for the current, Labour-led Scottish Executive, before the Scottish parliamentary elections, the Labour party made it clear that it would not be using that tax-raising power in the first Parliament. The matter, therefore, does not arise in the immediate future.

    The Advocate-General was asked—

    Human Rights Convention
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent advice she has given on the introduction into Scots law of the European convention on human rights and its implications for practising (a) lawyers and (b) judges. [121890]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): I have had many meetings in different parts of Scotland and in London in which I have discussed the implications for Scots law of the European convention. As Advocate-General, I give legal advice on matters of human rights. I have also ensured that United Kingdom Department lawyers are aware of the effects on Scots Law of the introduction of convention rights. I regularly inform UK Departments about the implications of devolution issues that have been raised in Scotland.
    Miss McIntosh: When the hon. and learned Lady and I were law students at our respective Scottish universities and European law was first introduced into Scots law, there was an obligatory European Community law course. Has she advised that a similar obligatory course should be introduced for all undergraduates, practising lawyers and sitting judges in Scotland?
    The Advocate-General: It is not for me as Advocate-General, but for the Scottish Executive, to give such advice. It is also a matter of the organisation of universities and of the various training courses that they offer. I have, however, visited various Scottish universities, and I am pleased to advise that their students

    851
    are very well-informed about the European convention on human rights. It is a matter of great interest in the universities and, of course, elsewhere.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: The hon. and learned Lady takes a little refuge in the particular of not being able to reply to specific questions, but I am sure that she will agree that some of these matters are of general importance and have a United Kingdom-wide effect, as the Human Rights Act 1998 will apply in all parts of the United Kingdom. What action could she, please, take to ensure that hon. Members and the public are fully briefed on how the Government—for whom she speaks on the matter—understand the implications of implementation, so that Parliament itself can understand the problems that it will face?
    The Advocate-General: If the hon. Gentleman would like me to provide a little human rights course for him and other hon. Members, I would be delighted to do so. I have made it perfectly clear that I am more than happy to meet individual hon. Members—or groups of hon. Members; however they wish—to discuss these matters. I also have regular meetings with Ministers and with the lawyers across Whitehall. I assure hon. Members that lawyers in Whitehall and in the wider community are very much aware of the convention's implications, and that action is being taken to ensure that lawyers are ready for the convention when it is in force in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Desmond Browne: What steps she is taking to anticipate the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into Scots law in October. [121892]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clarke): Since last year, I have spoken to many groups on those issues. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers are already bound under the Scotland Act 1998 not to breach convention rights.
    Mr. Browne: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the incorporation of the ECHR into Scots law in respect of the actions of the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament has already given rise to a substantial number of applications to the court, including an important current case. What steps are being taken to ensure that the lessons learned in Scotland are disseminated among the Departments of the UK Government that still have responsibility for reserved matters for Scotland?
    The Advocate-General: There have been approximately 650 devolution issues covering a range of subjects intimated to me as Advocate-General. As part of the procedures that I introduced, we have taken steps to ensure that UK Departments are well aware of the issues, the problems and some of the solutions available. I appeared last week in the current court case that my hon. Friend mentioned and I shall appear again tomorrow.

    LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
    The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

    Licensing Justices
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department regarding transferring the licensing justices' powers to local authorities. [121894]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The Lord Chancellor's Department has been fully engaged at both official and ministerial level in discussions between Government Departments relating to all the proposals contained in the Home Offices's White Paper on modernisation of the licensing laws.
    Mr. Waterson: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is she sticking up for magistrates in the interdepartmental warfare? Does she agree that there is real apprehension that decisions about licensing will be politicised, particularly when there is great pressure from chains of so-called superpubs? Does she agree that the magistrates and the police, working together, have unrivalled expertise in dealing with applications, not least in knowing the backgrounds of those who apply for licences, as well as the advisability from a public order point of view of granting applications?
    Jane Kennedy: The proposals to transfer licensing to local authorities will ensure a more streamlined approach, uniting alcohol licensing with other aspects, such as public entertainment licensing, which are already the responsibility of local authorities. The lay magistracy will continue to have a significant role, with its jurisdiction to hear licensing matters that breach the criminal law and its role at the appeal stage.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does not the Minister recognise that many justices will feel that their powers are being eroded by the Government? Is there not a danger of corruption? After the Donnygate scandals involving her party, surely she is aware of the great concerns that transferring such powers to local authorities could lead to a serious risk of justice not being done or seen to be done. Is not that another case of the Government rushing ahead with change for change's sake? Would they not be better to say "If it aint broke, don't fix it"?
    Jane Kennedy: The lay magistracy has done a very effective job in undertaking its licensing responsibilities. The proposal to transfer those responsibilities does not in any way reflect any criticism of their work. The lay magistracy will continue to perform important roles in hearing criminal cases involving breach of the law in such instances. It is disappointing to hear the hon. Gentleman once again attacking the role of local government in an important area in which locally elected and accountable councillors may properly undertake the role of issuing licences. The proposals in the White Paper should be welcomed. If hon. Members have views to express, we are always willing to listen to them.

    Family Law
    Mr. Simon Burns: What plans he has to make further reforms in the field of family law. [121895]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The Government are pursuing a number of initiatives to reform and improve family law. In particular, we are further considering the issues surrounding the court process for contact proceedings where domestic violence is an issue and the extent to which we can improve compliance with child contact orders.
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. With the advancement of equal rights for women in all walks of life, is it not an anomaly that, following the breakdown of a relationship, the law tends to discriminate against men by usually insisting on the children residing with the mother and time-limiting the father's access to them? Should not the law be changed to give fathers equal rights and equal time throughout the year to be with their children, in an era when we are seeking to enhance the equality of the sexes and their rights?
    Jane Kennedy: I believe that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. The law does not prescribe that children should live with their mothers rather than their fathers after the breakdown of a marriage. Most divorced or separated couples make their own arrangements for their children. In some cases, it may be possible, and appropriate, for children to divide their time, exactly half and half, between their parents after a divorce. The courts can make joint residence orders if that is in the children's best interests. However, that is often not practical—it might, for example, disrupt the children's education and their social life. It would not be appropriate to require the courts to impose such an arrangement in every case.
    Mr. David Kidney: Am I right in thinking that those parts of the Family Law Act 1996 that have not been brought into force will now not be brought into force? If so, is it intended that new legislation will be put in place in due course to state the Government's support for marriage, and that it will include such measures as marriage preparation and marriage support?
    Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is not accurate. Before implementing part II of the Family Law Act 1996, which is the main area of family law that has not been implemented, the Government must be satisfied that the new arrangements for divorce will work. The interim results of extensive pilots, testing information meetings, have been disappointing, particularly with regard to the number of people being encouraged to attend mediation. The final results of the research from the pilots will not be ready until summer of this year, when the Government will consider how to proceed.

    Court Fees
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the level of court fees. [121899]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The Government inherited from the previous Government, and have continued to apply, the principle of full cost recovery, subject to an expanded system of exemption and remission, which the previous Government attempted to remove in its entirety for the Supreme Court and severely limit for family proceedings and the county court. This means that in the present year, £326 million of the £362 million that it costs to run our courts is expected to be recovered from fees.
    Mr. Brady: I thank the Minister for his response. Is he not concerned that rising levels of court fees will deny access to justice to many people, and that the charges probably hit hardest those who are least able to pay and who most need the protection of our justice system? What will the Government do to put the situation right and ensure proper access to our legal system for all citizens?
    Mr. Lock: The Government have expanded the area of remission and exemption for those who cannot afford to pay. That means that more people are able to access courts without having to pay fees. The truth is that it is lawyers' fees and costs, not court fees, that prevent people from getting access to justice.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: May I tell my hon. Friend how welcome it is that some people can now obtain a waiver or remission of fees because of their modest means, and how helpful they find it? May I suggest that the notional fees that are waived should be added to the cost of a successful action, so that at least defendants do not benefit from their opponents' lack of funds?
    Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful and constructive suggestion. He is right about the effect of exemptions and remissions. As for his interesting suggestion, I undertake to consider it carefully. I can see that it has some merit; I will write to him about it and put a copy of my answer in the Library.
    Mr. John Burnett: I am told that there was a surplus of court costs over court fees for the year 1997–98. Will the Minister tell the House how much that surplus was, what happened to it and what he believes should have happened to it?
    Mr. Lock: In the past financial year, income fell well below profile—by approximately £8 million. From recollection—I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong—only once in the past five years has the amount of fees exceeded the amount anticipated, but that was not a surplus, because there is a system of remissions and exemptions. In the single case where a slight overestimate was made, it amounted, I think, to a few hundred thousand pounds, which, in the context of an overall cost of more than £300 million, is a small sum. The true position is that if the amount of fees recovered exceeds the cost of running the courts, we should reduce the fees.

    Crown Courts
    Mr. David Ruffley: What recent representations he has received regarding the closing of Crown courts in rural areas. [121901]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): There is no record of any such representations having been received within the past few years.
    Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful for that reply. Is the Minister aware that as a result of the development of new Crown court facilities in Ipswich, Crown court users in Bury St. Edmunds have been informed that our Crown court may close and that there may be a consultation period? Does she understand that if justice in rural areas is to be delivered and dispensed locally, the Government must ensure that such Crown courts are not closed, and, more to the point, that proposals to close them are not made by her Department?
    Jane Kennedy: I understand local concern, but the Court Service, in conjunction with the judiciary and the criminal justice organisations, has been studying ways to make the criminal trial process more efficient and effective. The Court Service has undertaken a major programme of work—the Crown court programme—and its overarching and straightforward objectives are: to reduce the economic cost of crime by reducing the unit costs of a Crown court case to the criminal justice system; to deal with cases throughout the system with appropriate speed by reducing the time taken from committal to sentence or other disposal; and, finally and most important, to meet the needs of victims, witnesses and jurors by improving their satisfaction levels.

    Judicial Appointments Commission (Scotland)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: If the Lord Chancellor was consulted by the Scottish Executive over proposals to establish a judicial appointments commission in Scotland. [121904]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The Lord Chancellor was aware of the proposals, now set out in a consultation paper issued by the Scottish Executive, to establish a judicial appointments commission in Scotland. This is a matter for which the Scottish Executive has devolved responsibility.
    Mr. Prentice: So the Lord Chancellor was aware, but was not consulted. Will experience in Scotland lead the Lord Chancellor to think again about a long-established Labour policy—set aside two years ago—to move away from the secretive, widely criticised current system towards an open and transparent judicial appointments commission? Why cannot we have one?
    Mr. Lock: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor keeps judicial appointments procedures in England and Wales under continuous review. Over recent years, there have been many developments in procedures, and he is constantly seeking to improve them. That is why he asked Sir Leonard Peach, a former commissioner for
    856
    public appointments, to conduct independent scrutiny of the judicial appointments and Queen's counsel procedures. Sir Leonard reported that the appointments procedures were as good as any that he had seen in the public sector. One of his main recommendations was that there should be a commissioner for judicial appointments, and that has been accepted by the Lord Chancellor and is being carried forward.

    Immigration Adjudicators
    Fiona Mactaggart: What discussions he has held with the Home Office about its policy in relation to recommendations by immigration adjudicators. [121905]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I have not discussed the policy in relation to the adjudicator's recommendations with the Home Secretary. As a matter of law, the Home Secretary has complete discretion whether or not to adopt an adjudicator's recommendation.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Might I persuade my hon. Friend that it would be a good idea to have such a discussion? At present, many adjudicators make recommendations once they have made a finding of fact that a family can support and accommodate itself without recourse to public funds at the time of the adjudicators hearing, although that had not been the case at the time when the entry clearance officer made the initial decision. If the Home Office pursues its policy of not implementing recommendations in those circumstances, many of my constituents who are applying in Islamabad may have to wait more than a year before their cases can be reconsidered, even when all that is at issue is a matter of fact already confirmed by an immigration adjudicator.
    Jane Kennedy: But as I understand it, the Home Secretary will act on an adjudicator's recommendation—although only where there are clear, compassionate circumstances that have not been considered and that would merit the exercise of his discretion. One essential element of the Government's reforms and, indeed, the expansion of the immigration and asylum system, is the one-stop appeal. That will give people a chance to raise at the first stage all their grounds for entering or remaining in the United Kingdom. It would thus be more sensible to reconsider any policy on recommendations by adjudicators—if that was needed—only when we have experience of the one-stop appeal process. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The President of the Council was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Appointments Commission
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: How often the Appointments Commission has met; and if she will make a statement. [121909]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Appointments Commission is an independent body, appointed on 4 May. I understand that it has not yet met, but that it will do so soon.
    Mr. Prentice: Are we not getting ourselves in a terrible pickle over this Appointments Commission, which will be advised by a firm of chartered accountants as to the persons who are suitable for membership of the second Chamber? Will it be open to the Appointments Commission, under its terms of reference, to appoint people to the upper Chamber by random selection, in the way that juries are appointed? Is that a bizarre suggestion?
    Mr. Tipping: Yes.
    Sir George Young: Was not the hereditary principle the random selection to which the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred?
    Is not the Government's Appointments Commission but a pale shadow of the independent statutory appointments commission that we really need, so as to remove the enormous patronage that remains in the hands of the Prime Minister? At present, he can decide how many peers there will be and the party balance between them. When will the Government respond to the Wakeham commission's proposals on that and on the rest of the report?
    Mr. Tipping: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party remains predominant in the upper Chamber, with 236 Members. I understand his reluctance to make changes quickly on House of Lords reform. We want to build on the Wakeham report. The independent Appointments Commission is an important first step. If we could arrive at a consensus on the way forward, I hope that we should quickly move to the Wakeham recommendations.

    Oral Questions
    Mr. John Bercow: If she will bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to place time limits on ministerial responses to oral questions. [121910]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I have no plans to do so, but I am aware of the need to balance the desire of Ministers to give full replies with the desire of the House to deal with a reasonable number of questions.
    Mr. Bercow: Given that, in 1991, each oral question and answer took an average of two minutes and 57 seconds and nearly 19 questions were reached in an hour, but that, in 1999, each oral question and answer took, on average, three minutes and 42 seconds and only just over 15 questions were reached during the time, will the President of the Council consider a time limit, so that more MPs can ask questions of Ministers, extensive wafflers—from the Prime Minister downwards—can be
    858
    cut short, and the right hon. Lady herself can emerge victorious as the most dextrous and succinct Minister at the Dispatch Box?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but flattery will not get him anywhere. I simply say to him that there is a balance in these matters, as ever. If he considers the way that questions are asked—not necessarily by someone such as himself, but more widely from those on the Conservative Benches—he will find that questions are often discursive and cover many topics. It is then difficult for Ministers to reply succinctly.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Are Ministers told to keep their answers short?
    Mrs. Beckett: Constantly.
    Mr. David Heath: Would it discourage Ministers from giving very long answers, and their civil servants from preparing essays rather than short answers, if the period between the tabling of questions and their answer was reduced? That would have the additional advantage of making our questions topical occasionally, rather than relating to what was in the news two weeks previously.
    Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that what the hon. Gentleman suggests would make much difference from the point of view of topicality, but I know that he has raised this matter before. I believe that it has been suggested to him that he might like to take the matter up with the House authorities in other ways.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Would it not be better if Ministers and hon. Members did not read questions and replies? That would speed matters up and make things much crisper. The problem is that planted questions get planted replies. Unlike my right hon. Friend, many Ministers are incapable of paraphrasing and feel obliged to read out what has been supplied to them. That is a great pity, and detracts from the House.
    Mrs. Beckett: With respect, my hon. Friend will know that there has long been a tendency in all parties to be more disciplined about what is asked and what is answered. However, I repeat that the pressure in this exchange has been about replies from Ministers, and that it is difficult to answer discursive questions with less than discursive replies.

    Parliamentary Data and Video Network
    Mr. Michael Jack: If she will bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons for the adaptation of Committee Rooms to enable hon. Members to use the parliamentary data and video network system during Standing Committee sittings. [121911]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I have no plans to do so. However, the right hon. Gentleman may wish to take the matter up with the Information Committee and with the Chairmen's Panel.
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Minister for that guidance, but I hope that he might think again. The House has made tremendous strides in giving hon. Members access, by means of the PDVN, to a great deal of information that is very relevant to our work, both in the House and in Committee. However, information cannot be accessed in Committee Rooms, even by downloading onto a computer. If we are to hold the Executive to account, we need access to a large amount of data, so would it not be possible for the Modernisation Committee to examine the role of information technology as an adjunct and aid to the work of Committees in this House?
    Mr. Tipping: I understand that the purpose of Standing Committees is to hold Ministers to account, and it is clear that members of Standing Committees must listen carefully to debates. There is a case for looking at new technology and how it impinges on our lives, but that is a matter for the Chairmen's Panel.
    Charlotte Atkins: What progress has been made in improving access to the internet for hon. Members and their staff? Has a decision been made about whether users of the service will be charged?
    Mr. Tipping: A lively discussion is taking place on that subject. Hon. Members with constituencies and offices away from London feel disadvantaged, and the Information Committee is looking into the matter.

    Westminster Hall
    Mr. Graham Brady: If she will make a statement on the experimental sittings in Westminster Hall. [121912]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Sittings in Westminster Hall provide valuable opportunities for debates initiated by Back-Bench Members, for debates on Select Committee Reports and for debates on subjects for which we would not otherwise have found time on the Floor of the House. The Modernisation Committee will review the experiment later this Session.
    Mr. Brady: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the sittings in Westminster Hall are putting increased pressure on members of the Chairmen's Panel and on Hansard? Does not the level of attendance at most debates in Westminster Hall suggest that there is very little interest among hon. Members? Is it not time that we thought again and started returning important business to this Chamber, where it belongs?
    Mrs. Beckett: Of course the sittings in Westminster Hall do put extra pressure on members of the Chairmen's Panel and on Hansard, as any extra opportunity for debates is bound to do. The Modernisation Committee will look at attendance levels, but I do not agree with the
    860
    hon. Gentleman's suggestion that debates in Westminster Hall are not required. When Westminster Hall was opened as a forum, thereby doubling the opportunities for Adjournment debates, demand for such debates more than doubled.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not strange that the Opposition seem to want to avoid the opportunity to challenge the Executive? One minute they say that they want to question the Executive, but the next they want to eliminate their opportunities to do so.
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Opposition are always complaining that there are too few opportunities for scrutiny, but they do not seem to want to take them up when we offer them.

    Voting Methods
    Helen Jackson: If she will make a statement on proposals for reform of the voting methods of the House. [121913]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Modernisation Committee is currently reviewing this matter.
    Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only stick in the muds and conservatives with a small "c" who are never interested in considering how to reform the behaviour of the organisations in which they work? Clearly, we should consider voting systems and examine whether there are other ways of making voting quicker and more efficient. The last time that the issue came before the House, a complex multiplicity of options was suggested. Instead, we need to examine one or two simple alternatives that might speed up the voting process and make this place work more efficiently.
    Mr. Tipping: There is a mood for change in the House, but what is in dispute is the pace of that change. Some Members would like no change whatever, while others are more radical. My hon. Friend is a member of the Modernisation Committee and she will remember that the last time the issue was considered, Members were offered several choices. The best course might be to make two options available—the present system and an alternative—and to ask Members to judge them.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The fact is that Members have considered alternative systems, and the system that we currently use is the one that they prefer. The issue is not just making voting easier. When Members come together during votes, they are able to talk to Ministers. If it were not for the fact that we have physically to walk through the Lobbies, certain Ministers would not be seen in the Chamber at all.
    Mr. Tipping: It has been known for people to change their minds. I suspect that there is a mood among some Members for a change on this matter. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that the Lobby provides an important opportunity for Back-Bench Members to talk to Ministers. Ministers may run but, in the Lobby, there is nowhere to hide.

    Sitting Days
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If she will propose to the Modernisation Committee a more even distribution of the sitting days throughout the parliamentary Session. [121914]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons considered the parliamentary calendar in its first report of the Session 1998–99. It is something that the Committee continues to bear in mind in its deliberations.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I welcome that reply, because it is not recognised that the House has more plenary sessions than any other parliamentary Chamber in the world. In a few moments, we shall hear a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but, if the circumstances that have prompted that statement were to occur in September, there would be no such statement. Should we not move away from the situation in which the House is driven by legislation and only sits when there is legislation to consider? Should there not be sittings in the early autumn to allow for parliamentary questions and for parliamentary statements?
    Mrs. Beckett: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. He will know that the issue has been considered continually down the years and from Parliament to Parliament. Proposals for major change have always foundered on issues such as the timing of party conferences and the necessity to make arrangements for them many years ahead. However, unless the House sits every day, there is always the possibility that something untoward may happen when the House is not sitting.
    I assure my hon. Friend that we continue to keep the matter under review. However, I say to him and the House that, unless we are able to be more ordered and more efficient in the conduct of our business and in the way that we handle the parliamentary timetable and legislative discussion, it will always be difficult to deal with the kind of issues that he raises.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Even allowing for the fact that the next parliamentary Session may be foreshortened—I understand that today there is speculation that polling day may coincide with a certain first birthday—will the Leader of the House consider
    862
    whether this year might not be a good one to see whether we can achieve greater consensus across the parties about the timetabling of legislation through the year?
    Mrs. Beckett: The first that I heard anyone seriously speculate about such issues—at least, they thought they were serious—was immediately after publication of the previous Queen's Speech. The press, who had clearly become rather bored with this Parliament, began to say that it was clearly time for another general election. I have long thought that such speculation had much more to do with the boredom of the press, who want something different to write about, than with anything else.
    I certainly concur with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The House needs to reconsider seriously the recommendations that have been made over 10 years about how we programme our discussions to ensure that we scrutinise our legislation well and not dilatorily.

    Parliamentary Recesses
    Mr. Simon Burns: What plans she has to ensure that the dates of future parliamentary recesses coincide with school holidays. [121916]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The dates for schools holidays are already a factor in setting recesses, but other considerations must be taken into account.
    Mr. Burns: Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have children who are younger than, say, those of hon. Members 30 years ago. May I thank the Leader of the House for her genuine efforts over the past two years or so in trying to make parliamentary recesses coincide more with school holidays? However, it was a disappointment to go into the Easter recess as the schools went back from their Easter break. As we know dates of school holidays in the state and private sectors for at least the next 15 months, will the Leader of the House redouble her efforts and her sterling work to try and make those dates coincide with those of parliamentary recesses when feasible?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks. It is true that we try hard to make recesses coincide with school holidays. I understand and sympathise very much with all those whose children were back at school in the last recess. Unfortunately, however, the great bulk of school holidays occurred after Easter and it was not possible to combine the variation in school holiday dates with a reasonable length of recess. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that at least some of his hon. Friends are constantly calling for shorter recesses.

Sierra Leone
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a further statement about the deployment of British troops in Sierra Leone.
In my statement last week, I informed the House about British forces' deployment to Sierra Leone. British troops are in Sierra Leone to get British nationals out and help get UN reinforcements in. That is what our troops were sent to do and it is what they will carry on doing as long as is necessary. They are doing that job exceptionally well. British forces in Sierra Leone have secured Lungi airport while UN Forces are building up. Following the attack on the Parachute Regiment last week, they moved light guns ashore and conducted reconnaissance flights to assist in that task.
Separately, British officers are providing military advice to UNAMSIL, the Government of Sierra Leone, and the UN in New York. Our aim is to help the UN create a more effective UN force in Sierra Leone, which can restore peace and order in Sierra Leone and help the Government there re-establish stability.
That strategy is making significant progress. In the past week, we have seen the arrival of capable and effective UN reinforcements through Lungi airport. The Revolutionary United Front has been pushed back by the forces of the Government of Sierra Leone. We have seen Foday Sankoh, the RUF leader, arrested and detained by the Sierra Leonean authorities. That is of significance. He is ultimately responsible for the actions of the rebels whom he leads. His future is for the Government of Sierra Leone to decide, but the RUF must be clear that the violence must stop, and that the peace process must be carried forward. Our longer-term aim is to have a stable Sierra Leone in which rebel fighting forces have been demobilised, with the Government of Sierra Leone in control of the diamond-producing areas.
I should like to inform the House of changes in our military deployments following that encouraging progress in the UN build-up. As I made clear last week, our intention is that UK forces will stay in Sierra Leone no longer than is necessary. Indeed, UNAMSIL is preparing the way for a formal takeover of the UK's role at the airport in due course.
The 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment has played an outstandingly successful role in securing the airport since it arrived earlier this month. However, conditions on the ground are difficult. Living conditions are extremely basic and the environment in which the forces are operating is hot, humid and thoroughly unpleasant. Furthermore, the regiment now needs to prepare for other duties facing it later this year. The Government have therefore decided to replace the 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment, which will start to return to the UK this week, with 42 Commando Royal Marines. That has a practical advantage, as the marines can be sustained logistically from HMS Ocean's amphibious group just offshore. That will enable us to continue to secure Lungi during the continued build-up of UN forces in the period to mid-June, and to do so without ourselves overtaxing the limited infrastructure of the airport.
The changeover will represent the first stage of our plan to withdraw the bulk of our deployed force by the previously announced timetable of mid-June.
864
That recognises the other commitments that our armed forces have, and my concern to avoid adding to the pressures on them. It also demonstrates the utility and effectiveness of the flexible, balanced force that we sent to the region.
Looking ahead to when the main UK forces withdraw, advance elements of the UK-led international military assistance training team, announced by the Prime Minister on 27 March, will be arriving in Freetown very shortly. The training team is part of the Government's wider programme of assistance in helping the Government of Sierra Leone to restore peace and stability after eight years of brutal civil war. The team will provide advice and training to help the Government of Sierra Leone rebuild new, effective and democratically accountable armed forces and a Ministry of Defence in line with the Lomé peace agreement.
I take this opportunity to assure the House that we will also continue to be very mindful of the situation regarding all the detainees—in particular the delicate position of Major Andrew Harrison and the continuing search for the missing aid worker, Alan Smith.
Creating new, democratically accountable armed forces in Sierra Leone is vital to the long-term restoration of peace and security in that country. The UK will provide the majority of the personnel, but the team will be a multinational effort. We are encouraging other countries with an interest in building peace in Sierra Leone to contribute to building it up, as soon as it is safe to do so, to a team about 90 strong.
Given the return to violence by the RUF, we will also be giving the Sierra Leone army access, under the supervision of British officers, to stocks of light weapons and ammunition, if those are needed for operations. The precise distribution of arms and ammunition will be carefully considered in the context of the local political situation and the wider regional issues.
Our armed forces are doing an excellent job, as has been widely acknowledged in Britain and internationally. Our service men and women can be justifiably proud of the job that they have done. What we are now setting in place are the arrangements for our continuing support to the Government of Sierra Leone. Our deployment has been a practical example of British ground forces being a force for good, and has clearly demonstrated the flexible deployment concept that was at the heart of the strategic defence review. We are showing not only that we can deploy forces rapidly in response to a crisis, but that we will withdraw them when we judge that it is right to do so.
In short, our immediate mission remains the same: to secure the airport for evacuation purposes and to allow the reinforcement of the UN contingent. Our assumptions on timing remain the same: the build-up of UN forces between now and mid-June is clearly on schedule. The replacement of the Parachute Regiment by the Marines is a sensible military step, which preserves our capability on the ground for the remainder of this mission, while allowing the Parachute Regiment to return to the UK.
Finally, our commitment to promoting stability and security in Sierra Leone remains the same. Our decision to enhance the capability of the Sierra Leone army is an essential element of that. We will continue to do all that we reasonably can to help the UN achieve its mission,

865
including giving advice and providing logistical support. Britain will continue to stand by the people of Sierra Leone in their search for a permanent peace.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me prior sight of the statement, even though it was difficult to obtain a copy until shortly before he spoke. He will forgive me if some of my questions have already been answered.
The Opposition are proud of all that our armed forces have been asked to do and of what they achieve. Whatever they are asked to do, we will continue to support them. The situation was brought home to us last Wednesday, when we had a clear reminder—if any reminder were necessary—of how dangerous the situation in Sierra Leone is. We were also reminded how good our troops are when they came under fire, as the Secretary of State said, apparently from members of the Revolutionary United Front. Our troops behaved impeccably, drove away those fighters and, it seems, killed four of them. We understand, and I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm, that the people who took them on were not drug-crazed youngsters blazing away, but efficient, reasonably well trained and well armed troops. It is important to point that out, as it reminds us all the more how good our troops are.
We welcome the announcement of the withdrawal of the Paras. It must have been pretty miserable for them to sit in the airport in those conditions. We recognise that that consideration must have contributed to the MOD's decision, and we welcome that as well. Our thoughts are with the families of those Paras and all the others who are serving out there: it must be a difficult time for them, as they do not know when they will see their menfolk—or their women—again.
I welcome the Secretary of State's decision to make the statement. It is clear that things are moving fast in Sierra Leone. We called for statements, and the fact that the Secretary of State has responded is cause for congratulations.
Our position is also clear, and has been from the word go. We have always been worried, and continue to be worried, that without enough clarity—without a clear mission and simple tasks—we risk being sucked into a longer-term engagement that will chase events rather than controlling them. To an extent the Secretary of State faced that fact today, and gave answers to some of the questions that have been raised. We will, however, continue to support our armed forces. As the Secretary of State knows, more than a week ago we made a clear offer to support them and, if they are called on to do even more—to take a more aggressive stance in dealing with the RUF to stabilise the situation—to support the bringing in of the United Nations if necessary.
The statement raises questions which, at first glance, require answers. The Secretary of State spoke of the way in which rebel forces had been demobilised, with the Government of Sierra Leone controlling diamond producing in the long run. That seems to differ from what the Foreign Secretary has said in the past about arrangements in the Lomé agreement to establish who controls the diamond fields. Will the Secretary of State explain exactly what that means?
866
The Secretary of State spoke of other duties later in the year for our armed forces. Will he also explain exactly what that means? The reference seems somewhat open-ended, and I am not sure how it will work in practice. The right hon. Gentleman referred to military advice, and to advisers' being fully in place to advise and train Sierra Leone armed forces. There is a clear sense that that has already been announced: we knew that those advisers were being put in. I wonder why the Secretary of State felt it necessary to reannounce it. Are we talking about a greater number of advisers, or about an expansion of their role?
Back in March, a $16 million aid package was announced for just such a training scheme. Perhaps the Secretary of State could check with the Foreign Secretary, and ask what happened to that package. Was it sent, has it been used, or is it still part of the new package that the Secretary of State has announced? Furthermore, the commitment to the UN seems to run counter to the Foreign Secretary's assurances that we were not becoming embroiled in the workings of the UN in Sierra Leone. Surely the mission has changed in that respect: it has not remained exactly the same.
Let me now deal with questions concerning the Sierra Leone army, and the Secretary of State's announcement that we will provide it with arms. How will the MOD control the way in which those arms are handed out? We already know that there are at least five separate militias—a sort of alphabet soup of shifting allegiances. It is very difficult to track the way in which those militias work with, within or without the SLA. We know that last night members of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council were engaged in a vicious fire fight with members of the Government, during which two members of UNAMSIL were shot dead, as well as three AFRC members. That illustrates just how difficult it is to define the clean break between who are members of the SLA, who are members of the militias, who is on the Government side and who is not. If we are not careful, we may risk arming some of the militias, and possibly even passing some arms to the RUF. How will we stabilise the position? What will we do about the militias, and what does the MOD plan to do with regard to the reconstruction of the SLA and the question of being sucked in?
What set tasks does the Secretary of State expect to be in place, so that we can define when we will withdraw British troops? What tasks will be achieved? We need to know exactly how the troops will be withdrawn.
Conservative Members still believe that greater clarity is required about our relationship with Sierra Leone, and whether it is necessary for us to take a more aggressive stance to stabilise the position, to drive back the RUF, and to work with the militias. If so, how will we control them? Will the Secretary of State confirm that that option remains open?
Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his unqualified support for British forces. I confirm that the RUF contingent that engaged in a fire fight with elements of the Parachute Regiment last Wednesday was well armed, well equipped and well organised. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his further thoughts for the families of those who are deployed in Sierra Leone. Arrangements are in place to ensure that those families are properly briefed about the circumstances.

867
I take issue with the hon. Gentleman's comments about consistency. There is no inconsistency in the Government's position. If he compares the statement that I made today with that made by the Foreign Secretary on 8 May, the statement issued on behalf of the Prime Minister on 11 May, and the statement that I made last week, on 15 May, he will realise that our position has been clear and precise throughout.
On the hon. Gentleman's final question, the mission that we asked British forces to complete was set out in those statements: it is to secure the airport to allow for the evacuation of British and other entitled nationals and to permit reinforcement by the UN of its contingent in Sierra Leone. That remains the task in which British troops are engaged. If the hon. Gentleman requires a test for when we will have completed the mission, it is when the UN reaches its authorised limit. More important, the UN will then be in a position to secure the airport for further reinforcements, if necessary, to assume the responsibilities that British forces have undertaken.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the diamond areas and the Lomé agreement. Clearly, it makes sense that we should ensure that the forces of the Government of Sierra Leone are in a position to secure the country which they have a mandate to represent. That includes the diamond-producing areas, which, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement, are the source of the instability in Sierra Leone. It therefore makes sense when training the forces of the Government of Sierra Leone to allow them to be properly equipped. That is consistent with decisions that had previously been made pursuant to the Lomé agreement. That is why the training team, which was announced some time ago, will continue its task as soon as it is safe to do that. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman simply underlined the consistency of our approach throughout.
May I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the late notice of the statement and explain that the "other duties" about which he asked are not necessarily in Sierra Leone. They are the normal duties on which we would expect the Parachute Regiment to be engaged. Given that the regiment was deployed as part of the Spearhead Battalion, it is right that, if possible, it should continue with its normal duties. The changeover allows that.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I, too, offer my support to the troops and their families in the same terms as the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). I offer my support for the statement not least because the Secretary of State has outlined an identifiable political aim, namely the stability of Sierra Leone, the demobilisation of the rebels and bringing the control of diamonds into the hands of the Sierra Leone Government. That is a substantial political objective. When the Secretary of State says that British troops will not stay longer than necessary, is not the truth that they will have to stay as long as is necessary to achieve those political objectives?
It is also clear that the direction of United Kingdom forces, United Nations forces, the Sierra Leone army and the Nigerian forces is under the control of Brigadier Richards. Why do we not acknowledge that? Why are the Government reluctant to admit that they are doing good? The answer is that to do that would require them to go beyond the original stated purpose of evacuation and
868
securing the airport. On any view, what is happening on the ground is at the very least a flexible interpretation of those original objectives.
There is some relief on the Liberal Democrat Benches that the Secretary of State has now abandoned the fiction that the British forces are not combat troops. Is it not clear that they have enjoyed success precisely because they are ready and capable of combat and because anyone who seeks to interfere with their activities will find that out to their cost?
Mr. Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a subtle and sophisticated man, and I am sorry that he resorts to such convoluted reasoning to justify his present position. I used the expression "force for good" and we are proud of our forces and the work that they have done, and continue to do, in Sierra Leone. As regards the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that I should admit that they have been used as combat forces, we have never had any reservations about that fact. We have made it clear, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said repeatedly, that if those forces were attacked they would defend themselves and the mission that took them to Sierra Leone—the protection of the airport. That is precisely what happened in the early hours of last Wednesday morning. They were attacked and they responded robustly and extremely effectively. There has never been any doubt about that, but we have made it clear that British forces would not become combat troops on behalf of either the Government of Sierra Leone or the United Nations. That has been absolutely consistent throughout and it remains the case today. We are supporting the Government of Sierra Leone and the UN mission by ensuring that the Government of Sierra Leone—consistent with the Lomé agreement—have access to properly trained, properly disciplined forces, which they can use to bring Sierra Leone under their effective control.
Mr. David Winnick: Has my right hon. Friend seen the photograph in a British newspaper of a 14-month-old child, whose hand was cut off six months ago? Is not that as good an illustration as any of the crimes and atrocities that are taking place in Sierra Leone? Have we learned the lessons of the past—that any kind of coalition with the rebel forces in that country should be totally unacceptable, that there can be no stability until the rebels are militarily defeated and, therefore, that an international force is necessary? We should be proud of the role that British troops are playing.
Mr. Hoon: I thank my hon. Friend for his observations. Yes, I have seen the photograph to which he refers, and many others like it. An appalling aspect of what has taken place in Sierra Leone is that it is possible that that child lost an arm as a result of the activities of child soldiers on the other side who perhaps are only a few years older. That is why it is necessary that Sierra Leone should return to peace and stability and why it is important that we should assist its democratically elected Government to achieve what was set out in the Lomé agreement in respect of training and equipping their forces to do the job that is clearly necessary to bring greater peace and

869
stability to that country—otherwise we could face the recurrence of such violence, and see more of the appalling pictures to which my hon. Friend refers.
Mr. Tom King: Is it not our duty not merely to pay tribute in the House to the skill at arms of our forces—the Paras and 42 Commando—but to ensure that their achievement is lasting so that they do not have to go back and do it again? I have raised this matter previously with the Secretary of State: what efforts are Her Majesty's Government making to ensure that the RUF is distinctly isolated and not getting any help from over the borders that might help to sustain its activities?
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), although I entirely accept that it is right to support the Sierra Leone army and ensure that it is properly supported, several other bodies may be temporarily in alliance, and they may be unreliable. We must ensure that the weapons that we may be providing to the Sierra Leone army do not get into the wrong hands so that we do not find that our forces are shot in the back by people using our arms.
Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman is right. It is important that we ensure that the achievements our forces have made in Sierra Leone are lasting achievements. That is why I consciously linked the timetable for withdrawal to the prospect of an effective training team, to which, we hope, other countries will contribute, although we will take the lead and provide, I think, the bulk of those who are engaged in the training. It is important that we ensure that they have the means to carry out that training successfully and effectively.
I agree, too, that the RUF must be isolated. The continued detention of Sankoh assists in that process. We want to see him brought to trial. We want to be clear that he should no longer have any influence over the RUF in Sierra Leone. It follows from that that other countries, other forces outside that country, should not have any influence over that particular rebel group.
It is obviously important, which is why I expressed myself in very careful terms, that we maintain a degree of supervision over the distribution of those weapons, but, equally, we need to ensure that the training is accompanied by proper equipment for the forces of the Government of Sierra Leone, which will take on and continue to take on those difficult and dangerous tasks.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Secretary of State is right to be proud of what our Government and our troops are doing in Sierra Leone, but does he agree that a stable Sierra Leone and Sierra Leone now are legions apart? Stability requires a democratic Government who have the wherewithal to control the whole territory of Sierra Leone. The training of the army is fundamental both to controlling the diamonds, and to having an army that is accountable to that democratic Government and that is not simply one more armed band marauding and ripping up that country. In that context, my right hon. Friend is right to say that it is necessary to ensure that the army of Sierra Leone is properly equipped to take on the RUF, which itself is very well equipped because of the blood diamonds and the weapons that come through.
870
Will the Government make it clear to President Taylor of Liberia that his role in all this has been outrageous? His use of the profits from the diamond industries is an outrage. It is about time that he, too, cleaned up his act. That message should come not just from Britain but from the whole world community.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to call for stability and for the forces of the Government of Sierra Leone to be properly trained. It is obviously vital that we do not simply create a situation in which we see a repetition of the appalling events that we have witnessed over recent times—but the situation today, thanks to the efforts of British forces and others, is unrecognisably different from that three weeks ago. By securing the situation in and around the airport and in particular by giving extra confidence to both the forces of the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone, British forces have made a considerable impact on the ground, which I am confident we can take forward through the training arrangements that I have described.
It is also important that we take that forward in the context of international pressure, as I indicated earlier. Pressure must be put on all those in the immediate vicinity to desist from any actions or activities that might lead to further instability in Sierra Leone. That means in particular the immediate neighbours of Sierra Leone itself.
Sir Peter Emery: Does the Secretary of State accept that we all praise the work of the British forces and that many of us wish the Royal Marine Commando who are going in the best of good fortune, but does he know of last night's statement by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs about the application by President Kabbah to the British Government, after the death of the Nigerian senior officer Maxwell Kobe, for Britain to supply a British officer to take the place of that Nigerian officer, who had been co-ordinating the military forces? Was the Secretary of State informed of that application? Did he have any input into the decision making before civil servants at the Foreign Office turned it down?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's observations about the Royal Marine Commando. I am sure that those forces will be delighted to leave HMS Ocean, to get on to the ground and to continue the excellent work that has been done by the Parachute Regiment. We have had a number of requests from the President of Sierra Leone and, as I said in my statement, we have been able to accede to certain of them. We certainly want to ensure that we are in a position to give effective advice, but we recognise above all that it is for the Government of Sierra Leone to sort out their own affairs and to ensure that they have effective forces at their disposal with which to control Sierra Leone.
Mr. Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend will know that our troops have carried out a very effective but limited operation, although the attainment of the broader political objectives that he set out will be formidably difficult to achieve. He must be aware—anyone who knows the history of Sierra Leone will be so—that very infrequently has the writ of central Government extended far beyond Freetown and Lungi.

871
Does he really expect the Sierra Leone army, given its degree of fragmentation and lack of morale, even with the light arms that we will supply and the United Nations, to be able to inflict such a decisive military defeat on the RUF that it will not be able to move into Liberia and regroup, creating a continuing state of turbulence? Will he not underestimate the enormous degree of difficulty in attaining that laudable objective of peace of security which he has set out?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend referred to the effective and limited objective. It has been the Government's position throughout to ensure that British forces were deployed in order to achieve a particular and specific objective. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made that clear in his statement. The Government's position has remained absolutely consistent.
That is why it is important that I have linked the prospect of a withdrawal of British forces to the question of an effective training team in Sierra Leone which, working on behalf of the forces of the Government of Sierra Leone, can provide appropriate advice, assistance, equipment and logistical support to carry through what I accept and agree is the much more difficult process of bringing the remainder of the country under control. British forces have contributed significantly to the very early stages of what I recognise will be a difficult process for the Government of Sierra Leone.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that, despite the statement, there remains continuing anxiety about the nature, scale and length of the commitment? Does he also understand that, although we welcome statements, they are not a substitute for a full debate on a substantive motion? Will he therefore provide such a debate on our military and political commitment in Sierra Leone? Does he understand that many of us feel that the practice ought to be changed so that, whenever there is a substantial deployment of British forces overseas, the authority of this House is sought and obtained on a substantive motion?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments. I do not accept, however, that there has been the slightest anxiety about the scale of the deployment. The deployment of HMS Ocean and the Amphibious Ready Group was one matter that attracted comment, yet the reality, as I hope I have demonstrated today, is that their presence on the scene has given us the necessary flexibility to allow the changeover that I have just described.
So, notwithstanding the right hon. and learned Gentleman's anxieties, the deployment of that force—considerable, I recognise, but nevertheless one that has been used and has been useful—which simply initially contained elements in and around the airport, was a substantial undertaking. The airport area is 4 miles in radius—a significant area in which to control the activities of those who might threaten the security of the airport and landings by a variety of aircraft.
We have required a substantial force. Our forces have used it very effectively, and continue to do so. The reason for the size of the contingent was specifically to provide the flexibility of which we are now able to take advantage.
872
I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's request for a debate will have been heard by those who are responsible for such matters, and that he and his colleagues can pursue it through the usual channels.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: My right hon. Friend has restated that the British forces are acting in support of the UN mission. Does he believe that the UNAMSIL mandate is sufficiently widely drawn to allow the UNAMSIL force to be proactive in protecting civilians in Sierra Leone and in helping to build a stable civil society there?
Mr. Hoon: I am confident that the mandate is sufficiently robust to allow that. I recognise what the UN mandate is, and we continue to look carefully at it and consider whether it is in need of any improvement. We are absolutely confident at present that there is a sufficient mandate to allow UN forces to carry out the tasks for which they are responsible.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Does not the permanent Joint HQ Northwood deserve warm congratulations on having put together a particularly well-balanced force, with the appropriate range of capabilities?
I should like to put to the Secretary of State the question that he did not answer on 15 May. First, who is paying for this British deployment, in the first instance to extricate British nationals? Secondly, who will pay for the further involvement: the support of the UN, logistically and otherwise, perhaps over many months; the provision of the training teams; and the provision of armaments to the army of Sierra Leone? These are very serious engagements, which may not have British popular approval for very long, particularly if they are expensive to the taxpayer.
Mr. Hoon: Ultimately, of course, it is the British taxpayer who will be responsible for meeting the cost of British forces in Sierra Leone. That has always been the position. We have armed forces to protect our immediate domestic interests, but also to operate as a force for good around the world. British taxpayers support that position, and have always done so.
As regards the UN, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that we make a regular commitment to the United Nations, and the cost of UN peacekeeping is paid for out of that.
The provision of training teams is part of a package of assistance to Sierra Leone that we announced some time ago: it is part of the continuing support that the British Government have given to Sierra Leone—support unmatched by any other country in the world.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: There have been extensive reports that the bandits are using United Nations insignia and uniforms. One of the long-established principles of war is that it is a serious offence to wear the battledress and insignia of one's adversaries. Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to discuss with others—perhaps my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—whether there should be international measures to jealously safeguard the light-blue insignia of the United Nations, so that it would be made abundantly clear,

873
both in this conflict and in any other, that any infringement and abuse of United Nations insignia would be a very serious war crime?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend consistently points out details of these issues that sometimes I have not thought of. That is certainly one. I take his comments seriously, but in the context of appalling atrocities, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mentioned, the wearing of cap badges pales into insignificance alongside the mutilation of small children.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Leaving aside the fact that so far the Leader of the House has rejected Opposition requests for a debate on Sierra Leone, can the Secretary of State tell the House why he did not answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery)?
Mr. Hoon: At this stage I cannot.
Mr. Tony Worthington: I wish to associate myself with the congratulations to our defence forces, not just the paratroops, but the Ministry of Defence training team that I met in Freetown in March, who are doing nothing less than redesigning and recreating a democratically accountable army in Sierra Leone. On the success of its work will depend the success of the mission.
May I associate myself with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd)? Unless we tackle the issue of Liberia, which has supported the RUF for nine years—this is associated with control of the diamond fields—we shall not achieve the objective. I realise that my right hon. Friend cannot tell us exactly what is happening about that, but we must put every pressure on President Taylor to stop the work that he has been doing.
Mr. Hoon: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are doing so, but I congratulate him on putting the problems of Sierra Leone into the appropriate international and regional context. It is clearly important that we take diplomatic and political action, as well as military action, to ensure that the pressure to which he referred is successful.
Mr. John Swinney: In offering support for the Government's strategy in Sierra Leone and for the work of our armed forces, I would also ask the Secretary of State to give some further details to the
874
House on the type of supervisory role that would be envisaged for British personnel in the distribution of arms to the Sierra Leone army to guarantee that they are used to reduce conflict, not to intensify it.
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that point and we are considering carefully the precise circumstances in which the arms will be distributed. As I said in my statement, there will be an appropriate degree of supervision.
Mr. Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend knows that when the British soldiers were attacked the other day they were with Nigerians, and the Nigerians have been working effectively alongside our armed forces in Sierra Leone. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pass on from the House to Nigeria and the other countries in the region, as well as to India, Jordan and the other countries that have supported the UN efforts, our best wishes to all those personnel who are doing such a vital job?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to place what is happening in Sierra Leone in an appropriate regional context. The forces of Nigeria have made a tremendous contribution in the region and have sustained significant losses in the process. It is important that we pay proper tribute to the efforts that they have made and continue to make, and to the fact that they are still willing further to reinforce their contingent in Sierra Leone as a contribution to the efforts of the international community.
Mr. Martin Bell: I wish to communicate to the Secretary of State an offer about which I have also written to him. It comes from my constituent, Mr. Shakib Basma of Wilmslow, who happens to be a prominent Freetown barrister and is the owner of a disused holiday village some 25 miles from Freetown that might make an ideal British base with the capacity to accommodate 500 men. So impressed is Mr. Basma with what the British have done that he wishes to offer the facility for no fee. I hope that his offer will be seriously considered and that he will be thanked for his patriotic offer.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that offer and I am sure that it will be considered with appropriate care.
Mr. David Chidgey: Under what precise circumstances would the Government be prepared to provide combat troops to the UN force in Sierra Leone?
Mr. Hoon: I have made it clear throughout, as has my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that British forces would not be deployed in a combat capacity on behalf of the UN in Sierra Leone.

Points of Order
4.13 pm
Mr. James Wray: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to Home Office questions yesterday, during which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) asked the Home Secretary whether he was aware that one of the promoters of the Tyson fight was a man who
has a violent criminal past and has connections with Glasgow's criminal underworld.—[Official Report, 22 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 656.]
I wish to make it clear to the House that the man in question is not a co-promoter. There is only one promoter and that is Sports Network. The man is one of my constituents and his family and friends, who were very upset by the allegations, contacted me to say that he is a hard-working man with a haulage contractor's business. He gets up at 6 am and gets home at 7 pm. They are very disappointed that he should be so maligned.
To give the House an insight into the type of person the man is, I can list some of the donations that he has made to charities throughout Scotland. He gave £30,000 to Clippen school for the disabled, £9,000 to the Lockerbie disaster fund, £8,000 to a sick children's hospital, £7,000 to Father Bob Gardiner in Easterhouse, and £6,500 to Rev. Galbraith, for Kosovo. He has also paid for a drug addict's funeral and trucked four tonnes of food to Croatia.
That is the kind of man he is. He has connections not with the underworld, but with the underclass. There are many pages setting out the donations he has made and the assistance he has given, including helping the police to take food to Croatia. It is—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. I am grateful to him. I have more than the gist of his point of order because he indicated earlier the nature of it. As he appreciates, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details of the issue that he raises. However, I know that he is concerned about the matter. In the light of that, I remind the House that we have a greatly valued privilege in terms of freedom of speech in this place. I have often reminded the House that with that privilege must go responsibility. It is incumbent on us all to use our privilege responsibly, especially when we refer to people outside the House who do not have a platform from which to respond. We must keep in mind the balance between our privilege and our responsibility when making comments.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I can hardly allow a further point of order when I have already given guidance on our behaviour. However, I shall hear the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Fyfe: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Of course I take note of the guidance that you have given. I merely wish to say, in case anyone is unaware of the position, that when I spoke yesterday I did not name names. I have no intention of naming names.
Madam Speaker: Thank you.
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Due to the entirely inadequate
876
response—it was a non-reply—to my question from the Secretary of State for Defence, I give notice that I will raise the specific matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.
Mr. Simon Burns: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) failed to be present for Question 26 to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department. The question concerns the courthouse in Colchester, which is of great importance to people in mid and north Essex.
Do you, Madam Speaker, believe that when Members fail to turn up to pose a question they have won in a selection process that that is discourteous to you, to our constituents and to the House? Did the hon. Gentleman notify you in advance that he would not be present for his question? If not, do you think that you are owed an apology?
Madam Speaker: I am sure that all hon. Members are aware that from time to time Members are not in their places to put questions that have been tabled. That does not show very good manners to the Minister who has to answer the question, to the Chair or to the House itself. However, a Member is often unable to be present for outside reasons. Members normally come to the Chair when they arrive in the House to apologise when they are late, or I receive a note from them. A Member apologised to me today because his train was an hour late. These are not political point-scoring matters. I understand that for many reasons Members on both sides of the House often find it impossible to get here and impossible to withdraw their question in time.
Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you can help me and other Members, who I fear may be in exactly the same position, by giving some advice on how one can secure timely answers from Departments without every time asking you for an Adjournment debate.
I have a sad and urgent case involving two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Money of Corby Glen in Lincolnshire, and their son David, who has been seriously handicapped from the age of six months following inappropriate vaccination. The family have been waiting for compensation for a long time. I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security on this matter on 22 February. There has still been no response despite many attempts to get one. The Halifax bank is about to dispossess the family from their house because they cannot pay the mortgage. They have been waiting to no avail for compensation, or even a response, for a long time.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that some weeks ago I raised such issues with the Cabinet Secretary and the Minister for the Cabinet Office. I used my best endeavours with those two individuals. I know that they are taking all steps to try to improve the situation. The fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised his point of order may speed things up.

Genetic Testing (Consent and Confidentiality)
4.20 pm
Mr. Nick Harvey: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that genetic testing and genetic test results and other information derived from such tests may be used only for medical and clinical purposes, after informed consent of the patient has been given; to prohibit the giving of such information to other parties; and to prohibit insurance companies, banks, mortgage providers and employers from requiring genetic tests to be taken or insisting on disclosure of the results or of information derived from such tests.
Hon. Members will be aware that genetic science is proceeding apace, that completion of the human genome project is not far away, and that it will soon be commonplace for genetic tests to be available for a variety of conditions. Currently, however, genetic testing is still in its infancy. Moreover, some genetic diseases are multi-factorial—meaning that, although a gene may predispose one to a disease, other environmental factors, such as diet and exercise, influence whether one gets it. To date, the scope of the Government's concern seems to have been to ensure that any genetic tests employed can be said to be accurate and appropriate for use by genetic companies—in short, that the tests detect what they are said to detect.
It is generally agreed that medical records and medical examinations may appropriately be used by insurers in an assessment of risk. Such information is historical, recording previous illness, disease and disability which it seems proper to take into account in deciding insurance premiums. Conversely, genetic testing looks forward, trying to establish what will happen. Many genetic diseases are currently not treatable. Information derived from genetic testing is, therefore, a very powerful matter for the individual concerned. It could reasonably be argued that, in cases of disease with a very poor prognosis, individuals have a right not to know and not to submit themselves to testing.
The problematic consequences of making available the results of genetic tests to insurance companies seem to be threefold. First, there would be the spectre of the creation of a whole underclass of people unable to obtain health insurance, mortgages or loans, and thereby financially excluded from society as a whole. Secondly, compelling individuals to take genetic tests against their will—to discover information that they do not want to know, and that might offer them very little or no medical advantage—seems to undermine the principle of informed consent.
Thirdly, some people who might benefit from appropriate medical intervention might be dissuaded from taking genetic tests because the information from the tests might later be made available to insurers. That concern goes over much of the ground that has been covered in previous debates on human immune deficiency virus and acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
The Association of British Insurers has in place a moratorium on the use of genetic testing. Regrettably, however, not all insurers are observing the moratorium. There have been exchanges between some of the campaigning pressure groups and the ABI on the conduct of specific companies. It is also worth remembering that 5 per cent. of insurance companies do not even belong to
878
the ABI or recognise its code of conduct. It is also clear that many of the companies that do recognise the code are requesting the declaration of all medical tests that have been undertaken, rather than restricting themselves in the matter as they are supposed to do.
The danger is that less scrupulous companies which ignore the voluntary code of practice will cherry-pick individuals who are low risk and offer them low-premium products. So far, only one company—Virgin—has pledged not to use genetic test information, for ethical reasons. As I said, however, the main argument is that although genetic tests may show a predisposition to a particular disease, they are absolutely uncertain in suggesting that an individual will necessarily get that disease.
Other countries have recognised the problem and are taking action to deal with it. In Australia, insurers are not allowed, for example, to ask for an applicant's age. In Sweden, there is an agreement between the Government and the National Federation of Swedish Insurers stipulating that insurance companies may not require either family medical history or genetic results to be disclosed by the applicant. There are legislative restrictions in a number of other countries, including Austria, Belgium and Norway, as well as in 18 US states, while Australia, France, New Zealand and the Netherlands have voluntary agreements.
The Government are putting too much faith in the ABI and its code of practice. The Government set up an earlier commission, which reported in November 1998 and recommended a ban. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept that recommendation entirely and set up two subsequent commissions, both of which I welcome, to look into the two aspects of the issue. One is considering the practical aspect of whether particular tests are accurate and satisfactory; the other is just beginning its work on ethical and social considerations. I regret that the Government have not introduced at least a temporary ban while the two commissions are doing their work. I also regret that the Government do not appear to have considered the public health aspect of the problem. They do not even seem to have put in place measures to monitor how many people will decline genetic tests because they are fearful of the insurance implications, thereby perhaps imperiling their health and not taking advantage of new procedures that would be available to them.
The ABI code of practice says that applicants will not be asked to undergo a genetic test, that insurers will take account of existing results only if their reliability and relevance have been established, and that they will not interfere with the premiums that they charge unless a genetic test clearly indicates an increased risk. That should apply only to a limited range of products, but it seems to apply more widely across the board. There are some notable exceptions and it is unfair that those insurers who behave in a controlled and ethical fashion should lose out to those who do not. That is a taste of what is to come if we do not put in place tight regulations that ensure a fair marketplace.
The Alzheimer's Disease Society has been vocal in its criticism of the ABI and the Government's position. Its main critique of the ABI is that it has failed to demonstrate that insurers need to collect information on pre-symptomatic genetic tests. That is an important point. If insurers are not able to get such information, they will be in the same position as they are today. They will not

879
be materially worse off for not having information in the future that they do not currently have. It is incumbent on them to show that the existing insurance markets will fail if the companies are denied such information.
The Alzheimer's Disease Society also points out that insurance companies have yet to demonstrate their competence in dealing with such genetic information or their ability to self-regulate. The society is right to flag up those substantial fears and many people are justifiably concerned.
I am also particularly encouraged that President Clinton has signed an executive order forbidding the United States Federal Government from using genetic information in employment decisions. That will protect all 2.8 million federal employees. President Clinton said:
We must not allow advances in genetics to become the basis for discrimination against any individual or any one group. By signing the executive order, my goal is to set an example and pose a challenge for every employer in America, because I believe no employer should review your genetic records along with your résumé.
That sets out a bold course in the United States and we should do something similar. We should recognise the example of other countries and realise that those scientific advances will soon be with us. The legislative framework within which companies will operate needs to be put in place now, so that when the scientific advances come no one will have any cause for fear or alarm.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nick Harvey, Dr. Peter Brand, Mr. John Grogan, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Simon Burns and Dr. Evan Harris.

Genetic Testing (Consent and Confidentiality)
  GENETIC TESTING (CONSENT AND CONFIDENTIALITY)
  Mr. Nick Harvey accordingly presented a Bill to require that genetic testing and genetic test results and other information derived from such tests may be used only for medical and clinical purposes, after informed consent of the patient has been given; to prohibit the giving of such information to other parties; and to prohibit insurance companies, banks, mortgage providers and employers from requiring genetic tests to be taken or insisting on disclosure of the results or of information derived from such tests: 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 132].
Orders of the Day

  Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.30 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a concise but important measure. Its purpose can be summarised shortly: it places the Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate on a statutory basis. I am pleased to say that, so far, it has received a warm welcome from both sides of the House.
  The CPS inspectorate is a non-statutory body, operating within the CPS itself. The current chief inspector and his staff are all members of, or on loan to, the Crown Prosecution Service. They therefore report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Although the inspectorate has produced valuable work since its inception in 1996 under the previous Government, there is no doubt that the current arrangements are not ideal. It is important that an inspectorate should he not only independent in practice but demonstrably independent. The current arrangements do not necessarily achieve that purpose, which is why we are introducing this Bill.
  The Government attach considerable importance to having an effective and efficient CPS. We believe that an important part of building a credible organisation is ensuring that it is subject to rigorous inspection. The Glidewell report into the future of the CPS, published in 1998, reached the firm conclusion that it is essential to retain and expand the role of the CPS inspectorate. It said that public confidence in any organisation is greatly enhanced if it has an efficient and effective inspectorate system, advising those at the top of the organisation as to its corporate health and publishing the results of its work.
  Glidewell recommended introducing an independent element to the inspectorate in the form of a part-time independent chairman. I am pleased to say that, in this respect, the Bill goes further than the Glidewell recommendation. The independent chief inspector will occupy a full-time post.
  The Bill will guarantee that the inspectorate enjoys the same independence and status as other criminal justice inspectorates, such as the inspectorate of prisons and the inspectorate of probation. Importantly, the inspectorate will be separated from the CPS. It will be financed separately and located in separate accommodation. The chief inspector will be appointed by the Attorney-General, who will have the authority to appoint other inspectors. That is the effect of clause 1.
  I intend no disrespect to existing members of the inspectorate, whose work was praised in the Glidewell report, when I say that that change of status will also provide an opportunity to bring into the inspectorate additional staff with a wider range of backgrounds. In other words, there will be staff members whose background and experience are quite distinct from the CPS. A number of outside people have already been appointed as business management inspectors and legal inspectors. They will bring fresh ideas and a different perspective to supplement the existing expertise in the

  881
  inspectorate. The chief inspector will acquire management responsibility for the inspectorate, again separate from the CPS.
  The chief inspector's overriding responsibility will be to inspect the operation of the CPS. That duty is cast in wide terms in clause 2. The clause is drafted to ensure that the chief inspector has independence. He can inspect and report on any matter connected with the operation of the CPS that concerns him. However, the Attorney-General may refer matters to the chief inspector to report on. The chief inspector is thus responsible to the Attorney-General and, ultimately, to Parliament. The chief inspector will have to submit an annual report to the Attorney-General, who is then under a duty to lay that report before Parliament.
  A further change to the inspectorate since the Glidewell report is that it now no longer concentrates exclusively on matters of case work. In accordance with the report's recommendations, its remit has been broadened to include all aspects of the CPS operation that support its case work. Inspectorate reports will continue to concentrate on case work, but will also provide a complete overview of CPS performance in the area inspected, including management and operational issues.
  The CPS inspectorate will also undertake more inspection work of a thematic nature. It recently published a report on disclosure of unused material, which attracted wide attention. In February, it published a report on advocacy and case presentation. Although that did not attract the same attention, it was important.
  Preparation of such thematic reports will continue once the inspectorate is placed on a statutory footing. The chief inspector also proposes that more work should be undertaken with other criminal justice inspectorates. Some such work has been undertaken, such as the joint report by the CPS inspectorate, the magistrates courts service inspectorate and the inspectorate of constabularies, "How Long Youth Cases Take". More recently, the first joint inspection by all six inspectorates with an interest in the criminal justice system has been completed. Their report—"Casework Information Needs Within The Criminal Justice System"—was published at the end of April.
  Such joint scrutiny of aspects of the working of the criminal justice system supports the Government's establishment of overarching aims and objectives for the criminal justice system. We are determined that individual agencies should provide a more coherent and effective service without compromising their individual, and sometimes independent, roles.
  Clause 2 allows the chief inspector to designate an inspector to discharge his functions when he is absent or unable to act. Clause 3 simply sets out the short title, extent and commencement arrangements.
  This is a short, but important, measure. It has obviously gripped the attention of the whole House. I am convinced that it will make a significant contribution to the effective operation of the criminal justice system.
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: As the Solicitor-General correctly said, he and I have managed to attract our usual adoring fan clubs to the House this afternoon. I am grateful to those who have come to see us.
  882
  The Bill has been described as modest, short and uncontroversial. In some quarters, those epithets might lead people to think less of it, but, despite, or even because of, its brevity, narrow compass and inoffensiveness, it should command the support of the House.
  It is perhaps surprising that the Bill has taken so long to get here from the other place. Second Reading in the Lords took place on 30 November last year, when the Attorney-General stated with pride that it was only the second piece of legislation promoted by a Law Officer in 50 years. The first had been a Bill to increase the salary of the then Solicitor-General, the noble and learned Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and any other Law Officer who was a member of the other place rather than this House. Lord Williams of Mostyn said that that was
  plainly a piece of legislation of the utmost importance—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 November 1999; Vol. 99, c. 761.]
  Now the Solicitor-General has introduced the second Bill to this House, and the beguiling tones of the Wales and Chester circuit have been replaced by something a little more antipodean. As the House will know, Australia House is just across the street from the London School of Economics.
  The Bill itself is none the worse for that. I congratulate the Solicitor-General on bringing to the statute book an idea whose genesis is to be found in the period of office of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). When he was Attorney-General, the Conservative Government decided that an inspectorate of the Crown Prosecution Service was needed, and there has been a non-statutory inspectorate within the CPS since 1996. Had we been successful at the general election, the Bill, or something very similar, would have been introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend.
  It is fair to say that the idea behind the Bill was given further impetus by the Glidewell report on the Crown Prosecution Service, which was published in 1998. As the Solicitor-General told us, once the Bill is enacted the inspectorate will have a status equal to the other statutory inspectorates with which we are already familiar—such as those for prisons, the probation service, magistrates courts and the constabulary. They have proved to be powerful and useful additions to the armoury for public accountability of the public services; I welcome the Bill on that ground alone.
  In clause 2, the chief inspector's functions are spelt out in a general fashion. Having been to see the current chief inspector, Mr. Stephen Wooler, in his offices in Ludgate Hill in the City earlier this year, I have no doubt that both he and his staff will carry out their duties well and with great thoroughness and independence. They have already built up an ethos that suggests that they take seriously their responsibilities to the public and to the CPS. They will look into specific issues referred to them by the Attorney-General and they will also, I understand, prepare thematic reports that will flow from longer and more detailed inspections of particular aspects of the work of the CPS—such as prosecution policy in respect of certain types of crime or the use of resources in a particular field of CPS work.
  However, may I suggest that one of the first things the statutory inspectorate considers is the current state of morale among CPS staff—lawyers and non-lawyers alike? Is the Solicitor-General aware that, according to a survey

  883
  carried out by the Association of First Division Civil Servants, the levels of stress-related illnesses among the CPS work force are so high that the association described the CPS as being
  on the brink of crisis?
  One in four of its 9,000 staff suffer high levels of stress. The proportion of lawyers and administrative staff shown to be affected is greater than in similar findings anywhere in the private or public sector. That comes from a survey that had a 65 per cent. response rate—a remarkable statistic in itself.
  The Government propose to cut the CPS budget by almost 5 per cent. next year. I am as keen to see the proper use of taxpayers' money as any Member of the official Opposition, but there are ways and ways of ensuring that the public receive good value for money. The Labour Government's approach to the finances of the CPS appears to be unintelligent, and calculated to have an even more depressing effect on the performance and morale of its staff.
  The present Director of Public Prosecutions is an extremely able and justifiably respected criminal lawyer of the first rank. He has not been afraid to appear in cases in the magistrates courts to see for himself the work of his most junior lawyers. From my visits to CPS offices, both as a constituency Member of Parliament and as the shadow Attorney-General, I am aware of the stresses and difficulties faced by the CPS; they need to be addressed speedily and effectively by the Government.
  As a recorder of the Crown court, I see the results when ill-prepared cases come to court—the avoidable delays and frustrations for witnesses and other court users, and the general air of hopelessness that often seems to pervade junior and middle-ranking CPS lawyers, who are overworked and under-resourced.
  It is incumbent on the Government to get a grip on aspects of our criminal justice system where they can do some real good—as with this Bill—rather than wasting time, money, energy and the good will of the legal profession, and of many others who care for the rights of the citizen, on destroying the jury system by means of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill. I urge the Government to use the Bill for the benefit of the CPS certainly, but, above all, for the benefit of the public by whose interests they ought to be guided.
  4.43 pm
  Mr. John Burnett: If the Bill results in the creation of an independent and autonomous inspectorate, it cannot come into force too soon. I shall refer later to such matters as independence and annual reports, but I must first express my great concern about the state of morale in the Crown Prosecution Service. I endorse wholeheartedly the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). I, too, pay tribute to the Director of Public Prosecutions. His integrity and independence are not in question.
  My awareness of the state of morale in the CPS does not come only from recent newspaper reports; it also results from my discussions with members of the service. Because of their fear of recrimination, I cannot disclose their names to the House; indeed, I have given my word that I shall not do so.
  The hon. and learned Member for Harborough referred to a recent independent report. On 20 May, The Times carried an article with the headline "Stressed CPS—Staff
  884
  Close to Crisis". It stated that, according to the survey published the previous day, the CPS was on the brink of crisis, with one in four of its 9,000 staff suffering high stress levels. The survey had a response rate of 65 per cent., and was carried out last year by an independent organisation. I gather that it was commissioned after a female member of the CPS sadly committed suicide, allegedly because of the stress of work.
  The First Division Association is using the survey in an attempt to reverse a 4.6 per cent. cut in the budget for next year. That information is in the public domain, but members of the Crown Prosecution Service have told me directly that there are reasons other than funding for the rock-bottom morale in the service. They say that they lack the most basic resources and equipment for the job.
  The House will be amazed to hear that the 10 Crown prosecutors in one team, many of whom deal with road traffic matters, have one textbook to share between them. The support given to the CPS is negligible. I am told that there is also a lack of computer and secretarial back-up. It is very difficult for Crown prosecutors to get up-to-date information on any law. There is no link to Lexis or to any other computer-based information service.
  It is a disgrace that the Government should fetter and hamper their prosecution service so dreadfully. It is no wonder that the record of the CPS is criticised so frequently. The service has many very able people, who are dedicated to doing their jobs as fairly and efficiently as they can. How can they achieve that with both hands tied behind their backs?
  It makes a mockery of our criminal justice system if the state is not able properly to mount a prosecution. There has been a lot of talk recently about new offences such as corporate manslaughter, but it is useless if there is no confidence that the Crown can mount a compelling prosecution in the first place.
  I am told that in the west country, the CPS cannot keep up with its commitments in the magistrates courts, let alone in the higher courts. The House will recall that the Access to Justice Act 1999 gave properly qualified members of the CPS rights of audience in the higher courts. Liberal Democrat Members supported that provision, but I remind the Solicitor—General that the Act made it clear to all lawyers that their first duties are to the court and to the integrity of justice. Many CPS members believe that the underfunding and underresourcing that I have described have put them in breach of the relevant section of the 1999 Act. I understand that, this year, the CPS in Devon and Cornwall must make good a budget shortfall of some 8 per cent.
  I hope that the Solicitor-General has something to say to the House on the matters of funding and morale, as the current state of affairs is utterly unacceptable. It makes a mockery of any attempt by the Government to deal adequately with their responsibilities for the criminal justice system. We want the Bill to establish a scrupulously independent and autonomous inspectorate. It must report annually to Parliament. Its chief inspector must come before the appropriate Select Committee after the annual report has been published, and at any other time that the Select Committee may determine.
  There should be no inhibition or strictures on any CPS employee contacting the inspectorate at any time to make known the misgivings that he or she may have about the service. Those misgivings do not necessarily have to

  885
  involve matters of funding or resources; the employees should be able to raise other matters and, most important, to refer to any endeavour by any person to exert undue influence on a Crown prosecutor.
  I remind the House that one of the conclusions of the Glidewell report was that it was essential to expand the role of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and that the inspectorate should have an independent chairman. I welcome the fact that there will be an independent chairman and I welcome the Bill. However, I hope that the Solicitor—General can assure the House that members of the CPS will be free to make complaints to the inspectorate without recriminations. Furthermore, I look forward to hearing from the Solicitor-General that the chairman will be independent and autonomous and will report to a Committee of the House at any time that that Committee should determine.
  4.51 pm
  The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I am grateful for the warm welcome that has been given to the Bill. I thank the shadow Attorney-General, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) for their support for the principles behind it.
  I shall deal briefly with a few points that have been raised in the debate. The shadow Attorney-General said that he had visited the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and I am grateful that he did. I am sure that the visit gave him a greater insight into its operation. He mentioned thematic reports, which the Attorney-General and I have encouraged the inspectorate to carry out. At present, the inspectorate is undertaking reports on the handling of ethnic minority issues, custody time limits and offences arising out of fatal road accidents. I know that they are three issues of concern to both sides of the House.
  The shadow Attorney-General and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon referred to the recent stress survey. The Government should be commended for undertaking that survey, which produced results that were not exactly unexpected. Prosecutors work under great time constraints, there is a problem of funding—I shall come to that point shortly—and, at present, there is a lack of sufficient information technology facilities in the service. None the less, the report identified the strength of the CPS; the nature, diversity and importance of the work that prosecutors and the non-lawyers in the service carry out and which is appreciated; and the good terms and conditions that they enjoy as part of the civil service.
  Let me make it clear that funding is an historic problem. It harks back to the founding of the CPS and the Conservative party cannot avoid responsibility for that. The CPS was underfunded from the outset and it is only now that the position is being redressed.
  Mr. Garnier: The Solicitor-General says that the CPS has been underfunded historically, but why are the Government cutting its budget for next year?
  The Solicitor-General: I was just about to say that the Attorney-General is making great efforts in putting the case to the Treasury for an increase in funding for the
  886
  CPS. That case has been supported by the Lord Chancellor and by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who both understand that an effective CPS is necessary if other parts of the criminal justice system are to work. At present, I cannot tell the House the outcome of those negotiations, but I am optimistic that there will be good news in the near future.
  Mr. Burnett: Are financial deficiencies carried forward from previous years included in the discussions and representations of the Home Secretary and the Chancellor?
  The Solicitor-General: As I said, the problem is historic. The previous Government underfunded the CPS and we have a lot to make up. The hon. Gentleman mentioned information technology, which is one area in which we have made progress. As I have told the House before, we successfully obtained an extra £12 million in the capital modernisation programme and, as a result, the Connect programme will be implemented later this year. It will provide all prosecutors with basic information technology, and will enable the CPS to access databases and send e-mails via the internet to other criminal justice agencies.
  Mr. Burnett: Will the computer technology that is being funded and installed include Lexis or some other legal information and case law network accessible to Crown prosecutors, enabling them to know the up-to-date law to which they must refer in court?
  The Solicitor-General: It certainly will. In the pilot projects, Archbold, the standard textbook on criminal law, is available to prosecutors.
  I refute the view that morale is at rock bottom. Certainly, that was not the case in Derbyshire and Hertfordshire, where I visited CPS officers last week. I did not conclude that morale was at rock bottom when I visited the Devon and Cornwall CPS last year with the hon. Gentleman. No doubt, there are stresses and strains and the situation could be improved, but the bleak picture painted by Opposition Members does not reflect reality.
  In response to a point made by the hon. Gentleman, there is no reason why the CPS inspector should not appear before the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Indeed, in relation to the independence of the CPS, all prosecutors are fiercely independent and must act in accordance with the statutory code for Crown prosecutors.
  Mr. Burnett: Will individual members of the CPS have access to the inspectorate so that they may discuss anything that is germane to their job in the service?
  The Solicitor-General: The chief inspector's main function is to ensure that the quality of work is up to standard. However, as he goes round different areas, I am sure that individual prosecutors and others will have an opportunity to raise and discuss matters with him.
  The Bill goes considerably beyond the recommendations in the report by Sir Ian Glidewell. I believe that the statutory inspectorate will continue to develop within the framework established by this simple measure. Of course, it is of paramount importance that the CPS gains increased public

  887
  confidence. However, an open, accountable and vigorous inspectorate will go a long way towards developing that confidence.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE INSPECTORATE BILL [LORDS] [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 Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (1) sums in respect of salary, pension, allowances and compensation for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service; and

  (2) expenditure incurred by the Chief Inspector in the discharge of his functions under the Act.—[Mr. Dowd.]

  Question agreed to.

  Limited Liability Partnerships Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.59 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dr. Kim Howells): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The creation of limited liability partnerships adds to the variety of business entities available to those wishing to set up in business in Great Britain. Firms can usually choose between being a company—which is good if one wants a split between ownership and management—and being a partnership, which is good if one wants greater flexibility in arranging the internal affairs of the business and does not mind unlimited liability. However, firms will now have the option of becoming a limited liability entity with the internal flexibility of a partnership.
  Limited liability partnerships, or llps, were first proposed by the previous Administration, and responses to a consultation on the general principles were clearly in favour of their introduction. The Government agreed that the concept had merit and published a draft Bill in September 1998. That, too, was well received, and consultees provided feedback on the detail of the legislation. I should add that consultees represented a wide range of interests, including accountants, lawyers, actuaries, architects, surveyors, academics, trade associations and those representing the potential clients of an llp. The measure has wide support across the professional business community.
  The Bill was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. The Committee's comments were a valuable contribution to the development of the Bill.
  To explain the way in which we have chosen to construct the llp, I need to say something about where the idea of limited liability partnerships comes from. In 1996, the Department of Trade and Industry published for consultation an authoritative investigation by the common law team of the Law Commission into the law of joint and several liability, a complex area of common law.
  The report examined the problems that resulted from joint and several liability for professional defendants. For example, defendants might find themselves liable for the whole amount of the damage caused to the plaintiff, even where other wrongdoers were involved. However, the report concluded strongly against any reform of the law of joint and several liability. The main reason was that a change towards a system of proportional liability would favour the wrongdoer at the expense of the plaintiff. This is a simplified summary of the report's detailed conclusions.
  The common law team's remit did not extend to looking at joint and several liability in partnerships, but the Department of Trade and Industry at the time took the opportunity to consult on the question whether to allow for llps in Great Britain.
  Llps were already a well-known concept in the United States of America, and Jersey—not New Jersey, but Jersey in the Channel islands—was also planning to introduce them. As a result of the process of consultation,

  889
  we concluded against any reform to the law of joint and several liability, but gave our commitment to the introduction of limited liability partnerships.
  Surprisingly, there has been no fundamental change to business entities in Great Britain since 1907, when the Limited Partnerships Act was introduced. Only a company offers all its members limited liability, which perhaps seems a little odd in the 21st century. The creation of llps demonstrates the Government's commitment to ensuring that Britain maintains its competitive and up-to-date legal framework for business.
  The development of llps takes account of the changing business environment, which has become increasingly litigious in recent years. The structure of an llp means that some firms may find it an advantage over a company, as it offers the freedom for members to arrange their internal relationship to each other and to the llp as they wish, while having the benefit of limited liability. That is likely to be popular with those who already have partnerships, but it may also prove to be of some benefit to start-up businesses.
  Mr. John Burnett: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I shall refer to this in my speech, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister says that the limited liability partnership will be useful for other businesses. Will it be useful for other incorporated businesses? If so, it would be a lot more useful for incorporated businesses—that is, limited companies—if the tax penalties on disincorporation were eased.
  Dr. Howells: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. I shall deal with tax separately and in some detail, as it is a crucial component of the Bill.
  In November 1999, the Bill was introduced in another place, where there was wide support for the concept. That is not to say that the Bill's passage through the other place was uneventful. A lively and useful debate took place, and the Government made a number of amendments, with which I shall deal later.
  I am pleased to say that the Bill is in very good shape, and I thank Members of the other place for their contribution to bringing that about. We believe that the right balance has been struck between the interests of those who will want to be llps and of those who will do business with them.
  Although the new entity is called a limited liability partnership, in many ways it is neither fish nor fowl. In some respects, it is closer to a partnership, while in others it is closer to a company. That hybrid quality has been at the root of most debates on the measure, with some wanting the entity to be allied more closely to a partnership and others wanting it to be allied more closely to a company.
  We had to strike a balance. While members will be free to agree among themselves, their relationship being rather like that of members of other kinds of partnership, the llp itself will be a separate legal entity, owned by the members. That means that it will be able to enter into contracts, hold property and continue to exist independent of changes in membership. In that sense, llps will be closer to companies than to partnerships. We will
  890
  therefore apply to llps, by way regulation, appropriately modified companies legislation—for example, the Companies Act 1985, the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.
  The limited liability of the members is also clearly more closely akin to the position of a company than to that of a partnership. Limited liability is a privilege, and we need to ensure that it is not abused. The companies and insolvency legislation will help to do that.
  Clause 6 makes it plain that a third party dealing with an llp will be entitled to rely on the fact that the member is an agent of the llp, but because the llp is a separate legal entity, we expect the third-party contract to be with the llp rather than with the member. That mirrors what happens in the case of companies. It is anticipated that, in the event of a claim for negligence, the claim would be against the llp rather than the member.
  Mr. Burnett: I thought that an overriding principle of the Bill was that a member who conducted work for an individual client would be liable to the extent of the entirety of his assets, if he was found to be negligent.
  Dr. Howells: That is absolutely true. If he is found to be negligent, he will be liable to exactly the same punishments, and to be pursued in the same way, as the director of a company; there is no doubt about that. The llp, however, is the first port of call when there is deemed to be a problem.
  The llp would be liable to the full extent of its assets, but—I think that this is what the hon. Gentleman is getting at—that does not rule out the option of the third party's pursuing the negligent member as well. The third party, however, would only be able to sue the negligent member in tort, as the contract would have to be with the llp. Tort liability may be much more difficult to prove.
  Clients of the llp will need to be made aware of the nature of the entity with which they are dealing. To help ensure that, firms using the abbreviation "llp" after their names will have to mention on their business letters and order forms that the letters stand for "limited liability partnership".
  The Bill also requires that two or more people must be associated for the carrying on of a lawful business with a view to profit, and that their names must be on the incorporation document. The limited liability partnership and its members must be registered at Companies House. Its records must be kept up to date. The llp must also have two designated members whose responsibilities include filing the annual return, notifying Companies House of changes in membership and of any change to the address of the registered office.
  Taxation is the other main subject of the Bill. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked about that. The Bill expressly provides for llp to be taxed as though they were partnerships. Without such provisions, they would be taxed as companies because, elsewhere, the Bill provides that they are corporate bodies. Although llp will be corporate bodies, they will retain the partnership ethos at their core. Like partnerships, llp will consist of members who are involved in running the firm. We anticipate that they will continue to be an important source of working capital. It was therefore agreed that it was more appropriate for an llp to be taxed as a partnership than as a company.

  891
  Several amendments were tabled to the tax provisions in another place. They were technical amendments, which were intended to ensure that the legislation achieved our objectives more effectively. One amendment was intended to apply sections 117 and 118 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, with appropriate modifications, to llps. The purpose was to ensure that they could not be exploited for specific forms of tax avoidance. That would have involved members of llp being able to obtain tax relief for a loss sustained beyond their personal obligation to meet it.
  Amendments were also made to ensure that the transfer of partnership assets from an existing partnership to an llp would be tax neutral. We thus maintain our policy of ensuring tax neutrality when conventional partnerships transform themselves into llps.
  Mr. Burnett: When the Minister considers tax neutrality, I hope that he will refer to the possibility of limited liability companies becoming llp. Will he also confirm that, when he says that the transfer of a business or partnership into an llp will be tax neutral, it includes stamp duty?
  Dr. Howells: I shall find out by the end of the debate. I believe that the provision includes stamp duty, but I shall confirm that later. Although I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman understands the purpose of the Bill, his initial and follow-up questions suggest a misunderstanding. I do not expect the Bill to be especially useful to incorporated businesses because they already have limited liability and have already organised themselves as a company. There is no reason for them to organise themselves into llps, which will be taxed as partnerships while companies are taxed as companies. I envisage no reason for, or easy way to make, the transformation of a company into an llp tax neutral.
  Mr. Burnett: Members of a limited company might want to become an llp for good tax reasons.
  Dr. Howells: That would be up to different companies. We hope to provide a new vehicle for companies and business; clearly, the decision would be up to them.
  Another amendment was made to ensure that members were treated for national insurance purposes as if they were partners in a partnership. Although we believe that it is right to tax llps as partnerships, we are aware that the tax treatment may allow scope for llps to be used when the primary or only attraction of llp status is tax treatment. I sense that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon was hinting at that when he spoke. Clearly, that is not intended. We shall consider that issue carefully with the Inland Revenue and, depending on our conclusions, measures may be introduced in the 2001 Finance Bill. The Revenue will consult widely on its intentions. It is important to emphasise that we do not intend to undermine the commercial certainty of llps' taxation treatment for those businesses for which llp status was intended. That will be at the forefront of our minds, whatever options are proposed.
  Apart from those on tax, several amendments were made in the other place, the most notable of which included clarifying that an llp's members will not be its employees and putting it beyond doubt that, if an llp
  892
  member were liable to a person for a wrongful act or omission in the course of the llp's business, it would be liable to the same extent as the member.
  We intend to apply secondary legislation to llps, which will include similar requirements to those for companies; it may be useful if I touch on what that will mean. The regulations will include a requirement for financial disclosure equivalent to that required of companies, provision that members of an llp can be sued for wrongful or fraudulent trading and provision that members can be disqualified from being members of an llp and a company director. The regulations will apply, with appropriate modifications, the provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986. Those modifications include a measure that will deter members from siphoning off funds to the detriment of creditors.
  We have published the draft regulations for consultation twice—in September 1998 and July 1999. We shall amend the regulations to take account of the concerns expressed by consultees and by Members of another place about the disapplication of partnership law to llps. That is part of considering how far we treat llps as partnerships and how far we treat them as companies. As a result, we shall include a default provision that will apply if there is no llp agreement or if the agreement does not cover a particular issue. The draft proposals were consulted on and generally welcomed by those who responded.
  It might be suggested that a significant weight of legislation will be applied to such an entity and it would be understandable if hon. Members asked whether a lighter touch were preferable. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) knows full well that I am very much in favour of a lighter touch. However, I would argue strongly that we shall provide for an entity that will have the privilege of limited liability and we must ensure that a balance is struck between the interests of business and an llp's potential clients. Becoming an llp will be a purely voluntary and commercial decision. Any firm that chooses to become an llp and wants limited liability will compare the llp with a company. Anyone who makes that comparison will find that the regulatory requirements applied to an llp are not unreasonable.
  The Bill has benefited from the careful and measured attention of learned consultees, learned Members of another place and the Trade and Industry Committee. As a result, we have achieved the right balance in creating a new entity that combines limited liability with the organisational flexibility of a partnership while ensuring that appropriate safeguards are applied to protect those who deal with the entity. I am pleased to commend the measure to the House.
  5.19 pm
  Mr. Nick Gibb: I declare an interest. Actually, it is not really an interest; it is more a confession: I am a chartered accountant. Some of my best friends are chartered accountants. Many of my friends work for chartered accountancy partnerships. I worked for such a partnership for 13 years before entering the House.
  The Bill is welcome. It started life under the last Conservative Government in response to concerns, particularly from the accountancy and legal professions,

  893
  about the difficulties of unlimited liability. The prospect of losing one's house and savings because of the negligence of a fellow partner whom one may not even have met in a larger partnership was becoming a huge impediment to recruiting and retaining key personnel.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will go on to paint the tear-jerking spectacle of those in accountancy partnerships living in terror in case their yachts, farms, pubs and holiday retreats are suddenly confiscated, but has it ever happened? We estimate that the total revenue set aside from the fee income for contingency claims was no higher than 2.7 per cent. Most of the things that are claimed to be a threat over accountancy never materialised.
  Mr. Gibb: It has happened in the United States. A number of medium-sized firms have got into severe difficulties and partners have lost their personal assets, but it is the fear of losing, through no fault of their own, assets for which people have worked all their lives that is wrong. It also has an unhealthy effect on the working method within the firms. People might argue, as the hon. Gentleman no doubt would, that the prospect of losing everything if one does poor-quality work for a client concentrates the mind wonderfully and so increases the quality of work. My experience is that the determination to keep clients is the driving force behind doing good work. The fear of negligence action acts as a dampener on the work.
  Letters giving advice are packed full of caveats and disclaimers. Sometimes it is barely possible to discern the actual advice that the letter seeks to give. Huge resources are pumped into ensuring that terms of engagement are correctly documented and filed, not to improve the quality of the work, but to safeguard the firm in case of legal action. That is the consequence of the ever-present threat of legal action.
  Even under the Bill, it will still be possible for partnerships to be sued, but the prospect of partners unconnected with the negligence losing everything will go. It is wrong that, in circumstances where—the Minister alluded to it—99 per cent. of the blame for something going wrong attaches to, say, the impecunious fraudulent director of a company, and the audit firm or solicitor can be shown to be just 1 per cent. to blame for what went wrong, they can be sued for 100 per cent. of the loss. Because many of the partnerships have deep pockets, it is to those firms that aggrieved investors turn for recompense.
  The general legal concept of joint and several liability will not be changed by the Bill, but the concept and joint and several liability within a partnership will. The limited liability partnership will be suable for breach of contract to the full extent of its assets. The partner responsible for any negligence will, as the Minister said, be liable under tort, but the remaining partners will be able to sleep easy at night knowing that their personal assets will be safe.
  The Bill has been through an enormous number of stages. The last Conservative Government issued a consultative document in February 1997. A draft Bill
  894
  issued by the present Government in September 1998 was scrutinised by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. The Government issued a new draft in July last year and a final Bill came out in November. Despite all that pre-legislative scrutiny, during which many of the less attractive options were dropped, the Bill that went to the other place still had a number of problems.
  Conservative Members were concerned that the Bill provided no default mechanism to the existing body of partnership law in circumstances where the partnership agreement is silent: for example, the right to share in capital and profits, the right of a member to take part in the business, procedures for retiring as a member and procedures for holding and calling meetings. We believe that there should be a default mechanism, so that those rules are covered.
  We were concerned about the inherent ambiguities that could enable partners or members to be regarded by the Inland Revenue as employees of the llp. We were concerned about the absence of any definition of "designated member". There are plenty of subsections about the appointment of designated members and the requirement for two such members, but no mention of what they are meant to do.
  We were concerned about the inadequacy of the taxation provisions. The Bill is meant to be tax neutral, as the Minister said, but, before it went to the other place, there was no clarity over whether transferring a partnership to an llp would trigger a tax charge on the cessation of the old partnership. There is no mention of stamp duty consequences. We had enormous concerns about the insolvency provisions, which appeared to apply much stricter tests on trading while insolvent than similar provisions applicable to companies. We were concerned about the acquisition accounting requirements that llp would automatically be required to adopt. As hon. Members will clearly understand, that method of accounting for the merger of two llps would be absurd given that they do not issue shares.
  All those issues were raised in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Buscombe. Thanks to her effort—and, one must acknowledge, to the reasonable approach of the Minister, Lord McIntosh—those concerns were largely taken on board and substantive amendments were made in Committee. We have always said that, as an Opposition, we will say it as it is. If the Government do the right thing, we will say so; if they do the wrong thing, we will oppose them. This is a good Bill—much better, it must be said, thanks to my noble Friend's scrutiny—but one or two loose ends and remaining criticisms need to be aired, to which we can return in detail in Committee.
  Far too many key provisions are hidden in secondary legislation. From the now 19 clauses and one schedule, one would have no idea of some of the Bill's basic tenets. One would have no idea that a member of an llp will remain liable to the full extension of his personal assets, notwithstanding the limited liability, for negligent work that he or staff reporting to him had carried out; no idea about a host of important issues relating to the legal position of members if the llp trades while insolvent; no idea about which company law and which partnership rules will apply to the llp. Those matters are in a host of regulations to be issued under sections 14, 15 and 16.

  895
  The Trade and Industry Committee was highly critical of the degree of use of secondary legislation in the Bill. Its report states:
  There does not at first sight seem to be any over-riding reason why the Regulations and schedules should not be incorporated into the Bill…We would…far prefer that the detailed secondary legislation proposed be incorporated in the Bill.
  The Committee recommended that revised drafts should be resubmitted to it for re-examination. Has that happened? Was the Committee asked to have a look at the revised draft statutory instruments?
  Lord Goodhart, a Liberal Democrat peer, said in the other place:
  The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in your Lordships' House, of which I am a member, accepted the Government's proposals to put these provisions in regulations. But it seems to me that this comes close to the borderline and the more I look at sonic aspects of this Bill the more doubtful I am whether the Delegated Powers Committee was not rather too lenient.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 1999; Vol. 607, c. 1438.]
  He was right to express concern. The Committee's report draws attention to the fact that what is now clause 16 is
  a Henry VIII provision which allows regulations to amend or repeal primary…legislation.
  Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman's criticisms are well placed: he is a well-known deregulator. However, is he aware that the first set of regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure and that affirmative resolutions will then apply to anything that we introduce immediately afterwards? That should be some defence.
  Mr. Gibb: I am aware of that, but I am grateful to the Minister for bringing it to the attention of the House. However, affirmative secondary legislation is still a far cry from primary legislation. Many regulations in that pile of draft regulations amend primary legislation. I have great concern, shared by many Members of both Houses, about secondary legislation amending primary legislation.
  That was not the Committee's main concern. Its main concern was that the draft regulations created offences punishable on summary conviction by a fine, but the way in which those instruments were drafted was wide enough to allow the regulations to provide for imprisonment or for trial on indictment. The Committee thought that the Government intended to use those powers only to provide for summary trial and fine, and wanted that limitation to appear on the face of the Bill. As Lord McIntosh admitted in the other place,
  it is our intention to apply to LLPs the same offences as apply to companies…In some cases these offences are triable on indictment and punishable with imprisonment.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 1999; Vol. 607, c. 1421.]
  The Government wanted to see those powers to create offences which carry a punishment of imprisonment. Given that admission, and the fact that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee had assumed in its conclusions that the delegated powers would not be used for such purposes, I urge the Committee's Chairman to look at the Bill again. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response on that concern.
  The over-use of delegated legislation is a serious matter, which should be of concern to all hon. Members. We shall seek to put it right, regardless of administrative inconvenience or precedent.
  896
  Our remaining concern over the drafting of the Bill relates to what have become known as the default provisions. The Minister also referred to them as such. Under clause 1, the whole body of partnership law is disapplied as regards llps except where it is explicitly provided for in the Bill. This is of concern because most of the firms that will want to convert to llp status will simply use their partnership agreement as the basis for the internal arrangements within the llp. The agreement may well be silent on a number of important issues, because well-established partnership law provides these details where they are not explicitly set out in the agreement. Small partnerships in particular will have relatively short agreements which may not include details such as the rules for the retirement of partners, the detailed rules about calling meetings or rules giving all parties the right to see the books and records. Those rights and rules are all there in general partnership law. To disapply that law may well cause difficulties for such smaller firms.
  Dr. Howells: Presumably the hon. Gentleman is not arguing for over-prescription in terms of what a partnership should or should not be. One of the strengths of partnerships is the flexibility of arrangements. We are not seeking to take that away.
  Mr. Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, but he misses the point. Our proposal in the other place was for a simple default provision where there were no provisions in an agreement about certain aspects of the partnership arrangement. When a crisis arose, those involved in a partnership could always fall back on those partnership laws that had evolved since 1890 through the courts and in statute. The Bill explicitly removes that default provision and could therefore give rise to difficulties. That is why in the other place my noble Friend Lady Buscombe proposed a provision that, for the avoidance of doubt, partnership law would apply if not otherwise excluded by the Bill. The Government rejected it on the grounds that, as the llp had a separate legal identity and would need primarily to adhere to the Companies Act rules, having a default to the partnership law rules might result in confusion and possible conflict.
  Mr. Burnett: I agree with the central thrust of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that one of the great advantages of the Partnership Act 1890 is that not only has it stood the test of time, but a great deal of case law behind it is intelligible and easy to understand?
  Mr. Gibb: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We can never anticipate all the problems that will arise, but a hundred years of case law will probably have covered almost every likely contingency. We are rejecting that hundred years' experience in having clause 1(5) disapply all that body of partnership law.
  We do not accept the Government's argument about why there should not be a default provision, because we are talking about the rules relating to the partnership agreement and the relationship between partners. The Law Society is also clear on that point. In its briefing for this debate, it states:
  The Law Society has always considered there to be the need for some default provisions that would operate in the absence of agreement to the contrary within a limited liability partnership and which would cover certain basic matters relating to the mutual rights and duties of the members of an LLP.

  897
  In response to such concerns, the Government issued a consultation document in February, which proposed incorporating specific partnership law rules into delegated legislation under clause 15(c) of the Bill. The Government amended the Bill in the other place to enable that to happen. We will no doubt debate the issue in detail in Committee, but key provisions such as fundamental partnership rules should appear in primary legislation. We stick to our view that the Bill should contain an overall default provision.
  I would also be grateful if the Minister could address another important concern raised by the Law Society over whether the Administration of Justice Act 1960, as in force, will permit firms of solicitors to adopt the new form of incorporation. It understands that the Act will need to be amended, so I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
  This is now a much improved and useful Bill that will assist professional firms to recruit and retain top-quality staff and partners who otherwise might be put off by the prospect of perpetual unlimited liability arising from the negligence of others. It should also reduce the risk of such partners fleeing to non-UK jurisdictions. Subject to our remaining concerns, which we will address in Committee and about which I trust the Minister will be as reasonable as his colleague in the other place, we remain supportive of an important and useful Bill.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I tend to get suspicious when I hear bipartisan bleating about how wonderful a Bill is, although that is not why I wished to speak. I do not know whether we will have a tripartisan bleat from the Liberals, although they put in some good work in opposition to the Bill in the House of Lords. I hope that that might be followed up here.
  The Bill is not the epoch-making measure that it has been portrayed as, by both my hon. Friend the Minister and the Opposition. It is a shabby measure. If not sordid, it is at least suspect, and it is interesting that the songs of praise for it have come largely—in fact, overwhelmingly—from the vested interests. It is regarded as a technical Bill, but it will have enormous repercussions that should be more widely discussed. Unfortunately, we cannot discuss them in an atmosphere in which everyone agrees that the Bill is wonderful.
  The Bill will take the limited liability partnership—a device that began as a vehicle for tax evasion in Texas and Delaware, specifically to limit the tax obligations of partners in firms—and turn it into a new vehicle for corporate business. We do not know what the consequences of doing that will be. They could be substantial or they could be minimal. I fear that they will be more substantial than we think.
  The change in company and partnership law is being done at the behest of the mighty and the greedy, and indeed the mighty greedy. The lobby for the Bill comes overwhelmingly from the big five—formerly big six, until they started eating each other—accountancy houses. The fee revenue of the big five was £4.5 billion in this country alone in 1999. That makes them powerful organisations, and I do not like the spectacle of the Government rushing to serve their purposes, their greed and their desire to
  898
  protect their profits, revenues and incomes as partners. I can understand the Conservatives doing that, because that was the whole process of Conservative Government for 18 years, and it is fitting that they began the Bill. I am more doubtful when a Labour Government pursue the measure. After all, Labour is a new and pristine party that will not make concessions to vested interests. We must ask why the Bill is being introduced—and especially why now?
  We know that the legislative timetable is packed. We know that there is a long queue of Bills. Discussions at the meeting of the parliamentary Labour party last week produced an enormous list of proposals from Labour Members for the legislative programme next year. These proposals included measures to deal with hunting with dogs; housing, including multiple occupancy; pensioners and carers, especially action on long-term care; the regulation of the private security industry; regulation and reform of park homes; equality and employment legislation; and consumer protection measures.
  Those proposals are only a part of the list. There is an enormous list of socially responsible and sensible legislation that needs to be introduced, but we are told that that cannot happen because of pressures on the legislative timetable. However, one of those pressures is this sordid little Bill. Why is it being introduced, and why now?
  It is a concession to a major vested interest, that of the big five accountancy houses. Unfortunately, it is not matched by any balancing changes to afford protection against any of the powers that are being given through the Bill. The Bill includes no protection for consumers of accounts—they are pretty weak or impotent when it comes to dealing with the big five or with unreasonable audits. Stakeholders in companies have very few rights to protect them from negligent auditors, but we are rushing to strengthen the position of those auditors. It is unreasonable to proceed in that way.
  If we are to make such a concession to the big accountancy houses—we are giving them a special privilege—let us also give some privileges to the consumers of accounts, to stakeholders and to those who suffer from negligent auditors. We should reverse the Caparo judgment; we should impose a duty of care on auditors; and we should stop auditors taking on other business and thus introducing dilution. Company law imposes liability. Directors are responsible and liable if they publish false and misleading accounts. However, if an auditor publishes such accounts, there is no responsibility. Nevertheless the Bill will give auditors increased privileges.
  The provisions that I have suggested could have been dealt with at the same time as the Bill. There is no reason for haste. That is why I have asked why the Bill is being dealt with so quickly. The Department of Trade and Industry company law review is continuing. It may propose some of the changes that I would like to see to redress the balance towards the consumer. Why not make these changes at the same time? That should be part of the deal.
  If the big accountancy houses want to secure a special concession, in return they should make concessions to protect the consumer. However, they are not doing so, and we are handing them a concession on a plate. That is extremely unreasonable, especially for small shareholders, along with the stakeholders and employees who want to

  899
  know what is going on in their company and want honest, objective and effective audits. It is unreasonable similarly for those who rely on accounts to make investments. We are not giving those people any concessions while the vested interest is getting all that it wants. It seems that the consumers of accounts were not consulted in that process.
  What about Lord Paul and his experiences with the purchase of a Fidelity radio? He found that if he was to sue the auditors he had to buy the company and sue the directors, who then had to sue the auditors. That sort of experience gives me no faith in redress against auditors, yet auditing is a monopoly granted by the state to a particular class of people. Why are we giving them a concession when it is surely our job to regulate them?
  The United Kingdom has public limited companies and 600,000 partnerships. Now, we are creating an intermediate breed, limited liability partnerships, which might even be called a corporate third way—although I do not think that such a development was envisaged in Professor Giddens's third way. This development could have severe consequences. Such partnerships could be established by fraudsters and by those who have been disqualified as company directors. We are diluting controls over those people, who could slough off their responsibilities.
  I know that new Labour is nice to business, and that it is right that we should be nice to business. All sections of the community have to get on. We are not in a class war and we no longer feel basic antagonism towards business. I also know that the accountancy houses have been very nice to Labour. When we were in opposition, they gave employment to people who have subsequently become Ministers. They have organised conferences for us, provided advisers and advice, and even attended our fund-raising dinners. They have done us good service. I do not think that they did that with any view of a return such as the Bill—they are averse to such sordid motives—but they are not averse to getting this legislation.
  The legislation's origins are very murky indeed. I should like to detail those origins because they are not based solely on a process of consideration, as we have been led to believe by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) and Ministers. The fact is that the big accountancy houses got into a panic—which was well detailed by the hon. Gentleman—because, as they have deep pockets, they felt vulnerable. They were afraid that people would make huge claims against auditors. They were afraid that people were thinking, "If you cannot do anything else, you can make a claim against the auditors." However, the panic that possessed auditors bore no relation to reality. It also took no account of their own involvement in their own mistakes.
  These days, the accountancy houses offer auditing services to the big public limited companies and essentially use those services as a market stall from which to sell other accountancy services. They get their foot in at the plcs by auditing them, and then use the audit service as the basis for selling other services to the company. That practice, however, dilutes the auditing process. Obviously, if they want to sell other services to the firm, they will be complacent in auditing. Audit problems in such situations are, therefore, of the auditors' own making.
  There may be audit problems and dodgy companies, but who made the auditors take on those companies as clients? Who made them take on Maxwell? What force
  900
  was used to make auditors audit the Maxwell accounts or the Bank of Credit and Commerce International accounts? Auditors do not need to take on the accounts of dodgy companies. They should, therefore, face the consequences of dealing with such companies. The accountancy houses are in that position because of their own greed and their desire to maximise both fee income and the sale of other services to audit clients.
  The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tried to hype up the houses' panic and alarm, but all the examples that he gave were from America. He could not produce any evidence of huge claims. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry also commented on the lack of evidence. Even the figures that have been mentioned are suspect, because they are the claim figures, not the settlement figures—which have not only been kept very quiet, but are very small indeed.
  The hon. Gentleman also took no account of the fact that those who sue auditors usually come from other parts of the same big five accountancy house. Usually, the insolvency arm of an accountancy house sues to reclaim money from the audit arm at the same or another big five accountancy house. It is the worst type of incestuous suing. The tenor that auditors have expressed is terror of themselves and of other parts of their own firm.
  Mr. Gibb: Does not the small number of settlements and claims to which the hon. Gentleman referred rather contradict his lifetime's work in condemning audit firms' ability to do their job well?
  Mr. Mitchell: I do not condemn the ability of audit firms to do their job well, but they are influenced by a desire to sell other services, which might make them more complacent than they would otherwise be. Business needs good, honourable auditors of integrity who provide a true and fair account of the affairs of the company. I do not want any constraint on that. If auditors do not do that, they should suffer the consequences. The Bill does not provide for that. We are protecting them from suffering the consequences by allowing them to escape the liability. We are not giving them any discipline or sanction to force them to provide that service.
  Dr. Howells: I made it clear in my speech that limited liability partnerships are subject to all the same restrictions and controls as companies on fraudulent dealing or any other form of misdemeanour. I do not understand why my hon. Friend thinks that they are suddenly above the law.
  Mr. Mitchell: I do not think that they are above the law, but no protection has been offered to the consumer. Admittedly, partnerships as they exist do not provide such protection, but we need a sanction against bad audits, fraudulent audits or misguided audits, which at present we do not have. The Bill will limit the liability of partners who might have been responsible for such audits. My figures suggest that only 2.7 per cent. of the total fee income of the big five goes on liability-related expenditure. Their huge tenor about the grab at their deep pockets is over 2.7 per cent. of their fee income. It is difficult to get verifiable information about that.
  The accountancy firms tried to panic the Conservative Government, who referred the issue to the Law Commission. On the ground that proportionate liability

  901
  did not fit in, the Law Commission said no go—it might have said it in Latin, but it said that the firms could not have that special concession.
  The big audit firms then began another devious manoeuvre. They were so anxious to secure limited liability that they went to the Jersey legislature and tried to buy legislation on their own terms. It was drawn up by Slaughter and May and financed by what was then Price Waterhouse and by Ernst and Young at a cost of £1 million. The Jersey law draftsmen found the legislation very unsatisfactory, but it gave the big audit firms all that they wanted. One of the senior partners of Price Waterhouse said that they were promised that it would be nodded through.
  Unfortunately, the legislation that the firms wanted was not drawn up properly and the Jersey legislative draftsmen raised doubts. Attempts to rush it through caused protests and the expulsion of Senator Syvaret. It was delayed and the firms did not get the fast-track procedure that they wanted. When they got the legislation, they were warned by the Inland Revenue that there would be tax consequences if they set themselves up as limited liability partnerships in Jersey—so, after all that effort buying legislation in Jersey, no firm went there. They were using the process as a means of pressuring the Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has told us how proud he is of his accountant friends. Some of my best friends are accountants. A fear was created in the Conservative Government that all those black-coated accountants would don their black suits and trot off to Jersey to work in the sun.
  That threat produced action. The Conservative Government began to draw up the legislation, we have continued with that. They did so under pressure from the big five and with a departmental civil service that works in what I would call close collusion—but let us say cahoots or a relationship—with the big accountancy houses. They are anxious not to offend them and are keen to do what they want, as they did in this case.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for his willingness to listen to the criticisms. The same goes for his predecessor. Changes were made—for example, we warned that if the concession was given just to accountants, other professional groups would have a rights case against the Government that they should be able to set up limited liability partnerships, so the original intention had to be widened.
  However, the pressure was too strong and the Bill is the result. I still do not understand why it is necessary. I sat on the Committee that considered the Companies Bill in 1989—it was my last great effort as a Front-Bench Labour spokesperson. I was fired just before the Committee began its proceedings, but I still took a close interest in it. That legislation gave the accountancy houses the right to set themselves up as plcs if they wanted. They had been pressing for that, claiming that the fate of the accountancy profession depended on being given plc status. We gave them it, but only one accountancy firm took it up, converting its audit arm into a plc. That shows how they panicked. That alternative is still available. Why do they not want to be plcs? Why do they want special limited liability partnership status?
  902
  In 1991, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales said that
  the obligation…to publish their accounts is perceived as a considerable drawback.
  In other words, the firms want to keep their business to themselves. They do not want the partners to have to reveal their income. They do not want to reveal anything beyond the firm's total fee income. That is why they did not want to take up the offer of plc status.
  We are giving those firms what they wanted. I am not sure of the tax position. As partnerships, they have advantages over plcs. The Bill does not create a new tax regime for llps. The Bill says that the tax effects are neutral. I am not sure. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with that. Large numbers of plcs might see the benefits and convert themselves into llps. What is to stop them? There could be a mass exodus, not from partnerships to limited liability partnerships, but from plcs to llps. Do the Government anticipate that? Has there been an estimate of the possible scale of that? What are the restrictions?
  Such a move would minimise corporation tax obligations. Indeed, the firms would escape the corporation tax regime and move on to schedule case 1 and 2. That requires them to be taxed on a cash basis, not an accrual basis. They can stagger their payments over a far longer period than plcs can. That is the advantage. Any account can be shifted from one year to another.
  Expenditure on entertainment—or whatever—for plcs has to be wholly, exclusively and necessarily required. That is three obligations. For partnerships, the word "necessarily" is dropped. That is a much laxer tax regime on entertainment spending. Companies pay corporation tax nine months after the end of the year; llp partners have up to 21 months to pay their tax. That gives much more scope and must offer tax savings. As legal entities, plcs have a liability to pay tax and llps do not. The partners, not the organisation, are liable. The organisation can have no assets and be only a shell.
  It is quite possible that there will be a loss of tax. We estimate that the shift from partnerships to limited liability partnerships will result in a tax loss of about £200 million a year. I can think of a lot better uses for £200 million, if our estimate is correct, than giving it to accountants, such as spending it on social purposes.
  Dr. Howells: Will my hon. Friend tell me to whom he is referring when he says that "we" estimate that the measure will mean £200 million a year less in tax for the Inland Revenue?
  Mr. Mitchell: I am referring to my associated body of accountants. That sounds like a massive Oxford college. Two accountants, another Member of Parliament and I have worked this out on the basis of the existing liability. The figures are perfectly credible. I am not a tax expert but the accountants are, and that is their assessment.
  The limited liability partnership in Jersey was pretty weak, but it required the llps to post a bond of 5 million quid if they were going to operate. There was that to fall back on. I see no similar safeguard in this Bill, which leaves the way open for people to fiddle.

  903
  If I laid a legal claim against a limited liability partnership, it would take years to resolve. The Maxwell case took nearly a decade. As for the Bank of Credit and Commerce International case—
  Dr. Howells: It is still running.
  Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is quite right. Let us suppose that my claim against the limited liability partnership is for £50 million. However, the partnership has no assets—it does not exist. There is nothing that can be seized or given to me when I win my case. What is there to stop the partners siphoning off the dosh over the years—the case will take several years to reach the courts—and turning the llp into a shell company with no brass at all?
  The Bill allows for the recouping of payments for the previous two years. That is too short a period, considering that law cases go on for years. All credit to the Government for providing for a two-year period, but why not make it five? Otherwise, anyone winning litigation against a limited liability partnership could end up with nothing because there is nothing to be had. The money could have been siphoned off by the partners, whose liability has been limited.
  We are all in favour of greater openness from companies, plcs, business in general and the Government. We all want to see disclosure. Some—not enough—is provided for by law in relation to plcs but not for limited liability partnerships, which will operate in a fashion akin to plcs. How much the partners are paid should be public knowledge. We need to know what their interest is and what their incomes are. Surely there is nothing to hide. One of the partners in an accountancy firm declared in the House of Lords that he had nothing to hide. He was quite happy for his income to be published. We need to extend the obligation to publish. Indeed, there is much less of an obligation on llps to publish than there is on plcs.
  I hope that there will be new legislation on companies soon. When we use it to extend the obligations on companies to publish in their accounts factors such as low pay or their environmental record, will the same proposals extend to limited liability partnerships? Why are we creating a third category of corporate entity to which the obligations imposed on plcs do not apply? There is not enough information.
  My final point is about regulation. Companies are regulated by the market, competition, the takeover panel and the Competition Commission. There is regulation of plcs, but who will regulate the llps? In accountancy, regulation is provided by professional bodies such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. They are small compared with the huge might of the big five. The big five provide most of the staff when it comes to regulation—[Interruption.] It is good to know that my speech is exciting such interest. I am delighted that so many supporters of restricting llp status are gathering, muttering, "My heavens, he's right. This is true—we must take action."
  There is no effective regulation. We do not have the sort of independent regulation that the Securities and Exchange Commission provides in the United States. It is reasonable for llps to have a proper framework of regulation.
  904
  Those are my worries about the Bill. I know that my hon. Friend has listened to our criticisms and I am grateful to him. I hope to make more points in Committee. They have to be taken into account, because the Bill gives privileges to a very wealthy and powerful body, and in particular the big five accountancy institutions. We are disturbing the existing structure of corporate governance and partnership governance to do that, without giving any concessions to the consumers of accounts. I question whether, at this stage, we should be doing that in this way.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. John Burnett: I should disclose at the outset that I am a solicitor, although I do not practise as such at the moment.
  The Bill creates an entirely new and separate business entity which will be a legal person itself, similar to a limited company, called a limited liability partnership. It is open to any business to become an llp, provided that more than one individual or company is conducting the business. I shall lead on to the position of overseas partners, corporate partners and other matters. In an llp—unlike like a partnership—the liability of members will be limited. However, each member will owe a duty of care to his or her clients or customers in tort. In the event that an individual member is negligent, that member will be liable to the full extent of his or her own personal assets.
  Other members—innocent members, for want of a better expression—will have no such personal liability. Claims, however, can be made against the llp to the full extent of its, rather than its members', assets.
  Mr. Mitchell: The partnership is selling itself on its reputation and its work as a partnership, as a team of people. It might be 600-strong. It is the collective body and it is its reputation that is being sold. Why should not the other partners, whom the hon. Gentleman described as innocent, have a liability too?
  Mr. Burnett: Because a limited liability partnership is a new entity and reflects the facts of life today. Joint and several liability is very unfair in certain circumstances.
  The Bill requires the initials llp or the words "limited liability partnership" to follow the name of the business. That will advertise its status. The llp will be obliged to be registered at Companies House, along with a list of its members, and records must be kept up to date. I shall come back to that point later in my speech, although I understand that there will be a further tier of creditor protection in the requirement for financial disclosure, similar to that required in respect of limited companies. I believe that the Government will in due course publish regulations to deal with insolvency and the winding up of llps, and to deter avoidance of liability by members, which would jeopardise the position of creditors. I believe that the Government intend to apply to llps the same offences that apply to companies under the Companies and Insolvency Acts. I shall refer later to tax treatment of llps.
  There has been much pressure on the Government from large, international legal and accounting firms for the introduction of this new business entity. I understand the reasons for that. One must question whether it is fair for a partner in London to be liable for all his or her assets as a result of the negligence of a partner in some far-off

  905
  country whom he or she has probably never met—indeed, given the size of some firms, some UK partners have probably not met some others.
  The Bill requires the most careful scrutiny in order to protect the public and the position of creditors of llps. I shall concentrate on the pool of cash and assets available to creditors and the general provisions for protection. The Minister will be aware that if llps make rapid or premature distributions to members, they can run on a deficit basis to ensure that there will be few or no assets to which creditors may have recourse. Professional firms, such as firms of accountants or solicitors, will have professional rules that impose obligations to have what one hopes will be adequate indemnity insurance cover, but the public should realise that that covers clients, not other creditors. It does not cover employees, except in so far as they are clients of the firm.
  The position of creditors could be somewhat shaky under the arrangements. I emphasise the need for full and adequate disclosure at Companies House of the assets and liabilities of the llp. I should welcome the Minister's comments on vicarious liability. In large professional firms, many partners—members, as they will be called in llps—do little fee-earning work. A great deal of such work is done by employees, who will not be members. Is that a means by which members may shield their personal assets from liability? In other words, do direct contact and direct instruction to employees mean that there will be no recourse to any member's private assets? Members, particularly of large firms, can perfectly legitimately argue that their involvement in a practice or firm is managerial only. In cases of direct instruction to employees, what will be the member's personal position, and will employees be personally liable?
  I appreciate that the llp will be liable in such cases, but there are compelling reasons for concern that some Ups may legitimately run on a deficit basis, to the detriment of clients, customers or creditors. My advice to professional clients in practice was always to avoid being a salaried partner: there are none of the advantages, and all the liabilities.
  We all know what partnership liability is about. I was an equity partner in a law firm for many years. Such liability is joint and several, and it embraces all the assets of all equity partners and all salaried partners of the firm. That is certainly the case so far as outside creditors are concerned. A client of a major firm who is successful in an action against that firm may therefore have recourse to all the assets of all the partners, whether or not they are equity or salaried partners.
  I should be grateful if the Minister would say whether consideration has been given to the consequences in the case of an individual who became a salaried member of an llp. Presumably, that individual would have no share in the profits of the firm and no say in its management. If the salaried member does the work for the client, will he or she be responsible to the extent of all his or her assets? If so, presumably the same may be said for employees. Those points emphasise the importance of creditor, client and customer protection.
  The Bill envisages disclosure provisions similar to those applying to limited companies. Will the Minister elaborate on that form of disclosure? Will full accounts
  906
  have to be rendered annually of the financial affairs of the llp, including details of all shares of profits and salaries, especially those of the higher-earning members or the higher-earning employees? Will details of assets of the llp have to be included? I hope that details of all mortgages and charges, and of the amounts thereof, will be included in the information available to the public.
  Dr. Howells: I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman. Only those firms in which the amount of profit before member remuneration and profit share exceeds £200,000 will have to state the amount of profit attributable to the member with the largest share.
  Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to the Minister, but he mentions the member with the largest share when he surely means all the members. I shall leave it to the hon. Gentleman to return to that when he winds up the debate.
  Presumably, on disclosure, all changes in membership of the firm will have to be notified to Companies House within a short period. I realise that, for tax purposes, all firms are going on to a full earnings basis. Nevertheless, the valuations for Inland Revenue purposes of work in progress or good will are pretty fluid and do not reflect the true value of such items. It may be that disclosure should be made of those items to show them as a true and fair valuation. That would make further assets of the firm or llp more apparent.
  From a tax and administrative point of view, it will be easier to make distributions or allocations to members of an llp in their personal capacities than it is to make them to shareholders or directors of companies. Will there be rules on a sufficiency of distributable assets before distribution can be made to members? Will the company law offence of trading while insolvent be imported into the affairs of an llp? The last thing that the House will want to create is a business entity that opens up easy opportunities for fleecing the public.
  It will be possible to start an llp by oral agreement, and I join the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) in saying that it is a shame that the provisions of the Partnership Act 1890—an excellent piece of legislation—will not apply. Heaven knows what chaos there will be in the circumstances in which an oral agreement forms the basis of an llp. The courts will be asked time and again to interpret the intentions of members where they have not been recorded in writing. Sometimes, I admit, written records may be even more misleading, but I hope that the Government will think again. The matter has been raised in the other place, and those of us who have worked for a long time with the 1890 Act know that it is excellent.
  Significant tranches of the Bill have yet to see the light of day, and will be introduced by regulation. I noted what the Minister said about that, but I hope that important regulations will be subject to full scrutiny by both Houses. I have already mentioned legislation on insolvency and administration, but other regulations are to come. I understand that discussions are still proceeding with the Minister's Department in relation to clause 7(2) and the position of former members of an llp.
  The main question is whether the DTI will relent on that clause and allow members to agree alternative arrangements to the fixed statutory arrangements. I remind the House of my earlier comments as to the flexibility of the 1890 Act.

  907
  Members of the public and, indeed, professional individuals would be most unwise to enter an llp without full and comprehensive advice from an expert. Presumably, the DTI has considered the foreign law implications of setting up an llp. At first sight, the matter would seem reasonably straightforward—individuals from any jurisdiction can form a UK-based llp. There will obviously be tax considerations, but such an arrangement would not seem inimical to the law of any overseas country, although I should welcome the Minister's comments on that point. Similarly, it would seem to be possible for a person to be a member of an llp that was a limited company that could be registered in any jurisdiction in the world.
  I want to address the impact of revenue law on limited liability partnerships. The Minister has confirmed my understanding that the setting up of an llp is intended to be genuinely tax neutral—for all taxes, including stamp duty. Ministers have made statements to that effect, although they are not wholly correct. The matter depends on the medium in which the trade or profession is carried on immediately before the entity becomes an llp; if two individuals, who are conducting separate trades, decide to combine to form an llp or if an existing partnership or partnerships do so, the arrangement will probably be tax neutral.
  I hope that the converse will apply—that, if an llp decides to dissolve itself into a series of businesses carried on by sole proprietors, a series of partnerships or a partnership, that process, too, will be tax neutral. As I pointed out, since the Finance Act 1998, transitional provisions have brought all firms on to a full earnings basis, rather than their staying on a cash basis. Presumably, such arrangements could be carried over one way or another—I should welcome the Minister's confirmation of that point.
  As I pointed out in interventions on the Minister, a problem will arise when shareholders of a limited company want to form an llp. For about 20 years, Ministers and Inland Revenue officials have been pressed to ease the tax problems—especially those on capital gains—associated with disincorporation. Will the Minister hold consultations with his Treasury colleagues, dust off the disincorporation material and re-examine it? That would add to the flexibility of the UK economy, especially with the formation of this new business entity. There should be few problems in going from sole trader, partnership or llp into a limited company, but to go the other way would pose severe problems.
  Subject to the caveats I have entered, the Bill should put the UK on an equal footing with many of our competitors—most notably the United States and areas of continental Europe where similar provisions already apply. Nevertheless, it is vital to secure proper protection for customers, clients and creditors. The Bill should contain nothing that would relieve individuals of personal responsibility for their actions and for the full extent of their assets.
  Finally, a fundamental principle of the Bill should be that the price for the limitation of liability is full disclosure of the financial affairs of a business and that such information should be readily available to the public.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I apologise to the House for arriving slightly late. For the first time, I discovered the perils of having an office at 7 Millbank—when I read the annunciator screen and had to run to the Chamber.
  I declare an interest as recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. Since last month, I have been parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators—I have been a member of the institute since 1988 and a fellow since 1997. Before I became a Member, among various roles in management and manufacturing industry, I was assistant company secretary from 1988, and group company secretary from 1991 to 1998, of Redland plc, then a multinational UK FTSE 100 building materials company. Furthermore, between 1983 and 1988, I practised as a solicitor in a City of London firm. Although I remain on the roll of solicitors, I have no declarable interest, as I am non-practising. That qualification enabled me to hold the post of company secretary of a public limited company under the Companies Acts.
  I welcome the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on a positive and supportive speech and on his identification of issues that remain to be addressed by the Government. That will ensure that the House improves the Bill so that it is of the quality that our professional and business community has a right to expect from us.
  I pay tribute to the calibre of debate on the Bill in another place. I studied the proceedings in detail in Hansard. Their lordships dealt responsibly and forensically with a range of issues. I am happy to offer my support from the Opposition Benches. As has been mentioned, the previous Conservative Government proposed such a measure.
  From my business experience in this country and abroad, I see the Bill as an important step in acknowledging the reality of the professional and commercial world—in the context of today's multinational companies and partnerships. The Bill is necessary not only to retain competitiveness, but to maintain and increase confidence in the corporate and legal structures for professional and commercial enterprises in the UK—whether large, medium or small—so that they can continue to take on all corners.
  In response to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), plc status is not the answer. Llp status best enables the retention and enhancement of the special culture of partnerships which is not a hallmark of plcs. It is important to understand the essential business ingredient that such a culture represents.
  Mr. Mitchell: In that case, there will be a rush to give us maximum disclosure—as would be appropriate for a plc. If llps want to retain a special culture, the Government are allowing them to do so. There would thus be no objection to further disclosure on, for example, remuneration or internal company accounts—all the information that plcs have to provide.
  Mr. O'Brien: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a long track record in favour of that argument. However, it is based on the false premise that disclosure goes hand in hand with the genuine interest of those who need the

  909
  information. The whole point about partnerships and about llps is that they are a collection of members—they will hold that information among themselves. A plc has many shareholders who have a right to the information. The analogy is not a proper one.
  Mr. Burnett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is in the interests of the public, creditors and clients that, when they deal with a firm with limited liability—because there will be some limited liability—full disclosure should be made?
  Mr. O'Brien: Of course. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. However, that matter is covered by general rules, regulations and laws that will apply as well as the specific provisions of the Bill.
  I shall focus my remarks on one aspect of the Bill, for the very good reason that all the other points have been fully covered in our debate and in the debate in another place, and I do not want to take up the time of the House by rehearsing those arguments. First, however, I offer a mild, general warning. As has been said, the drive for the Bill came mainly from firms or partnerships of accountants, solicitors and other professional services firms—especially larger, often international, firms. This country can rightly boast of our track record of global, competitive success in those fields. However, in our increasingly litigious and insurance-focused society, the pressures and inappropriateness of partners being responsible—down to the shirt on their backs—for liabilities, acts and omissions of other parties are neither competitive nor sensible. It is increasingly unrealistic and unreasonable for partners to have sufficient knowledge to be held personally responsible. I understand that and thus support the Bill.
  However, I draw the House's attention to experience in the United States, where llps have existed for some time. The equivalent corporate structures apply under Californian legislation, as well as under Texas and Delaware law—a point not lost on the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. In large part, they are similar to the structure promulgated under the Bill.
  I have personal knowledge and experience of how rapidly the llp structure came to be widely used for joint ventures such as those between manufacturing companies. There were many advantages, especially when non-US international companies came together in a joint enterprise for no premium. The structure offered relatively favourable tax advantages, as compared with the traditional company.
  The Government should take advice on the matter from their specialist advisers, to ensure that the Bill has been reviewed in the light of the American experience. There must be no unexpected consequences flowing from the Bill if the llp structure is applied beyond the professional partnerships that the Government appear to have had in mind throughout their approach to its drafting and introduction.
  I shall restrict my remaining remarks to matters of which I have experience and know a little about. Clause 8
  910
  deals with designated members. On Second Reading in another place, my noble Friend Baroness Buscombe questioned
  the provisions for service as a designated member of the partnership given, we believe, that the provisions, as drafted, could be open to abuse; for example, as we understand it. an llp could assume as partners one or more offshore companies and register them as designated members, thus making it difficult for the regulatory authorities to ensure compliance or impose penalties.
  I do not agree with my noble Friend's suggestion that
  the concept of designated members be removed from the Bill, making all the partners equally responsible for the llp's conduct, including compliance with the registers.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 1999; Vol. 607, c. 1424.]
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey replied that
  the noble Baroness was afraid of the role of the designated member. That is very specific and similar to the role of the company secretary. It includes a number of the powers placed on the company secretary under the 1985 Act such as the signing and filing of the annual return…It is desirable to keep the concept of a designated member for those purposes so that the authorities know who to approach.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 199; Vol. 607, c. 1443.]
  He added that it was equivalent to the provisions in the Companies Act 1985.
  I understand my noble Friend's concern. I agree with Lord McIntosh's response in terms of the desirability of keeping the requirement, but the matter was developed in Committee in another place, when my noble Friend Baroness Buscombe tabled an amendment to clarify the role of the designated member. She said that the Bill did not appear to explain what a designated member was. Lord McIntosh answered that he understood the difficulty with clause 8:
  It sets up all the conditions under which designated members are to be appointed and changed and how notification is to be given, but it does not state what they will do. I apologise for that…but it would be wrong to limit his role in that way.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 1999: Vol. 608, c. 1387–88.]
  I believe that that problem has not been overcome. The House must ensure that all the terms of good corporate governance that have been learned and applied over the past 15 years are imported into the Bill. One solution, given the broad scale of business most likely to take advantage of llp status, would be to look at the role of secretary for limited companies, as defined under the Companies Acts, and to consider whether those provisions could be imported helpfully and efficiently into the Bill.
  The role of the company secretary is under consideration as part of the Department of Trade and Industry's company law review, and is a matter for consultation. I acknowledge that parallel thinking is going on about the matter.
  I suggest that a designated secretary need not be a member of an llp, just as the Cadbury reforms of corporate governance mean that a company secretary need not be a director of a company. That designated secretary could be appointed—and removed—by all the members.
  I hope that the Minister will consider providing that every llp and its members should have recourse to the advice and support of a named, UK-resident llp secretary. That might meet the concerns expressed by Baroness Buscombe in another place. That llp secretary should be suitably qualified to assist members in safeguarding the llp's rights, advancing its interests and meeting its obligations. The secretary should be able to provide the

  911
  necessary advice and guidance to members about their obligations and responsibilities under relevant laws and regulations.
  The company secretary is often said to act as the conscience of a limited liability company. Under current company law, company secretaries do not have to be chartered secretaries or members of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators. The secretary of a small company can be any person. The secretary of a plc can be a qualified lawyer or accountant, as well as a chartered secretary, so I am not making an exclusive or special plea for chartered secretaries—and in any case the rules of the House would prevent me from doing so, given the interests that I listed at the beginning of my remarks.
  I hope that the Government will consider the proposal that an llp must have a secretary. That would help meet the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. More important, it would enable the members of the llp to give proper regard to the interests of the company as a whole. They would be able to monitor the internal activities of the llp, safeguard the interests of all members and ensure that the interests of employees, creditors and other stakeholders were properly taken into account.
  Llp members, in addition, could be confident that the members were being properly informed, advised and supported, individually and collectively. They would be able to help avoid some of the potential for factionalism that can develop in such firms, and be satisfied that there was someone available to take responsibility for internal disclosure in the llp.
  The proposal could also ensure that the llp's decisions were properly made, recorded and implemented throughout the organisation, and that the decisions of the llp executive were properly interpreted and disseminated. Above all, it would ensure proper compliance with all statutory requirements.
  I have listed my caveat, request and recommendation with regard to the Bill, but I am very happy to support what is a very welcome measure.
  6.37 pm
  Dr. Howells: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate.
  We have had a good and valuable debate. I am pleased that the Bill has aroused so much interest, after an inauspicious start when the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) seemed to be on his way out of the Chamber. I was glad that he did a U-turn and came back in. The debates in Committee should be interesting, and I shall try to deal with some of the many questions that have been raised this evening.
  First, however, I want to thank the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). His criticisms were constructive and he made some kind remarks about the way in which the Government have taken the Bill forward.
  The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked about the imposition of fines and the power to imprison people for offences. The treatment applied to llps in that regard will be the same as that which applies to companies. The offences in the Companies Act 1985 were agreed to be appropriate for corporate entities such as companies. The Government intend only to apply the same offences and penalties to llps.
  912
  There is no reason why a member of an llp should suffer a lesser penalty than the director of a company for the same offence. I hope that that answer goes some way to satisfying some of the criticisms raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), to which I shall turn in more detail in a moment.
  The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton also said that the Law Society wanted the Administration of Justice Act 1960 to be amended to enable solicitors to become llps. Departmental officials have been discussing the matter with the Law Society and the Lord Chancellor's Department, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the legislation governing solicitors is very complex. Further consideration is being given to the necessary changes and to how they could be given legislative effect.
  The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked about default provisions, which will be set out in regulation, as clause 5(1)(b) makes clear. I see no strong reason to put the regulations on the face of the Bill. They will apply in default, where there is no agreement, or where an agreement is inadequate. It is not usual for default provisions to appear in primary legislation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby made some vehement criticisms. I very much welcome his contribution, which was infused with the crusading spirit that he deployed on behalf of the victims of a number of prominent and disgraceful scams in which, I am afraid, accountancy firms played a shoddy and collusive role. In a sense, he asked a question: why should businesses have to organise themselves as a company to gain limited liability, provided that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect clients and third parties? I wonder what harm there is in that choice if the safeguards are there.
  Creation of limited liability partnerships will allow our businesses to compete internationally with those already organised as llps overseas. That is an important issue. It is no good having companies if they cannot compete with similar companies overseas. We shall lose jobs, services and expertise in the long run. That point must be made, as it is a very important one for businesses that operate globally.
  Many firms wish to maintain a partnership ethos, with every member having a stake in the business and a role in management as well as operating in good faith towards fellow members. It is difficult, particularly for a large firm, to sustain such an ethos in a company structure. Several hon. Members have made that point and it is important.
  My hon. Friend asked with great energy whether the Bill was not just a sop to the accountancy profession. Indeed, much sniping has suggested that the Bill is a concession to the profession. That is not the case. As I have said, there is no reason why businesses should have to organise themselves as a company to obtain limited liability, provided that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect clients and third parties. The Bill, along with the intended regulations, will achieve an appropriate level of protection.
  In addition, the llp will not be restricted to accountants nor even to professionals. We took the decision some time ago that the llp will be available to any firm of two or more people. We expect that it will prove attractive to start-up businesses that may or may not be comprised of professionals. Although the internal organisation of the llp

  913
  will be for its members to agree—that agreement will remain confidential to them—the intention is to make regulations that will apply appropriately modified provisions from company law. Clauses 14 and 15 provide powers to do that. That means that members and/or the llp itself can be pursued, for example, for wrongful or fraudulent trading—a point that was at the heart of my hon. Friend's criticisms. The llp can also be investigated and members can be disqualified from being a member of an llp and from being a director of a company. Specific provision will be made to ensure that members cannot siphon off funds in the event of insolvency. Regulations will also require llps to file financial information equivalent to that required of a company.
  My hon. Friend's underlying criticism related to the regulation of professionals. I want to be clear; it is not the Bill's function to regulate professional activity. Where regulation for a particular activity is thought necessary, the activity—not the entity through which it operates—will be regulated. Regulation will be achieved through a mixture of statutory and non-statutory regulation. That means that it does not matter whether a professional chooses to operate as a partnership, a company, a sole trader or, in future, as an llp. If the activity is regulated, it will continue to be regulated regardless of what status the professional chooses for his business.
  That does not mean that I am unsympathetic to my hon. Friend's arguments about the regulation of professions. I am glad that the Office of Fair Trading has decided, at long last, to take a good look at the way in which some professions operate. However, that is not what the Bill is about.
  My hon. Friend raised the question of company law review and auditor liability. The consultation document published by the company law review steering group in March invited comments on a number of issues relating to the audit and the auditor. In particular, the document expressed the view that there was a need both to extend the range of the auditor's duty of care and to ensure that that extension is not abused. It was suggested that that should be done by introducing effective constraints on the circumstances in which claims can be made. I see no need at this time to take any more of the House's time on the issue of auditor liability, but it is under discussion by the company law review steering group, which has yet to reach any conclusions.
  My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon asked about the disclosure of members' earnings. Regulations will require that the earnings of the highest paid members will have to be disclosed, and total earnings will also be disclosed, as will the total number of members. It will therefore be possible for someone to work out the average earnings.
  My hon. Friend asked whether it would not be wise to require some form of capital maintenance or a guarantee from members to ensure financial provision in the event of difficulties. We have considered carefully the concerns expressed about the lack of minimum capital requirements, which would be similar to those made of companies, or the lack of some kind of financial guarantee from members in the event of failure. In practice, private companies are able to hold capital worth as little as £1 and public companies are required to hold at least £50,000. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out, those sums seem
  914
  irrelevant when creditors may be owed tens of millions of pounds or, as in the case of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, billions of pounds.
  A minimum capital requirement does not necessarily translate into the availability of funds in the event of insolvency. Even so, some have argued that there is a public interest in protecting less well informed consumers—who do not expect to become a creditor when purchasing goods or services from an llp—to a greater degree than the level to which they are protected when they deal with partnerships or companies. However, as I am sure my hon. Friend will acknowledge, the difficulty is devising a regime that, while allowing for a reasonable level of funding to protect creditors, is not so burdensome as to prevent firms from setting up in business or to discourage them from trading through difficulties.
  The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon asked about the overseas members of partnerships. Some firms—for example, a professional firm with branches in the United States—may have members who operate overseas. For a partnership, if the partner in London is negligent, the partner in America is jointly and severally liable to the full extent of his assets. In an llp, the American partner would not run such a risk even if it were possible for a claim to be made successfully against the London partner.
  Mr. Burnett: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Howells: I may give way in a moment, but I would like to move on.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about accounting requirements. Traditionally, in United Kingdom legislation, the quid pro quo for limited liability is seen to be financial disclosure. It is right that those dealing with a business that has limited liability should be able to discover basic information about its financial status. I agree with him entirely on that. Our intention is thus to require equivalent financial disclosure as between an llp and a company. Using the power in clause 15, it is intended to make regulations applying to llps under the accounts and audit provisions of the Companies Act 1985, but with appropriate modifications. They will achieve financial disclosure equivalent to that required of a company.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the ability to have salaried partners in an llp.
  Mr. Burnett: Salaried members.
  Dr. Howells: Salaried members, I am sorry. Anyone who wishes to become a member of an llp must be registered as such at Companies House and clause 6 will make that person an agent of the llp. As such, the llp will be liable for his actions. If a client can prove that a member owed him a duty of care and was liable for it, the member would be liable.
  Mr. Burnett: What about an employee?
  Dr. Howells: The partner would be liable: the employee would not be liable.
  I shall move on, as the hon. Gentleman asked many questions, some of which I shall try to answer. He asked about clause 7 and queried the need to reconsider the

  915
  position of a former member. The Law Society raised concerns about the Bill's drafting and we are considering whether we agree that there is a potential problem. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is receiving due attention.
  The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members asked wide, but vital, questions about accounting requirements. As I said, in UK legislation, the quid pro quo for limited liability has traditionally been seen to be financial disclosure. The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby asked whether accounting requirements on llps will be different from what is currently in place for companies. Broadly speaking, the answer is no. The accounting requirements on llps will be comparable to those for companies. The detail to be provided in llps' accounts will be comparable to that provided by companies, but the information given will reflect their different structure. For example, llps will not have share capital and will not pay dividends.
  It is intended that all llps will provide information in the notes to the accounts about the aggregate amounts withdrawn or applied on behalf of members during the financial year. That, along with the requirement to disclose the earnings of the highest-paid member in cases in which profit exceeds £200,000, will help creditors to make an informed decision about whether it is in their interest to trade with a particular llp.
  I believe that the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) asked whether the Bill should clarify the role of a designated member by including a specific definition of a designated member; or at least he reflected concerns that were voiced in another place about the matter. We do not believe that a definition would make the role of a designated member any clearer than current provisions in the Bill and regulations. We followed the format adopted in the Companies Act, which imposes duties and powers on an officer of the company. There is no single definition of an officer's role in that Act. As an llp would be a legal entity separate from a limited company, it was felt that it would be more appropriate to have a different title to avoid confusion.
  Several powers placed on a company secretary under the Companies Act, such as the signing of the annual return, will be transferred to a designated member. However, the designated member's responsibilities, such as appointing auditors, will go beyond those of a company secretary.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about designated members and offshore members. An llp must have two designated members and a registered office in England, Wales or Scotland. We do not believe, therefore, that we need to prevent an offshore member being a designated member. Indeed, an officer of a company can be based offshore. If
  916
  there is a breach, the llp can be pursued, regardless of whether the designated member is based overseas or in this country.
  I hope that I have attempted to answer all the questions that were raised and I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the making of provision about the taxation of limited liability partnerships and their members, and

  (b) the imposition by regulations under the Act of fees payable into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Pope.]

  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    DEFENCE
    That the draft Army, Air Force and Navy Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.

    TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
    That the draft National Minimum Wage (Increase in Development Rate for Young Workers) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) and Order of 11 May,

    TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS
    That the draft Code of Practice: Access to Workers During Recognition and Derecognition Ballots, which was laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Question agreed to.

  Insurance for Members
  6.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
  That, in the opinion of this House,—

  (1) provision should be made for the insurance of Members of this House in relation to the performance of their duties as Members under arrangements (including financial limits to the cover provided) made from time to time with the approval of the Leader of this House and the Speaker;

  (2) subject to the terms and conditions of any policy effected under the approved arrangements, the insurance for which provision is made under paragraph (1) of this Resolution may cover the following—

  (a) travel;

  (b) personal accident;

  (c) personal accident in respect of employees of Members;

  (d) employers' liability and public liability;

  (e) the cost of defending a civil claim for defamation and of payment in respect of any award made by a court in such a claim, where the act complained of was not covered by parliamentary privilege but arose from a Member's duty as a Member; and

  (3) arrangements made for insurance of the type mentioned under paragraph (2)(a) and (b) above may provide for the spouses of Members to be covered as well as Members themselves.

  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
  That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made to reimburse Mr. Peter Luff, honourable Member for Mid-Worcestershire, for legal costs incurred in respect of his duties as a Member of this House in defence of an action for libel in the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) which was dismissed and the Plaintiff's statement of claim struck out by Order dated 16th April 1999.
  Mr. Tipping: Insurance schemes for Members of Parliament and the case of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) are a relatively small but significant issue for the House.
  The motions arise from the need to protect hon. Members in an increasingly litigious age and are complex because we have taken the opportunity to do some administrative tidying, as I shall explain later.
  Unfortunately, as society becomes more litigious, Members are increasingly faced with the threat of legal action. Parliamentary privilege provides absolute protection against legal action in respect of things said in the course of proceedings in Parliament. However, in an age of modern communication, Members do not carry out their function as Members only in the course of parliamentary proceedings. We all carry out a public role outside the House where, quite rightly, there is no legal protection.
  As public figures, Members are open to the threat of defamation actions. They are not unique in that, but the lack of support available to them is unusual. Public officials, for example, are given public assistance to defend such actions and, in extreme cases, may also be given assistance to bring them. If Ministers are accused of defamation as a consequence of their ministerial duties, they will have their ministerial and legal costs met. However, Back-Bench Members of Parliament are not so protected.
  918
  The experience of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire provides an illustration of the difficulties that Members of Parliament can face. A prisoner at Long Lartin had taken action against the local postmistress for failing to deliver his Financial Times. The hon. Gentleman was reported as saying that the action was ridiculous, and he was sued for defamation, together with the newspapers concerned. The action was eventually struck out, and the prisoner was declared a vexatious litigant. However, the hon. Gentleman was left with a personal liability for legal expenses of more than £2,000 which would have been far higher if The Sun newspaper had not joined in the action.
  It could be argued that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were not strictly related to his business as an Member of Parliament. I reject that assertion, as we value the link to our constituents. Fair, not defamatory, comment on issues of concern or interest to them is crucial in maintaining that link. It would be a strange world indeed if the only person unable to comment on pressing issues was the local Member of Parliament, silenced through fear of aggressive or unfounded actions for defamation. I hope that the House agrees that the hon. Gentleman's action in responding to press queries falls within the wider definition of the duties of a Member of Parliament, and will reimburse him.
  In principle, this case could be taken as a precedent. The House could be asked to judge any later cases on their merits, which would be profoundly unsatisfactory. Leaving aside the parliamentary time that might be taken on such business, we would have to judge the actions of our colleagues, and we are aware of the difficulties in doing that. Moreover, not all cases would be as clear-cut as the hon. Gentleman's and, if proceedings for defamation were brought against any one of us, we would have to incur costs without knowing how much financial support would be available or, indeed, whether financial support would be given at all.
  We considered whether help could be given through the Treasury solicitors, but rejected that. If they were used, the House authorities would have had to refer cases to them and they would be in the invidious position of having to screen Members' requests for assistance. In addition, a Treasury solicitor might well be unable to provide support if a case came to court.
  A legal insurance scheme, on the other hand, covers all those who might come forward. Premiums can be adjusted if demand is higher or lower than expected, and the level of cover can be adjusted in the light of experience, to ensure that it is realistic without being over-generous. The insurer, not the House authorities, will be responsible for deciding the admissibility of cases and an unsatisfactory insurer could be changed. We consider that the most practicable route to provide Members with some limited protection.
  The first motion invites the House to give authority for expenditure on an insurance scheme for Members to meet limited legal expenses that may arise from defending defamation actions. If cover is fixed at, say, £10,000 per Member, the cost to cover all hon. Members is estimated to be around £18,000 a year. That can be met from the amount currently voted to the House.
  I now come to the administrative tidying that I mentioned earlier. There is already a range of insurance policies in force on behalf of Members, as the motion

  919
  shows. These were originally borne on the Administration vote, and authority for them was properly given by the Commission. They have now been transferred to the Members' vote, which is not the Commission's responsibility.
  The insurance for legal expenses will also fall to that vote, which is why the House as a whole, rather than the Commission, is being invited to approve it. It would be administratively odd to have two separate sources of authority for different sub-divisions of the same expenditure borne on the same vote, so the motion invites the House to put all sorts of expenditure on insurance on the same footing.
  Finally, let us be clear about the legal expenses insurance that we propose. It is extremely limited. It is only to assist hon. Members defending themselves against defamation suits. It will not help them to bring defamation proceedings. In effect, it is a shield, not a sword. It will not be over-generous. It simply provides a minimal protection against misguided or vexatious litigants. It is a small but significant measure, but I hope that it will enable us to continue to do our jobs properly and confidently. I commend the motions to the House.
  7.1 pm
  Sir George Young: I support the motions. This is a House of Commons matter, on which Conservative Members will have a free vote, if there is one. I support the proposals and have added my name to the motions, along with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
  I begin by making three general points. First, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, we live in an increasingly litigious world in which more and more people sue each other. Whether the phenomenon has been imported from the United States, or whether it has come about because people are better educated and more assertive of their rights or because solicitors are more proactive is, in a sense, irrelevant. We are where we are.
  Secondly, professional people are increasingly in the firing line: teachers, doctors, accountants—as we heard in the earlier debate—solicitors, social workers and Members of Parliament. The Parliamentary Secretary described how my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) was involved, and I am sure that other hon. Members have had their own experiences.
  I had a case some 10 years ago, when a book was published by Canary Press entitled "Thatcherism goes to College", written by one Matthew Salusbury. Views allegedly held by one George K. Young were wrongly attributed to me, including holocaust denial. If one does not challenge such an assertion, it remains on the record; if one does challenge it, there is the risk of costs. Happily, in that case, the book was withdrawn, a handsome letter of apology was sent, and my costs were paid. That shows the risks that we all run of finding ourselves in the firing line through no fault of our own.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester): Perhaps I misheard that example. Was there not a case in which my right hon. Friend was defamed, rather than allegedly defaming?
  Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right, but such a case would not have been covered.
  920
  My third general point is that, to my knowledge, no Member of Parliament has been sued for the advice that we give in our advice bureaux. Of course we all do our best, not least by directing people to the right answers if we do not have them ourselves. None the less, we dispense advice on which people act, and it may not always be right. I find it amazing that so far, none of us has been sued by any of our constituents for what happens in our advice bureaux.
  Against that background, I find the proposals before the House justifiable, focused and cost effective. Defamation is damaging for anyone, but it is particularly damaging for a Member of Parliament who has to face re-election every four or five years, and our reputation is a major factor in the outcome.
  The costs of defending defamation can be high. They are not eligible under the office cost allowances, and an hon. Member may not have the resources available to defend himself. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, assistance is available only when the case arises from an hon. Member's duty, and it is available only for the defence of a case, not for the initiation of one. The House should keep the matter under review.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and warmly welcome the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House about the sorts of protection that apply in other countries, and the extent of such protection?
  Sir George Young: No, I cannot do that. One of the advantages of being in opposition is that one does not have to reply to a debate. There is someone who is very well briefed and in a far better position than I am. When he winds up the debate, I am sure that he will give my hon. Friend enormous detail of what happens in other cases.
  It is entirely justifiable to reimburse my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire with the expenses that he incurred, and it is entirely right to extend to other hon. Members prospectively the protection that we have extended to him. We should keep the matter under review. I hope that the motion meets the approval of the House.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Joe Ashton: I warmly welcome the measure, which is long overdue. When I first came into the House 32 years ago, there were a great many more whistleblowers who used the House to expose the wrongdoings of bad landlords, child abuse and other social issues. They knew that this place would protect them. People would say, "If you say that outside, I'll issue a writ."
  All too often, people outside who were not acting in the public interest got away with all sorts of misdemeanours—not crimes, perhaps, but unfair sharp practices on the public—because although constituents went to their Member of Parliament about the matter, he could not find a peg to hang it on so that he could speak about it in the House, except perhaps through an early-day motion. In my opinion, that is one of the best means available in the House, providing a platform and a notice board on which to redress grievances.
  As everyone knows, I was a whistleblower many times. I was the first guy ever to say that Members of Parliament were available for hire, back in 1974, when I wrote it in

  921
  "Labour Weekly" and repeated it on the "Jimmy Young" show. I was hauled up for contempt of the House and it looked as though I would be thrown out. I said that I would stand again as honest Joe and that I would win the by-election, and I would have done, because I could have proved what I had said.
  That is a very unhappy experience to go through. As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) knows, the trauma and the effect on one's family and constituents is devastating. Those are deterrents and we must be careful, but the House and its Members should undertake scrutiny. We should not rely on consumer affairs watchdogs on television, with the time limits and possible libel actions that they face, always having to get things approved by the lawyers.
  Members of Parliament should have the right to expose constituency rip-offs, consumers who are being abused and health service cases that should be brought to public attention, but everyone knows that a libel case would cost an hon. Member his house if he tried to defend it. Lawyers' costs can be £500,000 for a week in court. That is ridiculous. I am not saying that it is a deliberate gag on Members of Parliament, but any small business man who feels offended can slap a writ on a Member of Parliament, which will hang over him for two years. That is a severe deterrent to hon. Members doing their jobs.
  I have been threatened many times about articles that I have written in trade union magazines. I once wrote that a Press Association report about me was garbled, and the editor of the Press Association claimed that that was libellous. A company as big as the Press Association wanted to sue one Member of Parliament for using one word, because I had said that one of its reports was garbled. Where will it end?
  Over the years, hon. Members have backed off. There used to be many libel cases involving Members of Parliament, and hon. Members often sued newspapers. If the newspapers got it wrong and reported that one had abstained in a defence debate when, in fact, one had voted, they would pay up, because the report was defamatory to the hon. Member and his constituents. It was defamatory to suggest that a Member had never visited his constituency.
  All sorts of rules and regulations were laid down. A very good friend of mine, Arthur Davidson QC, the former Member of Parliament for Accrington, was also the Daily Express libel lawyer. Members on both sides of the House used to go to him and say, "Arthur, isn't this libellous?". He would reply, "No, it is just abuse: you have got to live with that". He was well aware of the fine line between the two, and we have always had to tread such a tightrope.
  The motion does not make it clear whether libel, in this context, would cover only what we have said outside the House, or what we have written as well. Obviously we should not defame our colleagues, even those on the opposite side; but if it is a matter of record and history, where do we stand?
  I have just been asked to write a book. I had to go into the Library and find out whether certain Members of Parliament were dead. Indeed, I had to ask the Pensions Office whether they were dead. That was not because I was writing anything that I thought was libellous,
  922
  but because of considerations relating to my publisher. In such circumstances, one dare not take risks with history. I am not saying that we should all go away and start scribbling all sorts of abusive nonsense and lies, but there must be an outlet for honest appraisals of history, and descriptions of what happened behind the scenes.
  I once wrote a book about what happened in the Whips Office when we had a majority of one. Indeed, at one stage we had a minority of 10, and were carrying Members in on stretchers. I was told that I could not do it because, as a Whip, I was covered by the Official Secrets Act: I had sworn an oath that it was not possible to break, even years later. Recently, just after losing his seat, Gyles Brandreth wrote a book. Good luck to him, but I had to make my book into a play, as if it were fiction. I only changed the names; everything in the play had really happened.
  There must be some sort of control, but we are here to represent the public interest. Newspapers often plead—rightly, in my view—that if revealing something is in the public interest, and if it is revealed fairly, accurately and truthfully, it should be revealed. However, an investigative journalist of that kind, or someone who stands out as a maverick, may destroy his career, if he ever had one. Certainly, a politician will never be made a Minister if it is thought that he will reveal things: that is the last thing that is wanted. Such politicians remain Back Benchers, and I am very glad that that applies to some of my hon. Friends who have acted in this way many times. My hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), among others, have rightly made a career out of exposing wrongdoings—perhaps not criminal wrongdoings, but certainly activities that were unfair, unjust and not in the public interest.
  I congratulate the Government on the motion. I hope that it will restore to Parliament some of the characteristics that it had 25 or 30 years ago, when I arrived here. In those days, people spoke out because they felt strongly that things were not right and should be exposed. I do not know whether the motion requires a Bill or merely constitutes a statement, but I hope that the Government would vigorously defend any Member who they thought had said or written something that was fair, true, accurate and in the public interest against a gagging writ, or against threats or pressure in the courts.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: On behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I support the motions. First, however, let me make a general point. We are here, rightly, to protect the interests of Members of Parliament, but I hope—I am looking at the Government Front Bench as I say this—that it will not be too long before we address the problem of protecting our staff in our constituency offices. That problem is urgent. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern since my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) was the victim of a tragic attack, and his colleague and friend was killed. There is a recognition that the security of staff in constituency offices is as important as the issue that we are debating now. As we are all receiving advice from the police about the measures that should be taken—and they are costly measures—I hope that the Government recognise that advice from them is required as well.

  923
  I am pleased that the motions have been kept relatively simple, because we are in danger of developing a whole new bureaucracy. I was glad to hear from the Minister that the provision would be as simple as possible, and that the criteria would be as straightforward as possible. The last thing we want is for lawyers to do well out of this; rather, we want to protect the rightful interests of Members of Parliament and their constituents.
  Along with Members of the other place, I sat for some 18 months on the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. I learnt a huge amount about the privileges of Parliament. The first and most obvious point is that we are talking about the privilege not of a Member of Parliament, but of the institution of Parliament, enabling us to serve our constituents better. As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said, our job in this place is not to protect our personal interests, but to ensure that, in representing our constituents' interests, we are free, fearless and able to represent those interests properly. We must ensure that, as parliamentarians, we are free from the external pressures that have already been described, so that we can do a proper job—as we would say in Cornwall—for our constituents, and for the wider public.
  I noted from my experience in Committee that there are differing degrees of privilege. There is absolute privilege, and there is qualified privilege. If this evening we make suggestions about the merits and motives of an outside body or individual, we will be covered by absolute privilege in this place, as we are in Committee. If in a letter to a Minister we make an allegation that is in theory actionable, there is a question mark over that. If the correspondence between us, as Members of Parliament, and Ministers is published to a third party, it is not covered in the same way. We must therefore be very careful.
  If we walk out of the Chamber and appear with Jeremy Paxman, making exactly the same point about an external person that is actionable outside this place, we will not be covered by privilege. What is recorded in this place, however—on paper, on tape or in a sound broadcast—is privileged: it is covered by the absolute privilege of Parliament.
  I am sure all Members would agree that the last thing we want to do, by means of the limited cover that we are introducing, is to encourage Members to be irresponsible. That is not the purpose of the exercise; the purpose of the exercise is to ensure that we are able fully to undertake our responsibilities without fear or favour. It is also true—I am sure that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw was right about this—that one of our jobs here is occasionally to blow the whistle. I have done it myself in the past, and have suffered the slings and arrows from the organisations that I have questioned.
  I do not think that we want to encourage Members themselves to be more litigious; that, too, is a trap that we must avoid. I was recently subject to what was, compared with the cases mentioned this evening, a relatively minor incident. In a column in Punch, I was said to have "cashed in" on outside interests, and to be "on the payroll" of an outside company. That is because I was a shareholder in a steam railway company—well, I was; I no longer am. Anyone who has ever had an interest in a steam railway will know that one can never make any money out of it. One puts in £50 to give a bit of encouragement. If every shareholder in any company was said to be "on the
  924
  Payroll", for goodness sake, it would change their status completely and dramatically—let alone the question of "cashing in".
  In this case, I have consulted my legal friends, even distinguished members of my parliamentary party. I think that the charge could be much greater than anything I could get out of them. But, as Punch is owned by a certain gentleman who is famous for his brown envelopes, I am still waiting to see whether a brown envelope will arrive to pay me off for the way in which my reputation has been damaged by this slur. However, I do not think anyone reads Punch nowadays, so perhaps it is not so serious.
  The issue tonight is important, because it goes to the heart of our responsibilities to our constituents and the nation. We must be protected to do our job properly. I am delighted to support the motion, but, as I said at the outset, I hope that before too long the Minister will come back and give advice also on the important issue of protecting our staff.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I declare an interest as a barrister who specialises in defamation law. I have an interest in the motions that we are considering that is perhaps greater than any other hon. Member's. First, I may benefit if I am sued for defamation as a Member of Parliament. Secondly, I may benefit as one of the few barristers in England and Wales whose practice specialises in defamation law. I also advised in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on the instructions of his solicitors, before it was taken up by the national newspaper to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred. As one would expect, I was paid promptly by my hon. Friend. Despite the successful outcome for him, he has not been reimbursed by the unsuccessful claimant for my modest fees or for those of his solicitor.
  When the Defamation Act 1996 was progressing through the House, I was invited, in the cosy way of Government Whips, not to contribute to debates on the Floor of the House. I was also kept off the Standing Committee because it was said that I knew too much about the subject. People who knew anything about a specialised area of public policy were apparently not required to assist in the formation of law.
  I disagreed with some of the provisions of the 1996 Act and refused to support the amendment to the Bill of Rights to please Mr. Neil Hamilton. He wholly misunderstood the nature of the relationship between a Member of Parliament and the Bill of Rights. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, the Bill of Rights was passed to protect not individual Members of Parliament but our constituents, who rely on us to speak fearlessly for them in the House.
  Mr. Hamilton would have done better to leave the law of defamation well alone. As a general rule, that is advice that most people—Members of Parliament or otherwise—should consider carefully, whether they are potential claimants or defendants. Perhaps it is surprising to many hon. Members that the aggrieved party will often accept a proper apology and, if appropriate, a public apology instead of demanding damages and an injunction. However, some cases are not capable of settlement. When Members of Parliament are not claimants, but defendants,

  925
  and thus involuntary parties to a defamation action that cannot be settled, they should have some financial protection.
  The Minister said that such protection would be minimal. However, minimal protection is no protection. When the scheme's details are worked out, I hope that something more than minimal protection will be provided. Although we do not want to tie the Minister down to details this evening, we should be grateful if he could present some general figures.
  As Members of Parliament, we should not be too proud to admit that we are wrong about something, whether in correspondence with a Minister, a local government official, or a chief constable, or in our speeches, press releases or letters to the national and local press. We are rightly protected by absolute privilege when we speak in the Chamber and elsewhere in the proceedings of the House. On other occasions, we may be protected by qualified privilege: if we are actuated by malice, we lose the protection. However, if we say something that we later discover to be untrue, we should not resort to that insurance fund too willingly, but reach a sensible solution outside litigation and without the assistance of lawyers and the public's money.
  In the short time available to me since the motions were tabled by the Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and the hon. Member for North Cornwall, I have not been able to research the position in other countries in detail. Doubtless my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will be desperately sad about that. However, I can briefly describe the position in Canada and France.
  Members of the Canadian House of Commons are entitled to participate in various insurance plans, which include the public service management insurance plan, health care plans, a dental care plan, group special risk insurance and flight insurance. In some cases, coverage is automatic; in others, it is optional. Extended coverage is available on application. The coverage of insurance plans in Canada is not as wide as the motions that we are considering.
  If a Member of the Canadian House of Commons incurs liability or legal costs in relation to the matters that we are considering, he or she may apply to the Board of Internal Economy—a wonderful name—for reimbursement. Applications are decided on a case-by-case basis. Some types of liability, such as a constituent injuring himself or herself—that may have some resonance for the hon. Member for North Cornwall—would probably be covered by the Canadian House of Commons if it occurred within the parliamentary precincts. If the injury occurs in a constituency office outside Ottawa, the Member would apply for reimbursement if he or she had not purchased insurance.
  In France, the National Assembly is covered by an insurance scheme for civil liability. It covers only the activities of the institution, not those of its members. The Assembly has signed a convention with a well-known insurance company to cover accidents that may occur to Deputies during an official trip. French Deputies are also covered by legislation on work accidents. By and large,
  926
  there is a far wider definition of parliamentary privilege in other countries, and the activities of a Member of Parliament are more widely covered.
  There was speculation that the Scottish parliamentary corporate body had agreed to pay some or all the legal costs of Lord Watson of Invergowrie to defend himself against a challenge in the Court of Session about his conduct on his proposed anti-hunting Bill. However, the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish parliamentary corporate body has made no official statement.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer, and I am sure that he could give us excellent advice. I want to ask him a simple question. People have tried to sue me on three occasions in 20 years. On each occasion, I have refused to appoint a lawyer and nothing has happened; the attempts have fizzled out. I wonder whether hon. Members realise that we can do that; we can simply ignore such attempts. If the case is invalid, it seems to fall away.
  Mr. Garnier: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his successful inactivity. I am not here to give general legal advice; that would be dangerous. However, it is not always safe for any defendant to do nothing, whether he is a Member of Parliament or not. One has to be extremely careful that the aggrieved complainant does not get judgment in default. In that case, damages may be assessed. If one does nothing about it, the plaintiff can execute judgment against the non-attending defendant. I shall leave the matter there before I am accused of advertising. That would never do.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: It has occurred to me in the past 17 years here that if one writes letters carefully, one is fairly safe. For example, one can use the old phrases, "I'm given to understand;" "Could you please comment?" Perhaps we should teach Members of Parliament to write letters so that they do not get sued.
  Mr. Garnier: Doubtless the hon. Gentleman will be putting up his placard along the Library Corridor so that Members of Parliament who need his advice will be able to find him.
  Mr. Bermingham: I declare an interest.
  Mr. Garnier: I do not want to take up too much time because those who spoke before me were commendably brief. However, provision exists for the protection of elected councillors. It is unclear where exactly the provision can be found. However, section 111(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 states:
  a local authority shall have power to do any thing (whether or not involving the expenditure, borrowing or lending of money or the acquisition or disposal of any property or rights) which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions.
  I know from personal experience that, under that section, local authorities have been able to fund the defence of libel actions brought by aggrieved members of the public against councillors.
  Mr. Tipping: Another route that local authorities take is that which we propose—the use of an insurance fund.
  Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention because it enables me to ask him some

  927
  questions directly. Given paragraph (1) of motion 9, will the insurance be provided by one policy to cover all Members of Parliament or may Members negotiate their own private policies and pay for them from either their office costs allowance or other parliamentary funds? What is the annual estimated cost of the insurance? He said that £10,000 per Member of cover would cost about £18,000 a year for the entire House. I do not want to sound like a bleeding heart, but, with the greatest respect, £10,000 of legal costs does not go far in the defence of a legal action. I say in my own defence that the charge to my much afflicted, but highly respected hon. Friend the Member for Mid—Worcestershire was a good deal less than that. I shall not mention the figure, but I do not mind if he does. However, it was but a fraction of £10,000, although costs build up.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Garnier: I will, but I am embarrassed about the time that I am taking up.
  Miss McIntosh: I do not wish to encroach on my hon. and learned Friend's time, but he refers to French and other jurisdictions in Europe where those Members of Parliament are covered whether they are in or outside the House of which they are Members. Is he convinced that the insurance will cover all situations?
  Mr. Garnier: I am not convinced because I do not know the details of the insurance policy. When I do, I shall no doubt be able to answer that question with greater confidence.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my hon. and learned Friend clarify something? I understood him to say that Members should contribute to the insurance policy from their office allowance, but did he mean to imply that Members should take out the insurance separately? He will know that insurance is not available for defamation or libel actions.
  Mr. Garnier: On the last point, such insurance is available. On the first point, I neither said what my hon. Friend suggests I said, nor did I want anyone to draw such an inference. I asked the Minister to explain whether one insurance policy would cover the House and all its Members or whether we could negotiate our own private insurance policies and have the cost of the premium funded by the House in one way or another. He may be able to deal with that.
  What will be the financial limits under paragraph (2)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)? We are not dealing only with defamation, so what financial limits are proposed? Who will administer the relationship between the Member of Parliament and the insurance cover?
  When the Nolan committee first reported in 1996, it said in relation to board members of public bodies:
  The government should seek to ensure broad consistency and adequate protection in respect of the personal liability of all appointed or elected members, directors, trustees, or others responsible for bodies providing public services.
  928
  It suggested that the Government should make proper funding arrangements for the protection of appointed directors or members of public bodies so that they would not be left out of pocket if sued in carrying out their public duties.
  Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Garnier: I will, but I hope that my hon. Friend will notice that time is marching on.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend; giving way is a penance for his being an expert on the subject. Is it his understanding that the insurance proposal would cover a Back Bencher defending a defamation action brought against him or her by a Minister?
  Mr. Garnier: I do not know that my hon. Friend, who is a highly intelligent Member, needs my explanation of the words of the motion; they are self-explanatory, but unclear in their detail. If he knows of such a case, no doubt he will have drawn it to the attention of someone outside the House so that he can be properly advised. I do not want to give him off-the-cuff advice at this juncture.
  Other bodies, such as housing associations and the national health service, provide for their members—whether lay directors or lay trust members—to be indemnified, but the position is not uniform and we are unable to fit the scheme proposed by the Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and the hon. Member for North Cornwall into any particular category or box. If we are to have our own scheme—which I would applaud, for all the reasons advanced by the Minister, my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman—it must be of sufficient capacity genuinely to protect Members of Parliament. As I said at the outset in response to the Minister's remarks, minimal protection is no protection at all.
  I urge the Minister, the Leader of the House and others to study the schemes made available by the national health service executive, the National Housing Federation and other public bodies, for example, to ensure that we provide a system that is just and not extravagant, but which none the less meets the obvious needs of Members. This is my final word: it is generally far better to say, "Sorry, I have got it wrong," than to involve lawyers.
  7.37 pm
  Mrs. Fiona Jones: Although I support the motion, I thought carefully about speaking in the debate because I seek to distance myself from action against Members taken by the press. Hon. Members will be aware of my difficulties in relation to my court case: a picture of my children was consistently used in the newspapers. This is not a political issue; all Members would have sympathy with that. I accept that, as a Member or an individual, I have the right to take action against newspapers for what they may have said against me during and after my court case. However, to this day I do not accept that they had a right to use a picture of my children, who have no connection with my actions as an individual.

  929
  The Press Complaints Commission let me down significantly. It said that, because a picture of my children had been used with my permission, it was acceptable for the photograph to be used in the newspapers. I do not accept that. It has been suggested that the motion should include Members' staff, but infringements of Members' privacy should be carefully considered, especially if minors are involved. My children were extremely distressed because their photograph was widely published in the national newspapers. I was unable to take action against any body for using the picture because of involved circumstances in which a local newspaper, which apparently held the copyright of the photograph, passed that photograph informally to a press agency. I would never have allowed a press agency to photograph my children, but the costs involved effectively prevented me from taking the case to court.
  I feel strongly—I hope that most Members on both sides of the House will agree—that there is no excuse for the media using photographs of children in relation to anything that we might do as Members of the House of Commons, regardless of whether we are right or wrong in what we say.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I declare an interest in the Register of Members' Interests: various parts of the media have paid substantial legal costs in actions where I have been the plaintiff. On a number of occasions, they have paid substantial damages, too. May I say how much I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)? If people have made a mistake, the best thing is to say so straight away in public, and to offer to say so to whomever the aggrieved person would like it to be said to.
  As it happens, recently a non-national newspaper published material that was seriously defamatory about me. I rang the editor and he sent me a letter that day saying, "Sorry, we have made a mistake." We met two days later on the first available working day. The matter was resolved with no expense, lawyers or lasting damage to me as the victim. It was an honest mistake, openly acknowledged and dealt with. If, as a Member of Parliament, I find myself as the defendant in a legal action, I hope that I will have the perception to understand if that is the case, and to say so and dispose of the matter.
  The motions are about different circumstances. I have two questions, which the Minister may or may not be able to answer now. First, I should like an assurance that similar cover is available to all Officers of the House. It may be those in the catering department, it may be the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, or it may be heaven knows who—if they find themselves saying something that is not protected by parliamentary privilege, will they have the same type of cover? Will they actually be told, "We will back you with reasonable legal expenses if it is not a case where you should admit that you got something wrong."?
  If a Member of Parliament has said something that is defamatory and is not defensible, will the insurance policy provide damages or will the Member be on his own for the damages? That is not clear from the motion. It may not be clear until the insurance policy is negotiated, and that is another issue that matters.
  930
  I go beyond that and declare that I may have an interest in future. Suppose a constituent says to a Member of Parliament, "You, I claim, have discriminated against me on the ground of my disability", and tries to bring a case against that Member under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, or any other provision, will the insurance policy cover that? That is a consideration to which I should like the House authorities and the leaders of the parties to pay some attention. There may be a range of issues that matter.
  If the Minister or the House is interested in my view, I think that Members of Parliament should pay for the insurance cover on the libel element, which I calculate to be roughly 55p a week per Member. That compares with the roughly £55 a week that each Member contributes to the parliamentary pension scheme—so in case our old friends from the press start saying that we are putting our snouts into the trough again, we should spell out that we are talking about 55p a week, at least on the defamation cover. The next time that parliamentary allowances or pay are adjusted, we should see whether we can carry that cost ourselves. It is within the small change of the deductions from our pay at the moment.
  The final point that seems worth making is not on item (e), which relates to a civil claim for defamation—
  Mr. Bermingham: There is a danger in what the hon. Gentleman says. Most of us are very careful in what we say and we do not seek to libel or to defame anyone, but from time to time we do have one or two mavericks who will shout their mouths off left, right and centre, and who would thus incur damages time and again for which the rest of us would have to pay.
  Mr. Bottomley: I do not want to be diverted too far, but my instant feeling in reacting to that is that we carry that type of penalty anyway with people who use absolute parliamentary privilege to defame people in the Chamber. Defamation, as I understand it, must have the element of saying something that is untrue and damaging. It becomes actionable only if it is not covered by privilege: either qualified or absolute privilege. The fact that there may be costs if people shoot their mouths off outside the Chamber is no greater a penalty on other Members than the consequences of people who come into the Chamber and do the same thing. The fact is that it is general pressure and understanding that limit what people do to excess. In my view, it does not eliminate it, but it limits it. The hon. Gentleman may have a different view.
  The last point deals with paragraph (2)(a), (b), (c) and (d):
  travel…personal accident…personal accident in respect of employees of Members…employers' liability and public liability.
  The Minister properly described that as switching from one budget head to another. I maintain that any cover, especially on travel or personal accident, should not in any sense be limited to parliamentary duties during someone's service in the House. It makes no difference to our dependants whether we fall out of the sky on a parliamentary flight or whether we fall over a stone on the road, hit our heads and are disabled by that. Therefore, I hope that the cover is related not to cause, but to the period of parliamentary service.
  7.46 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I, too, support the motion and express my sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). I am pleased that he has got assistance—or, hopefully, will get assistance.
  I understand that a Member as defendant may have assistance, but I hope that the Minister will clarify the position of the Member as plaintiff. For example, a Member who wishes to take some action against someone who has defamed him can find himself the plaintiff. That might present different concepts and I should like the Minister to comment on that. It may be that the terms of the insurance that are proposed—it is a revolutionary step forward, so we may as well discuss the measures that it might cover—should be extended to a wider range of circumstances.
  I bring to the House's attention the sixth report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which was chaired by Lord Neill and which reviewed, among other things, decision making and the actions that have taken place with regard to our standards and privileges in the House. The issues are related. If a Member is asked to appear before the Committee and must make a defence against some allegation that a member of the public has made, that Member has to defend himself, particularly where it is a contentious issue. That Member may wish to take legal advice in order to defend himself.
  There have been a number of examples recently. I think that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) was reported four or five times to that Committee and used the honourable Michael Beloff QC to produce a defence for him. Presumably, that cost him quite dearly. On a number of occasions, he was not censured by the Committee—he was the subject of two complaints, I believe—but the point remains that those legal expenses must be met.
  The Neill report, which I hope we will debate in the House in the not-too-distant future—it was issued in January and it is extremely salient and relative to the points that have come up in the debate—says:
  Given the politically-charged environment within which MPs work, it is likely that ill-founded complaints will be made from time to time to discredit the accused MP.
  We all know that. The report continues:
  It would be naive to think otherwise.
  To some extent, the forum of the Standards and Privileges Committee invites that. It is possible not only for people with genuine complaints, but crackpots and even people who are perhaps being motivated by others and used as straw men—briefed, perhaps, by hon. Members or possibly trade unions—to put points to the commissioner in their own name, which opens up the issue to public debate.
  Once a complaint has been made, a newspaper can report it. Once the commissioner decides to take up the complaint, it can be reported more widely. All that builds a certain amount of defamation of the Member's character and makes good copy. Although that may not be considered terribly important, it allows newspapers to air subjects that they may not have wanted to print for fear of being sued for libel. The process basically allows newspapers to report in great detail issues under privilege—those debated in the Chamber or in Committee.
  932
  We all know that even if, at the end of the day, the complaint is dismissed, mud sticks. The story can go around and around. Every one of us knows of such cases. I should of course declare two interests. One is that I have on two occasions successfully sued for libel—once against a newspaper and once against a constituent. The second is that I have of course recently been subject to an inquiry by the Standards and Privileges Committee, on which I do not intend to dwell.
  Lord Neill's report states:
  If the Parliamentary Commissioner's recommendation is accepted but the Member wishes to contest that, which at the moment is not possible, they should receive "financial assistance".
  A paragraph on the appeals procedure in contested cases states:
  "An accused MP who receives an adverse ruling…should be entitled to financial assistance to pursue an appeal
  and that an
  MP should be able to appeal against the…decision—
  and for that would require financial assistance. I repeat that point time and again because it crops up time and again in the report. It is important that Members realise that these matters—certainly the financial consequences—do not relate only to the kind of circumstances experienced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire. His is not the only example of when extensive legal expenses might be incurred.
  It is very difficult for a Member to decide how to deal with such matters. It has been said in this House—I think by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) during the debate on the issue in which I was involved—that it is not just difficult to defend oneself in such circumstances, it is impossible. Members need legal advice because of the time involved, the fact that they may not be a lawyer and the danger of appearing to prevaricate in answering ad hoc questions and building up a case. While we have the opportunity, we should broaden the debate to include those circumstances.
  The point is particularly significant because, at present, one cannot appeal against the decisions of the Committee on Standards and Privileges—even though Lord Neill's report advocates that we should have that opportunity. As a result, Members must present a well-argued, cogent defence; in lawyer's language, "You can lawyer yourself." For that reason, I very much hope that the Minister, who I am sure is sympathetic to all this, will do his best to ensure that the matter is dealt with straightforwardly.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: This is not the time to rehearse various arguments, but does my hon. Friend agree that one ought to try to distinguish between establishing and providing facts, and drawing conclusions from them?
  Mrs. Gorman: I will give my hon. Friend the benefit of the doubt. I am suggesting that, given the pressures of the job and the amount of time that can be devoted to it, hon. Members need legal advice from the beginning of such a process. It is important that they should at least have the opportunity to discuss matters with some legal representative. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough pointed out, because lawyers are subject to people importuning them for their services for nothing, they are inclined to say that they would have to charge a fee. He makes no bones about the fact that he was in such a position in advising my hon. Friend the Member for Mid—Worcestershire. I entirely accept that.

  933
  I should like to emphasise two things. There are many ways in which a member of the public can defame or bring charges against a Member. They can do so boldly, directly through a newspaper or an outside lawyer, but, as a result of the system that we have rightly implemented to review the conduct of Members, they have a third route. That system could be used not just by direct litigants, if I may put it that way, but through straw men. Individuals or newspapers can bring a case that they dare not make directly in the public domain, which is then reported under the protection of the privilege that this House and its Committees offer.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I strongly support the opening statement of the Parliamentary Secretary. The motions only provide a Member of Parliament with a measure of protection against being sued for libel: they would not protect him in the event of his being defamed. I was interested in the example given by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who described when he was defamed as an illustration of why the area generally needs to be considered—although my right hon. Friend's specific example would of course be excluded under the motions.
  Sooner or later, we shall have to consider some protection for Members who are defamed. If the Parliamentary Secretary, as a Minister of the Crown, is defamed as a consequence of his duties, he will consult the Law Officers. After consultation, the Law Officers will pick up the bill for enabling him to pursue a case to protect him. However, if an MP is defamed, he has no such protection and must take action off his or own bat.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: What my hon. Friend says is true, but it is not the whole truth. The whole truth is that any Minister who is contemplating or even threatening legal action for defamation must seek the agreement of the Law Officers and the Prime Minister, long before there is any question of paying legal costs.
  Mr. Tyrie: Clearly, there is a logical sequence of speaking to the Law Officers before any bill is picked up. As I said—I think it was clear enough—the first thing that a Minister should do is consult the Law Officers. If a Minister is defamed in the course of his duties, the Law Officers will so advise him. So I do not think that there is any difference between my hon. Friend and me on that point.
  The logical course of action for Members of Parliament would be to take out some legal expenses insurance against the risk of being libelled. The cost of that could be quite high, and cannot at the moment be set against the office costs allowance. I suggest to Members present that we must consider facilitating that in the long run, although we would clearly want to ensure that such use of the office costs allowance was restricted to appropriate cases. The fact that such cover would be only through libel insurance would enable the Fees Office to examine the insurance contract and ensure that it related only to defamation of a Member in the course of his duties.
  It would also be very important that such cover did not enable Members to bring frivolous cases every time anybody said anything they did not like. Limiting access
  934
  to insurance will mean that that is addressed because before agreeing to go ahead with a case the insurer will want to examine whether it is frivolous and what are its chances of success. That will probably cut out silly cases, as it does for most other people who take out libel insurance. I notice that the Minister nods agreement at that point.
  I do not think that the Minister will support my proposal at present, because it goes much further than the motion. But I ask all hon. Members to think about the matter seriously. It is quite possible that many of us will be libelled at some time in our parliamentary life. We have very little protection from that; we have much less protection than Ministers and much less than many people who work for other institutions, which would help with the costs.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Tyrie: I am about to conclude, because I do not want to detain the House further, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not give way.
  Most Members are not in a financial position to risk a hugely expensive case. We have heard from a libel lawyer tonight that £10,000 does not go very far. The matter will have to be examined in the long run. In an increasingly litigious environment, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire described, something will have to be done to enable Members to bring reasonable actions.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Tipping: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the debate.
  First, I warmly welcome the broad support across the House tonight. Although we are dealing with a motion primarily brought by the Government, this is a House matter. I am delighted that the right hon. Member for North—West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) put their names to the motion, because this is a non-partisan issue and it is important that we behave appropriately.
  A number of examples have been brought to our attention which clearly show the litigious nature of our society now.
  Mr. John Burnett: I agree with the Minister that we are living in a very litigious society. For that reason, will he and other hon. Members in due course consider the possibility of having insurance cover for certain other tortious matters, such as negligence?
  Mr. Tipping: I shall come to that in a moment. I do not want to comment on individual cases. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was tempted to be drawn into discussions of individual cases, which would not be appropriate tonight. If I do not cover every point raised in the debate, I shall write to hon. Members individually.
  I should like to reinforce one broad point made by my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones). I refer to the difficulty that we all have in protecting our children and our families. This is a real issue for us all.

  935
  The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and others, including the hon. Members for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), made points that would broaden the motion, in a sense to have it provide insurance not to protect Members but to bring proceedings. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon extended it by asking about cases of negligence. These are House matters, and we shall carefully examine the points made. There is a particular matter in relation to negligence. I am always very conscious at my own surgery about some of the advice I give. I think that we shall have to return to this in due course.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I counsel very strongly against extending the motion to negligence. Hundreds, if not thousands, of cases would be brought against Members of Parliament if the public thought there was a bottomless pit of the public purse to save them.
  Mr. Tipping: Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), give good advice and pursue matters extremely rigorously in the Chamber, and use all the techniques available to them, including the use of privilege on occasion. If my hon. Friend listened to my words carefully he would know that I said that we shall have to explore the matter. I gave no commitment; I said that it was an issue that we would have to look at.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) asked what the position was in other countries. There are many schemes. In broad terms, European Parliaments tend to give better protection than Commonwealth Parliaments, but I think that things will change over a period.
  I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) was going to advertise his book, which is due out this autumn. I do not think that it is under the title "Honest Joe", although perhaps that is the subtext. My hon. Friend tempted me to say whether he would be protected. There is a good deal of case law around libel, and my hon. Friend's publishers will want to speak to him carefully. But I do not want to talk about individual cases.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall made a very fair point, reminding us that we should revisit the office costs allowance, and in particular the arrangements for our staff. Discussions are going on through the usual channels about that. I hope that, over time, we shall be able to do better through the office costs allowance. The hon. Gentleman's comments have been noted.
  The hon. and learned Member for Harborough asked me four straight questions that fit in very much with the questions raised by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley). First, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether there would be one policy or whether Members would be entitled to opt out of the scheme. We shall consider his point, but our intention at this stage is for there to be one policy. We feel that we shall obtain better value for money out of one policy covering all hon. Members.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me not to take a restricted approach, but to be more generous. He rightly reminded me that for a premium of £18,000, hon. Members will receive cover of perhaps only £10,000. I am very mindful of the advice that he gave the House.
  936
  We want not to be excessive but to ensure that we have a scheme that meets needs. Clearly, the hon. and learned Gentleman has a better knowledge than I have of legal costs, but I think that £10,000 would not take us very far in giving colleagues protection. What we seek from the House tonight is approval in principle so that we can get out into the market and negotiate these matters.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman also raised with me the broader issue of the other insurance policies, an issue which his hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West picked up. The policies around travel and personal liability already exist. We are simply transferring them into a different boat. I do not know the details of the scheme; I do not know how far the policies are attached to duties as an MP and how far they are attached to wider activities. It is a very important point. The two are sometimes very difficult to distinguish. I shall write to colleagues about this, and it may be an issue about which the Fees Office will want to write to hon. Members.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman raised the Neill report, as did the hon. Member for Billericay. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked what protection Members would receive if as part of their parliamentary duties they acted on a quango or as directors. This is an important point. As the motion stands, the biggest part of their parliamentary duties would be covered, but there is some fuzziness about this, and we shall have to look at it. In a broader context, the issue of local councillors acting in quangos is being explored by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  The hon. Member for Worthing, West asked about the position of Officers of the House. Official civil servants working for a Department are covered, but I cannot confidently assure him that officials of the House are covered. There should be equity and, if that is not the case, we will take steps to ensure that Officers of the House are also covered. The hon. Gentleman also made the point that perhaps we should contribute to the costs ourselves and he was quick in his sums to come up with a figure of 55p a week. I have some experience of such matters and feel that collecting 55p a week might cost more than it would raise. However, the hon. Gentleman was right to say that Members should bear some responsibility. The hon. Gentleman also made the point that the cover should not be so excessive that no risk attached to the Member involved.
  Mr. Tyrie: Is not a better way to ensure that the Member feels some sense of responsibility to have the cost of the policy as a charge against individual office costs allowances, and not to have one general scheme? Different people will leave themselves vulnerable in different degrees to being sued. Those who are prudent and cautious will get cheaper insurance and those who are incautious will leave themselves vulnerable.
  Mr. Tipping: That is one way forward, and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough explored a similar issue. My view is that we would make efficiency savings from having one policy, and that is the intention. If we agree the motion, it will give us the opportunity to revisit the issue. In any case, we will have to revisit the issue of the office costs allowance. What Members personally are responsible for and what could be bought collectively is a live issue across a range of subjects. For example,

  937
  we could make big savings if everybody would sign up to the same computer systems, but that will probably not be possible.
  It is my advice to colleagues and public authorities that if they have got it wrong they should say sorry. The expression of regret and an apology can save much pain and litigation and we should be bolder and braver in that regard.
  The hon. Member for Billericay reminded me that it is some time since I read the Neill report. She also reminded me to check on the progress of that report through the House. It is right that we should have an opportunity to respond to the report and to discuss it. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the issue tonight so that we can spur it on. The hon. Lady also made an important point about how our privilege rules are used as stalking horses to enable privileged information to reach the wider press. When we have a chance to respond to the Neill report, we will have to work on that point.
  We have had a useful debate. I am conscious that everybody wishes to proceed in generally the same direction. There are differences of emphasis, but we agree in principle that the Speaker and the Leader of the House can follow our discussions through and do the deal. I assure the House, as it says in the motion, that we will keep the issue under review. I hope that we will not have to use the provision frequently.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, in the opinion of this House,—

  (1) provision should be made for the insurance of Members of this House in relation to the performance of their duties as Members under arrangements (including financial limits to the cover provided) made from time to time with the approval of the Leader of this House and the Speaker;

  (2) subject to the terms and conditions of any policy effected under the approved arrangements, the insurance for which provision is made under paragraph (1) of this Resolution may cover the following—

  (a) travel;

  (b) personal accident;

  (c) personal accident in respect of employees of Members;

  (d) employers' liability and public liability;

  (e) the cost of defending a civil claim for defamation and of payment in respect of any award made by a court in such a claim, where the act complained of was not covered by parliamentary privilege but arose from a Member's duty as a Member; and

  (3) arrangements made for insurance of the type mentioned under paragraph (2)(a) and (b) above may provide for the spouses of Members to be covered as well as Members themselves.

  LEGAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE HON. MEMBER FOR MID WORCESTERSHIRE
  Resolved,
  That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made to reimburse Mr. Peter Luff, honourable Member for Mid Worcestershire, for legal costs incurred in respect of his duties as a Member of this House in defence of an action for libel in the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) which was dismissed and the Plaintiff's statement of claim struck out by Order dated 16th April 1999.—[Mr. Tipping.]

  Post Offices (Lewes)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Norman Baker: We have started this debate rather early and I hope that that will allow me to make my points in full. However, I shall try not to detain the Minister longer than is absolutely necessary. I confess that I thought that we might be here until 3 am, but one can never tell what will happen with parliamentary business.
  I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise what is an important issue for my constituents. We have had several debates on post offices in the past 12 months, most of which have concentrated on the Government's plans for automated credit transfer and the consequences they might have. I wish to concentrate on other threats to post offices in my constituency which, I am sorry to say, come from the Post Office itself rather than from any Government plans or technological advances. I have given the Minister some notice of the issues that I wish to raise and I hope that has helped him in preparing a response. I wish to look after my constituents in raising the issue, not to make any party political points, and I hope that the Minister will take the debate in that spirit.
  I shall deal first with the issue of the Cliffe post office, although some constituents would claim that, as it is in the high street, it is not technically in the Cliffe area. However, most people know it as the Cliffe office. It used to be part of Menzies and then W.H. Smith. It was a busy office. Post Office figures confirm that that small office—it was a tiny unit within the W.H. Smith store—took the equivalent of 50 per cent. of the business of the main Crown office, which is further up the road. It was in the most important shopping centre in Lewes, whereas the main Crown office is some distance away from the shopping centre and somewhat inaccessible.
  The survival of the Cliffe office was important, but it has now closed—in my view, because of the failure of the Post Office to deal with problems that arose and to take proper steps to find a replacement office. I have gone through the train of events with the Post Office and W.H. Smith and I believe that my version of events is accurate, although the Minister may correct me later. W.H. Smith told me that when it took over from Menzies, it inherited only three or four units with a sub-post office on the premises. W.H. Smith does not want to have sub-post offices on its premises, so the company told the Post Office at an early stage that it did not wish to renew the arrangement.
  The company finally gave formal notice of its intentions to the Post Office late last year. I am reliably informed by the Post Office that the notification was not received. It had been sent to the London Post Office, which did not bother to tell the south-east region about it. As a consequence, vital days or even weeks were lost in the attempt to find an alternative arrangement for the Cliffe post office. Notice having been given, my constituents were concerned by the prospective loss of a vital post office. I wrote on 13 December to Richard Handover, the chief executive of W.H. Smith, to ask him for a stay of execution on the decision to have the post office removed from the premises. It was due to be removed by closing time on 20 February.

  939
  I had a telephone conversation and some correspondence with Mr. Handover. I am pleased to say that, as a consequence, W.H. Smith agreed to delay the removal of the post office until 30 April. From my point of view, I had bought the Post Office more than two months longer to find alternative premises. Given the period of notice and the two months-plus that I had negotiated, I thought that that would be time enough for the Post Office to find alternative premises. As I have said, those premises have not been found. The Cliffe post office has closed and people are being seriously inconvenienced.
  My first question, on a general issue, is whether the Minister believes that the notice period that franchisees have to give the Post Office is adequate. Given all the commercial pressures that the Post Office must be under in finding alternative premises and finding people to run them, is a three-month period of notice adequate?
  I am not pretending that the matter was necessarily easy for the Post Office, but the sad fact is—this was confirmed by speaking to Kevin Ray from the south-east region only yesterday—we are no nearer finding premises in Lewes than we were when W.H. Smith first gave notice at the end of last year. That is a great pity.
  It seems that there are two prerequisites for rectifying an unfortunate situation. The first is the location of premises and the second is the identification of those who may wish to run them. In my view, neither of the two presents insuperable obstacles to the Post Office. In a letter to me of 6 January—that is going back some way—the Post Office, through Kevin Ray, said that it had five applicants. Apparently they were ready and willing to run a post office in the area of Lewes to which I am referring.
  Nor is there a shortage of properties. Indeed, the local community has been supportive in trying to help the Post Office find properties. It happens that my surgery is close to the post office. Through my window I can see "To Let" signs all the way down the street. There is no shortage of empty premises in the area. That is unusual, because Lewes is a vibrant centre. Yet we are told by the Post Office that it cannot find people or premises. That is unfortunate. It seems that both are in ample supply.
  I suggest that the hurdles have been set too high. I understand that the Post Office is demanding a relocation fee of £48,000 from whoever takes on the responsibility. It is demanding a licence fee of £12,000. It is estimated that it will take up to £10,000, once someone is in the new premises, to get the business up and running. The Post Office concedes that someone will have to put £70,000 up front to get hold of premises. In addition, there are the regional fees that are payable to the Post Office. If those are the moneys being demanded, it does not seem that many people will be prepared to take on the responsibility. Perhaps that is why, even though there are so many people interested in running a post office and there are empty premises, we are no further forward.
  My second question is whether the hurdles are too high. I believe that they are. I believe also that the Government are trying to avoid post office closures throughout the country, but do they accept that they will take place if we have difficulty replacing units which have been closed or which people had given up? There is the danger that we shall see a slow death of post offices that will be outside the Government's control. The Government should deal with the hurdles and explain why there is still no post office in what is known as the Cliffe area.
  940
  The word Lewes comes from the Anglo-Saxon for hill, and the alternative premises are at the top of a steep hill. That is the situation of the Crown office. It has always been a busy office, as was the Cliffe office. However, it is now heaving at the doors. Queues extend beyond the door and it is clearly unable to cope, despite the best wishes and endeavours of the staff who work there. I pay tribute to them and to those who worked at the Cliffe office. Nothing that I say this evening should be taken as criticism of those at the front line of post office counters. However, my remarks are critical of Post Office management.
  People in Lewes have been told that they can go to two alternative offices. They can go up a steep hill to a place that is heaving at the door, with people queuing into the street, or they can go to a sub-post office a long way away, in Southover high street. Many of my constituents, like those of other hon. Members, are elderly or disabled. It is not a sensible proposition that they should access the Crown office, when all the other facilities that they want—supermarkets, chemists and bakers, for example—are where the Cliffe post office was. They would have to make a special trip to the Crown office, which for many would mean getting a taxi.
  Many of my constituents who are living on pensions and little else—they have no money to spare—would be forced into taking a taxi up the hill to the Crown office to get their pension. That is money that they could ill afford to spend. Effectively, that is a tax on being old or disabled. That is the result of a post office no longer being in the centre of the town, where people want it to be. It is a serious problem.
  I suggest that the way forward is for the Post Office to reduce the hurdles of entry for those who wish to take up premises. The Government and the Post Office must accept that there must be premises at the Cliffe end of town, and that they must facilitate them. If no one is interested because the asking price is far too high, the price must come down.
  I know that the Post Office is considering, controversially, relocating the Crown office to the bottom of the high street. Some might think that that would provide a solution. It might be, if the premises were large enough. However, the present premises are not big enough. We have to think not only about the population of Lewes. It is the county town and the headquarters of the county council, Sussex police, the health authority and the ambulance service. It is a main rail junction in the area. The white-collar work for the county is in East Sussex, which means that Lewes post offices are heavily used by the local population and by those who work in Lewes and who come into it every working day.
  We need two post offices. It may be argued that the Crown office should be at the bottom of the town and the sub-post office at the top, but we cannot continue with only one Crown office in the wrong place. I ask the Minister to accept that and to give me an undertaking that he will do what he can to rectify this serious problem.
  I shall move on to deal with another post office. Unfortunately, the incompetence of the Post Office is not linked only to Lewes. In some respects, the situation in Newhaven is even more slapstick than that in Lewes. Under the previous Government, it was suggested that Crown offices were not necessarily a good thing. Many were shutting and franchisees were being encouraged to

  941
  take over Post Office facilities. That left Newhaven without a proper Crown office. I cannot blame the present Government for that. However, the Newhaven Crown office shut, to be transferred to a franchise operation in a different part of the town centre. That left an empty space in front of the sorting office, which had before been a shared building.
  I question whether that is a sensible arrangement. Presumably, taxpayers are still paying for the empty space—it has been empty for years—while they are paying also for the post office to be in someone else's premises. It is a rather odd arrangement.
  The main office was moved to the franchisee, but the business went bust at the end of the year—an inconvenient time—over the Christmas holidays. Within two or three days it was shut. My third question for the Minister concerns the financial checks that are made on the suitability of franchisees to ensure that such closures do not happen. Surely we should be able to prevent that happening, or we should put something in place to ensure that, if nothing else happens, at least the post office can continue to operate from the premises, pending another arrangement. However, there was no other arrangement.
  Newhaven now has its post office in a portakabin. I pay tribute to the Post Office, because that facility was put in place quite quickly. However, the only post office in Newhaven—the main port on the south coast in the area which I represent, the gateway to Europe as it used to be called, the main access to Dieppe, with a large population and thousands of people working there at Parker Pens, Cash Bases, Concord Lighting and other major employers—is a portakabin in a car park. That has been the position for months.
  It is ironic—it would be funny if it were not true—that the sorting office in which the post office had been located is sitting empty. Therefore, a building that was designed to be a post office is empty, while people are using a car-park portakabin as a post office.
  In winter, a portakabin is not without its problems. The generator regularly breaks down, so that, without notice, the post office has to be closed. Pensioners and other people struggle to get to the post office, only to find on the door a notice saying, "Closed until further notice because of generator failure". What are they supposed to do? They do not have private transport. They struggle to get to the sub-post office, but then they are told to go to a sub-post office that is located far away, at Denton Corner. We cannot expect people to do that. But that is what they are told to do.
  There is no proper disabled access to the portakabin. Many people in my constituency want to use the Newhaven post office, but they have trouble accessing the portakabin in which it is located.
  Additionally, conditions in the portakabin are terrible for post office staff. The temperature inside the portakabin alternates between hot and cold. The conditions are quite unsuitable for Post Office operations.
  I agree that a portakabin is better than nothing and that, in the very short term, it might be necessary to use one as a post office. However, it does not say much of us that we have got ourselves in such a situation. The problem is that the move to the portakabin happened last year,
  942
  and that—as I have now been told by the Post Office—it will be used at least until August. In total, the portakabin will be used for nine or 10 months.
  The Post Office has said that it will get back in the sorting office as soon as possible, and it has promised units in the high street. On 8 March, Ian Frampton, the Post Office's assistant press officer for the south-east, faxed a message to Tom Pugh at The Leader newspaper in Sussex. It said:
  Post Office Counters is delighted to say that we are in the final stages of finalising a new site, in the central high street, for our Newhaven post office. However, in addition to finalising the deal, it will also take some three to four months to install counter facilities. We can assure your readers that our application to the district council—
  on temporary permission for the portakabin—
  is purely a safeguard while we make our final arrangements to move to the permanent site.
  Does not all that sound fine and dandy? The final arrangements are being made, and it will not be long before the situation is sorted out. However, I spoke to Kevin Ray, from the Post Office, and he told me that the plans are all off, and that the portakabin will be used for a while yet. On 4 March, he went to see Newhaven town council, reiterated that statement about the high street, and said that the situation would be sorted out by August at the very latest. He said that, after eight months of the portakabin business, we would have a new post office.
  Kevin Ray also promised to keep the town council up to date with developments, but he has not done so. On 19 May, Newhaven town council had to write again to him. The council said, "You haven't told us what is happening. You haven't kept us up to date. What's the position?" Yesterday, I rang Kevin Ray. He told me that there is now a problem with the roof of the building that they had hoped to used, and that the moving date has now been put back to 9 October, at the very earliest. Meanwhile, there is doubt about planning permission for the temporary building.
  Does the Post Office intend to attempt to renew temporary permission for the portakabin, which has already been in the carpark for six months? The permission to keep it there expires in June, and I should like to know whether it will be renewed. Lewes district councillors are not very happy at the thought of renewing permission to keep a portakabin in a carpark. They think not only that the portakabin is unsightly, but that that is not how the Post Office should be run. There is no guarantee that the application will be approved.
  In January, when the problem first arose, I said to the Post Office, "Let us put the post office back into the sorting office. It is sitting empty, and people are used to going there. It is purpose-built as a post office. Why don't you go back in there?" The Post Office said that it would consider it. Subsequently, I was given a ludicrous estimate of the costs of returning to the sorting office. I was told that it would cost almost £250,000, although it had been sitting empty since it was vacated. I do not know why it should cost so much. All the security and other arrangements have already been installed and, presumably, could be reactivated.
  Yesterday, the Post Office told me that perhaps it could go back into the sorting office, and that it may cost only £20,000. That is a miracle! The cost of the move has been transformed from £250,000 to £20,000.

  943
  What about the waste of public money? If it is now possible to return to the sorting office for £20,000, why could not that money have been spent before the post office was closed, in December? Why has the Post Office wasted public money on getting a portakabin, only to plan on spending more money either on continuing to use the portakabin or on returning to the sorting office? It does not make financial sense.
  What is the cost to the taxpayer of having a sorting office that was designed as a post office sitting empty while the Post Office pays for a portakabin in a carpark? It is absolute madness. The Post Office did not need to pay for the portakabin, because a Post Office building was waiting to be used.
  There is only one alternative post office, at Denton Corner, which is a long way from Newhaven. The distance between them is not walkable, and the Denton Corner post office is accessible only by private car. The situation is hopeless. It is also ludicrous to suggest that, should the Newhaven portakabin have to close—because of generator failure, for example—people will be able to go to Denton Corner. People have been inconvenienced. I have had very many letters telling me that people have turned up at the portakabin to get their pension, but it has been closed. The situation really is most unsatisfactory.
  I am not sure that the financial and contract arrangements at Newhaven were satisfactory. If they had been, the problem would not have arisen. Subsequently, the Post Office has certainly not handled the situation very well. It is unacceptable that, according to the Post Office, in October 2000–10 months after the situation arose—people will still be using a portakabin. Does the Minister think that that is fair or right? What is he going to do about getting a proper post office for Newhaven before 9 October—assuming that the date does not slip again?
  I would not want unfairly to attribute blame in relation to the third issue that I should like to raise—the closure, on 31 May 2000, of a key sub-post office in my constituency. Although I do not think that the closure is the Post Office's fault, it is an important issue for my constituents.
  The sub-post office serves the Studd Farm estate, in Polegate, which is a long way from other post offices. The first we knew of the matter was communicated in a letter to me, dated 5 May, from the Post Office. I find that a little odd, because no one else was told about the closure. Neither the town councillors, district councillors nor county councillors were told about the closure. I am glad that I was told about the closure, but it is unfortunate that no one else was. It is also a little odd that we were given three weeks' notice of the closure, whereas my understanding of the contract is that it specifies that three months' notice of withdrawal should be given. In fact, it has already shut. The sub-postmistress has pulled down the shutters and closed the place. That is far less than three months' notice—it is not even three weeks' notice.
  I am aware of the difficulty for the postmistress and it would not be proper to dwell on that. I intend no criticism of her. The Minister will be aware of what I am talking about. However, a key part of Polegate is without a post office at no notice—although, in this case, it is through unforeseeable circumstances. That is causing immense difficulties for many people.
  The principal alternative is the main post office in Polegate high street. It has the capacity to handle the demand, but it is quite a way from the Studd Farm estate
  944
  and, more to the point, to reach it people need to cross the A22, which is a busy trunk road. Many of the people who need the post office are frail pensioners who do not have access to private transport. Many of them are frightened of crossing that road, but they now have to do so to access a post office. Polegate also comes in the top 10 in the country for percentage of the population above retirement age. I hope that the Minister understands that there is a genuine issue of access to the post office for retired people.
  The problem has not been helped by the town council's decision to withdraw the community bus, although it was not aware of the post office closure at the time. That is a regrettable decision, but it has now been taken, which means that people cannot even get to the post office by public transport. The Post Office tells me that it intends to advertise the vacancy at Studd Farm and try to find somebody to run it, but if the financial requirements and entry fees are the same as for Lewes, nobody will be found and the post office will remain closed. I believe that the Government are committed to post offices. If they want to maintain post offices on estates, which are vital to many people, they must find a way round the Post Office's entry terms. The system does not work. That post office will not open if those entry terms are applied.
  Given the difficult circumstances, I have asked the Post Office for some breathing space and a temporary arrangement under which somebody from the Post Office came to run the post office element for two or three months—with the consent of the sub-postmistress and leaving the rest of the shop unaffected—while alternative arrangements were made. I understand that that has been done elsewhere. It would be helpful to my constituents in Polegate if the Minister leaned on the Post Office and asked it to look at that solution.
  Those are the three post offices that I wanted to mention—two closed and one functioning in a portakabin. I hope that the Minister will have sufficient information from the Post Office to give my constituents some good news. However, I would not be doing my duty if I did not also mention the more general problems of sub-post offices in my constituency.
  The Minister will be aware that earlier this year I delivered to 10 Downing street a petition of 6,500 signatures of constituents who were concerned about possible closures of local sub-post offices. I have looked at all the sub-post offices in my constituency and I cannot think of one whose closure would not cause significant inconvenience to those who depend on it. We have already lost a number from villages, which has caused massive inconvenience. The Minister will also be aware of the multi-million signature petition that was delivered to 10 Downing street. I continue to receive petition signatures from the Women's Institute in Ringmer, Newhaven and elsewhere.
  I shall not rehearse all the arguments, which have been dealt with at length in the House. I am conscious that I have already taken half an hour and I do not want to go on indefinitely. However, I wish to make one or two quick points. The Minister has said that automated credit transfer is inevitable. I agree that it probably is. Technology has its own pace. However, I am concerned that the Government have given themselves a short window of two or three years in which to bring in alternative measures to protect our post offices. My great fear is not that the Government do not have a heartfelt

  945
  commitment—I believe that they do—but whether they can deliver alternative business to the post offices before ACT kicks in. That has not been answered.
  I am grateful to the Minister's office for letting me have a copy of the useful speech that he delivered in Eastbourne. The Government are clearly thinking of a number of useful ideas on how to take post offices forward, including universal banking, the establishment of sub-postmasters and mistresses as Government practitioners and the full exploitation of e-commerce opportunities. I particularly welcome the fact that the Government have said that they are prepared, under certain circumstances—I do not know what they are yet; perhaps the Minister will tell us—to pay a subsidy to keep post offices going. Those are all welcome steps and we should give credit where it is due. However, it is important to understand what the powers to pay subsidies are. I hope that the Minister will explain them.
  Are any of those powers available now to ensure that we can restore a post office service to Cliffe at Lewes and to Studd Farm at Polegate, and to ensure a permanent arrangement for Newhaven in place of the joke post office that we currently have? If the Minister can do that, as I hope, I shall be the first to congratulate him and to tell my constituents that the Government have helped me.
  8.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on securing this debate on the future and provision of post offices in his constituency. I have listened carefully to what he has said and shall come on to his specific cases later.
  The future of the post office network has been debated many times in the House in recent weeks and months, most recently on 12 April, when two debates took place, coinciding with the lobby of Parliament on the same day and the presentation of a record-breaking petition to 10 Downing street containing more than 3 million signatures, a few thousand of which came from the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It expressed the concern of communities all over the country, whether rural or urban, about the future of the network.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, the focus of that concern is the migration to ACT. However, as we all know, the network has been in slow decline for many years. The impact has been disproportionately hard on the rural part of the network, which has shrunk by 25 per cent. in 20 years, despite commendable efforts by the Post Office to prevent it.
  I will say a word about the inferences made about Post Office management. I have dealt with Post Office management for many years. I am the first to offer criticism and say that they do not always get it right. However, the House should acknowledge the tremendous work that goes into maintaining a huge and ubiquitous network, sometimes in difficult circumstances. The Post Office's efforts, generally, are to be commended.
  I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman said that the move to ACT was inevitable. We announced the decision to move to ACT over a two-year period from 2003. The hon. Gentleman asked about the timetable. As I said to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters' conference,
  946
  in my 32 years' association with the Post Office, during which I have complained on many occasions that it is under-promoted and under-utilised, I have never known such a focus and such a searchlight on the business. There would be problems if that slackened; I do not think that moving the dates from 2003 would help the network at all. In fact, I think that the situation has had a positive effect in galvanising everybody—the Government, the Post Office and sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses—into looking at how the network can be protected in future.
  Given that the previous Government's well-intentioned computerisation benefit payment card project went belly up and that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry said that the project was blighted from the start, the Government decided on a conventional procurement to complete that computerisation. That project is going well—post offices are being converted at a rate of 300 per week, and the programme of computerisation will be completed by spring 2001.
  It was a difficult decision to salvage Horizon and plan for the change to ACT. The soft option was to abandon the failed private finance initiative, do nothing, and see the decline of the network turn to crisis and crisis turn to collapse. It has been suggested that we are forcing the change through, but it is an inescapable fact that people are already voting with their feet. ACT take-up is increasing by 500,000 customers a year. The move to ACT will accelerate as a whole new generation used to cashless pay comes up to pensionable age.
  It cannot be sensible for the Government, nor can it be of any lasting benefit to the Post Office network, to ignore those trends. The solution that we have to reach now must concentrate on how we allow people to access their cash at post offices, as we are committed to doing, once it is transmitted to them via ACT.
  We must also focus on finding new areas of work for this under-utilised and under-promoted network. That is why the Prime Minister asked the performance and innovation unit to do a project on the future of the network. That project is nearing completion. From the work that has already been done, the Government have identified an emerging vision for a modernised network. That vision includes concentrating on areas such as financial services, in which the good work already done with banks such as the Co-operative, Lloyds TSB and, most recently, Barclays, can be extended so that people can access their bank account, whatever their bank account is, across a post office counter. I hope that other banks, with the incentive of the Horizon automation platform, will soon be attracted down that route.
  In the same vein, we welcome the Post Office's work in developing a universal bank. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor invited the banks to work with the Post Office to offer a basic banking service to all. A universal bank could help to address the problems of financial exclusion in partnership with the banks. It would greatly reduce the number of people who do not have bank accounts. It could also provide a post office-based solution for benefit recipients who continue to want to collect their pensions in cash, across a post office counter, weekly—if it is paid weekly at the moment—without any dilution by bank charges.
  The Post Office is well placed to play an expanded role in financial services and to take advantage of increased use of e-commerce. It needs to think creatively about how

  947
  to take advantage of those opportunities. It could become the place in which many customers order and pay for goods over the internet or collect products. Those are important parts of the Government's emerging vision for the future of the Post Office.
  We also believe that the reach of post offices makes the network a major national asset. Millions of people already see post offices as places where they can do government business. There is potential for sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses to become practitioners providing a range of services, particularly given that the Government are pledged to provide all services online by 2005. The network could be the ideal access point.
  We will have to work with sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses to make that vision a reality. We want rapid movement, and I hope that, when the performance and innovation unit report is published—hopefully within the next couple of weeks—we can unite behind that vision and work to make it reality.
  The hon. Gentleman raised specific concerns about three post offices, at Cliffe in Lewes, at Newhaven and at Studd Farm. He has maintained close contact with post office network managers about his concerns, and he is plainly more au fait with the situation than I am. However, I shall try to address some of his important points.
  At Cliffe, the post office formerly operated in the W. H. Smith store closed at the end of April following the company's decision to resign from its sub-postmaster contract. Although the vacancy has been advertised since December and several firms in the area have been approached about it, Post Office Counters has been unsuccessful in finding a new partner to take over or re-establish a post office service in Cliffe. POC is continuing its efforts to restore the service. In the meantime, additional staff have been employed at Lewes Crown office, which is 700 m from the former Cliffe post office, and at Southover, which is 900 m away, to handle the business of customers who previously used Cliffe.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the three-month notice period was adequate, and I shall return to that point later. He said that there was no shortage of premises, and I shall take that point up with the Post Office, which, I am sure, will read the Hansard report of this debate. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the £48,000 requirement. In my time both as a Minister and with the Post Office, I have never heard of that being a particular problem. In this case, in order to attract a client, the Post Office has offered to stage the payment over three years instead of demanding it up front.
  Once the Postal Services Bill is enacted, these issues will be important to the new regulator and the revamped and reinvigorated consumer body, which may be able to advise us on issues and procedures that have been with us for many years and which may need to be revisited. I do not say that the £48,000 requirement is either a negative or positive aspect of the problem, but it ought to be considered. The Post Office in the hon. Gentleman's area has offered to stage the payment.
  I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman make his point about not criticising front-line post office staff. In the cases that he raised, including the two offices near Cliffe, the staff are doing their jobs in difficult circumstances.
  948
  At Newhaven, the Crown office was converted into an agency office in early 1997, and was relocated to the Mayfair Cards store. Unfortunately, the Mayfair Cards group went bankrupt in late 1997, when Post Office Counters took over the running of the post office. Until termination of the lease in December, it continued to operate on the same site. As a temporary measure until new premises could be secured, the post office operation has since been maintained in a mobile facility, and there have been problems. The generator broke down for three days, denying the service to the public, albeit only for three days.
  I understand that a new site has now been secured but that, because of the necessary structural and fitting-out work mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, it will not be ready until the autumn. Consequently, from August, the post office will temporarily move back to its original site—in the old Crown office, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out—until the new premises are ready. A permanent return to the original site has been ruled out because it is not large enough to accommodate an associated retail business with which the costs can be shared.
  Mr. Baker: If the Post Office has decided that it is possible to move the office back temporarily to the previous site, why could not that have been done when it left Mayfair Cards at the end of the year?
  Mr. Johnson: I cannot answer that question, but I will ensure that the Post Office advises me on the matter; the hon. Gentleman's point is reasonable.
  At Studd Farm, the post office closed last week, following the resignation of the sub-postmistress on health grounds. It was hoped that the closure would take place at the end of May, but for reasons that I agree we cannot go into, it happened earlier than expected, due to circumstances beyond the postmistress's control.
  Although the vacancy has been advertised, as the sub-postmistress gave three months' notice of her resignation, unfortunately, no applicants have yet expressed an interest in buying the business. In the meantime, the two nearest alternative offices at Polegate, which is a little more than half a mile away, and at Wannock, which is about three quarters of a mile away, have the capacity to handle the business previously transacted at Studd Farm.
  The specific issues relating to the three offices that were raised in tonight's debate highlight the range of problems and circumstances that can arise in managing and maintaining a retail network of more than 18,000 post offices. The points raised by the hon. Gentleman are related to those matters.
  The hon. Gentleman questioned whether the period of three months' notice was adequate. If he thinks that three months is too low, what would have been the effect on the sub-postmistress at Studd Farm? She has been working out her three months' notice while waiting to retire on health grounds. The Post Office faces a huge range of circumstances. If three months is considered to be too short a period for companies such as W. H. Smith, how would one deal with the problem of a postmaster or postmistress who wants to retire through ill health or for some other reason? A longer period would be unreasonable for them.

  949
  The hon. Gentleman made the point that the hurdles set for taking over a new business were too high. He also referred to the financial checks made on sub-postmasters. If there were more rigorous checks—as perhaps there should be—that would create another hurdle and delay the introduction of a new post office service.
  Those are complicated matters. The spotlight that the debate has directed at the network gives us all an opportunity to consider them. The hon. Gentleman has done his constituents a service by raising those points; I shall take them up further and in detail with Post Office management.
  In many ways, the problems highlighted by the hon. Gentleman epitomise the challenges faced by the network. The Government are committed to finding
  950
  solutions that preserve an essential detail of our social fabric and that have our support, that of the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses and, most importantly, that of the communities that they serve. All hon. Members appreciate that, despite the problems described tonight, which are highlighted in many of our constituencies, the Post Office does a tremendous job. We want to keep a ubiquitous network and to ensure that a continuous service is provided to the public. We need to ensure that the review of the service solves as many problems as possible—including those raised in tonight's debate—without creating a new set of problems, as might occur if we take a shortsighted approach.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Nine o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Sierra Leone
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
10 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, the Minister gave evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and this morning, I tried to obtain an uncorrected transcript of his evidence. In so doing, I have spoken to and been helped by the Clerk of the Select Committee.
I understand that the contract that the House has with the organisation that transcribes the evidence prevents the House from having more than one expedited transcript of evidence in any one parliamentary Session. Therefore, the transcript is not available to the House today, even though a debate is taking place on the same subject and the transcript would have been a great help to hon. Members. Might I, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ask whether there is a possibility of having the contract changed so that hon. Members are not impeded in their deliberations on subjects as sensitive and important as those that we are to discuss with regard to Sierra Leone?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I am sure the hon. Lady will recognise, I cannot rule on the matter from the Chair although I have sympathy with the fact that the juxtaposition of the two events is such that it would have been helpful for the transcript to have been available. However, the control of such matters lies primarily with the Select Committee, which cannot be overruled unless new procedures are devised. Perhaps this is a matter for the Liaison Committee. I thank the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity to respond and for putting the point on the record, but there is nothing that we can do to assist us during the debate.
10.2 am
Mr. Tony Worthington: I am pleased to have the opportunity of introducing this morning's debate because of a personal, long-term interest in west Africa. My interest has arisen from visits to Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Ghana and Liberia, and because of the importance of the issue in terms of the future of the United Nations, which is surely of concern to us all.
The Government have been too diffident in justifying our role in Sierra Leone since the paratroopers landed there about a fortnight ago. We have constantly sought to say that our involvement is short term and will soon be over. Our involvement is just and necessary. We must be wary of over-involvement and devote a great deal of attention to achieving a greater contribution from
160WH
others. However, we must not open ourselves to accusations of misleading the British public, as in some respects, a longer-term involvement is needed.
Sir Peter Emery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me the impertinence of intervening at the start of his speech. I endorse what he is saying with regard to this important subject. Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who are considering Sierra Leone, would normally wish to be here for the debate. However, this morning and this afternoon they are working on the final report of the Kosovo inquiry, which has been running for four or five months. I thought it right for this Chamber to know why the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee were not present.
Mr. Worthington: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's contribution. I am pleased that the Foreign Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into Sierra Leone. I hope that my speech today will be considered as my evidence to it.
Sir Peter Emery: Thank you very much.
Mr. Worthington: We need to consider the full dimensions of the Sierra Leone crisis. I am delighted that the days of Tory policies—or non-policies—on Africa are at an end. I draw attention to previous crises in Africa and to the way in which the House dealt with the issues involved. First, let us consider the previous Government's response to the Rwanda crisis. I remember the shame of Rwanda when this country and so many others turned their back on the most appalling genocide to have occurred since the second world war. We still do not know how many people were slaughtered during that crisis but the figure of 500,000 is often used. When the Security Council of the United Nations, with our support, pulled the United Nations out of Rwanda, the innocent were left to be slaughtered. The Government made no statement to the House about Rwanda and there was no parliamentary activity.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that as a result of the then Government's failure to act when genocide was occurring in Rwanda there is now the most appalling instability in the Great Lakes region, and it is threatening to spread across Africa?
Mr. Worthington: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that comment. Our past inactivity in that area is one reason for our present position. We made no political response to Rwanda; the British Government ignored it. However, we are not ignoring Sierra Leone, and that is an important step forward.
Secondly, let us consider Liberia, which is next door to Sierra Leone and contributes enormously to its problems. What did the United Nations do about Liberia? Nothing. After the American debacle in Somalia—an intervention that provided too little, too late and that was able to cope only with a war without casualties—the United Nations coined the idea of African solutions to African problems, which meant, in other words, "It's nothing to do with us, guv."
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the United Kingdom has the same national responsibility for Sierra Leone and Rwanda, or does he think that it has a different responsibility in the light of its interests in particular regions and because it has to act sometimes in the international community and sometimes on its own?
Mr. Worthington: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. In considering the way in which the Security Council operates, we must take into account where lead responsibilities lie. I do not have the slightest doubt that the lead responsibility in the case of Sierra Leone lies with us, although that is not the case in respect of Rwanda. Countries that have been most associated with African nations in the past have sometimes been the least appropriate to take a lead.
Mrs. Gillan: What was the policy of the Labour party on Rwanda? Did the then Opposition call for Government intervention and, more especially, military intervention? Did the hon. Gentleman expect our troops to be deployed in Rwanda?
Mr. Worthington: I am not proud of our role with regard to Rwanda. Nor am I proud that Rwanda was not debated in the House and there was no statement on it. Indeed, there was no parliamentary activity in respect of Rwanda, apart from two Adjournment debates that I initiated. That is to the shame of this country. I am glad that we have moved on to acknowledge Sierra Leone.
I was talking about Liberia and the idea of African solutions to African problems, which meant that we excused ourselves from any involvement. That led us to the absurdity of a pariah state—I am speaking of Nigeria, which was thrown out of the Commonwealth—ruled by corrupt military thugs, who robbed their own country, being encouraged to lead forces in Liberia and Sierra Leone on behalf of the world community to try to end the turmoil there. That approach had many problems, one of which was that the Nigerians did not pay their troops, who were forced to live off the country that they were protecting. I remember the exasperation of the non-governmental organisations in Liberia when they found their food warehouses empty having been guarded by the Nigerian army. Eventually, however, the Nigerians turned up trumps; they drove out the Revolutionary United Front from Freetown to an extent that made it possible to draw up a flawed peace deal.
My most recent experience of Sierra Leone was at the end of March when I went there on behalf of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I pay tribute to that organisation which was established by the previous Government with all-party support and has allowed many hon. Members to play a valuable role in supporting and establishing multiparty democracy throughout the world. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), asked the Westminster Foundation for Democracy what could be done to support the democratic process in Sierra Leone.
The Lomé peace deal includes plans to hold three elections and it is the job of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to provide help, training and support for
162WH
the political parties so that those elections are free and fair. That is not an easy task. Parliamentarians have not been able to return to their rebel-held constituencies for a long time and all forms of communication in Sierra Leone, which has become the poorest country in the world, are appalling. I assume that the elections are on hold.
The press took it for granted that the UN peace effort was hopeless. That was unfair. The atmosphere in the country in March was one of optimism, although there was uncertainty about Foday Sankoh's intentions. Although disarmament was slow, it was estimated that about 15,000 of the combatants had disarmed. Progress was being made, but it depended on the integrity of Foday Sankoh, who had signed the Lomé agreement. The UN was asked to oversee a peace agreement and forces were being assembled for that purpose; it was not its intention to prosecute a war. Foday Sankoh changed all that. Despite having received an amnesty for his crimes, the rank of vice president and responsibility for the mines commission, he failed to honour his word.
The peacekeeping force—although of a varied quality—was being assembled. The camps for disarmament were being set up and a disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration programme was being introduced. The British effort was considerable. We were—and are—contributing enormously. However, the society was in total collapse. There was no army to speak of because it had rebelled against the Government and sections of it had formed militia groups. The police were in disarray. British aid did not concentrate simply on food and medicines—humanitarian aid—but on how Sierra Leone could be rebuilt from the bottom. It is relatively easy to construct buildings, rebuild roads, repair radio masts and reopen schools and health services; it is much harder to rebuild a society's social institutions and the rule of law, and to construct a shared understanding between opponents who have accepted that peace is better than war. That is painfully difficult work.
The conduct of the public debate on Sierra Leone has been seriously flawed. It has been wrong to concentrate on how quickly we can get out. I know that the debate has focused on frontline troops, but we must be honest and admit that it will take years rather than days or months to achieve a better future for Sierra Leone. A working democracy must be established. Earlier this year, we said that we were interested in reconstructing the Sierra Leonean army and the police force. In Freetown, I met the Ministry of Defence advisory team, which had decided to use our strategic defence review as a basis for a similar review of Sierra Leone. It was starting from scratch and had to consider the security risks and the country's defence needs. It started with the police, and is also concerned with political parties there. The country has been destroyed by nine years of war and many more years of corruption.
Mr. Paul Keetch: Does my hon. Friend agree that the evidence of the post-second world war era is that whenever an international organisation such as the United Nations goes in and comes out quickly the long-term result is instability, but that when it goes in

163WH
and stays in, there is at least a chance that stability, order and democracy can be restored—often at a lower price than a quick operation?
Mr. Worthington: I agree, but there has to be a quality input, which is what is happening in Sierra Leone.
There are positives in Sierra Leone. It has hung on to some of the traditions of the legal system established by the British. Until recently, it had a good university. Civil society has some strong elements; a non-governmental organisation called the Centre for Good Governance would rank with many of the best NGOs. It is a small country with between 4 million and 5 million people. It has no huge regional, ethnic or religious tensions such as one finds in Nigeria or Sudan and there is a huge lust for peace.
If the United Nations cannot cope with Sierra Leone, it cannot cope with anything. It is important that it does cope, because many other tasks await it—for instance, next door in the Congo. We must make Sierra Leone succeed; if we cannot, the consequences for the world will be appalling. The message will be that the Foday Sankoh style of thug can run riot, and the UN will have to shut up shop as a peacemaker—and as an enforcer of peace.
The United Nations includes us, but that does not mean that we should always take the lead. However, UN forces should not include the appallingly trained and ill-equipped forces of parts of the developing world. There must be some first-world involvement because of our logistics and strategy.
Mr. Mike Gapes: My hon. Friend, who knows about such matters, will recall that "An Agenda for Peace", the report produced in 1992 by Boutros Boutros-Ghali, set out exactly what the United Nations needed to do to build up its ability to deal with regional conflicts and the subsequent peace-building process. Regrettably, the implementation of that report has been sabotaged, particularly by the United States. Does my hon. Friend agree that that report suggests some of the solutions that the UN needs today?
Mr. Worthington: We have to revisit those issues. The United Kingdom is a member of the Security Council. If we are to respond appropriately to such crises, we must learn the lessons of the past; we must then move forward. It is obvious that we are leading in Sierra Leone; the shortest of visits confirms Britain's pre-eminence there. However, in response to the point raised by my hon. Friend, our actions are a role model for other Security Council member states.
I welcome the fact that our response was so thorough and committed. However, it is unsatisfactory in the long term that the UN force and our forces should act separately and distinctively, as they are doing in Sierra Leone. A job needs to be done there, and I am confident that the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office realise that and are looking for a solution.
The Government's policy is to end world poverty, but there is not the slightest chance of doing that unless we face up to the conflict. The vast majority of the poorest countries in the world are in conflict or emerging from it. To end their poverty, those countries must rebuild their
164WH
social infrastructure, which has been destroyed because most of those wars were the result of internal conflict—although, as in the case of Sierra Leone, some of them were stimulated from abroad. In facing that task, we must consider how the international community should respond. We must consider the co-ordination of actions and the funding of peace efforts.
It is crucial that the UN's response should be quick and appropriate. The forces of the United Nations mission in Sierra Leone built up painfully slowly, which resulted in limbo after the peace deal. NATO, the world's pre-eminent military alliance, was unable to respond timeously, whether with relief and helicopters for Mozambique or the transport of soldiers to Sierra Leone. The Canadians have recently transported other nations' peacekeepers, but why is every peacekeeping initiative involving third-world forces bedevilled by the inadequacy of the means of getting them to the site, when NATO could do that?
Communications is another issue that needs to be examined. The country virtually no longer has a telephone system outside Freetown. Therefore, it needs first-world communications systems to be brought in. The absence of radio transmission for the whole country makes it fertile territory for the rebels. We can tackle that. However, we cannot go back to the Tory days of blaming the United Nations for failure when the main reason for that was our failure to provide the necessary support and team work.
Dr. Tonge: The hon. Gentleman has been extremely generous over interventions. Does he think that not seeking control of the diamond mines in Sierra Leone was one of the fatal mistakes? They were allowed to remain in the control of Sankoh and continue to fuel the war.
Mr. Worthington: I am coming to the diamonds, which are a crucial issue.
We have done very well with respect to our present commitment. We recognised, first, through the scale of our commitment, that humanitarian aid was not enough—the high commission, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development have responded well—and, secondly, by the quality of our military response, that we were right to do as we have done. It is foolish of the Opposition to demand withdrawal dates or published limitations of action. Have they not learned from Kosovo that when we state that we shall not take certain military action, only the enemy benefits?
Mrs. Gillan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Worthington: I would rather not, because I am conscious that other hon. Members are waiting to speak, and I have been generous in giving way.
We must give quality support and work with countries such as the newly democratic Nigeria, to ensure that the UN peacekeepers do their job effectively, but we must be deeply sceptical about other countries such as Liberia, which has been involved in stimulating trouble in Sierra Leone and which has a considerable diamond trade, although few diamonds. The killing of a high-ranking Liberian officer alongside rebel forces in

165WH
Sierra Leone suggests that President Taylor may well be up to his old tricks. The capture of Foday Sankoh is tremendous news but there will be difficult days ahead in trying to ensure the safety of the hostages and we must be careful what we say in those circumstances. However, I am confident that with skilled management at the heart of the UN response the rebels can be driven back.
Enormous skill will be needed to tackle a central problem of Sierra Leone—control of the diamond industry, which remains in rebel hands. For a long time, politics in Sierra Leone has been corrupted by diamonds. Sierra Leone cannot become healthy until that wealth is honestly administered. In the words used by Graham Greene for the title of his novel, they are the heart of the matter. A report on the diamond industry, also called "The Heart of the Matter", by Smillie, Gberie and Hazleton, states that until the 1980s the legendary, mystical firm of De Beers, with its virtual monopoly of diamond marketing, had an office in Freetown. Now it maintains a diamond trading company in Liberia and a buying office in Guinea, but nothing in Sierra Leone. It is difficult to believe anything other than that many of the Liberian diamonds are of Sierra Leonean origin.
It is estimated that the annual Liberian production of diamonds is between 100,000 and 150,000 carats. However, Belgium imported more than 6 million carats from Liberia, although De Beers claims not to purchase Sierra Leone diamonds. There will not be peace until the diamond trade is controlled and that cannot be done by Sierra Leone alone. The same also applies in Angola and the Congo. The control of diamonds will have to be achieved through the setting up of control mechanisms by the developed world; otherwise, mayhem and thuggery will continue in Sierra Leone with assistance from outside the country.
The refugee and internal displacement problems are further reasons why a quick fix is not possible in Sierra Leone. About 500,000 people are refugees—10 per cent. of the population live outside the country—and about half the population has been internally displaced by the conflict. Mayhem has been rife in large parts of the country. That is graphically demonstrated by the amputations, the torture, the child soldiers and the total collapse of any ordered society in the regions, where the rebels have ruled by terror. Sierra Leone has become the poorest country in the world, a large proportion of the population being illiterate because a generation has missed out on schooling. A quick fix and rapid departure is not possible. An ordered response is required from the donor countries of the world, which must include help to build up Sierra Leone's civil society. Support must be given to local democrats, non-governmental organisations, lawyers and academics, who have kept the faith throughout these years and who need liberating from the thugs and the terror. The United Kingdom's role is crucial.
10.26 am
Mr. Crispin Blunt: First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for introducing the debate. The hon. Gentleman has an honourable record of raising important African issues. It is a disgrace that it fell to
166WH
him to raise the issue in this Chamber; there should have been a debate on the Floor of the House on the commitment of British servicemen overseas. Two Government statements are not sufficient, particularly on a complicated issue such as Sierra Leone, which has so many facets. A single question to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs or the Secretary of State for Defence following their statements does not allow hon. Members enough time to make their views known. Both Ministers were disingenuous in their statements. They sought to obfuscate the true nature of the mission—if it had any when they began the military commitment.
I intervened on the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie about the United Kingdom's responsibility for Sierra Leone compared with our position on Rwanda. The hon. Gentleman was unnecessarily harsh on the previous Government's policy on Rwanda, which, from my recollection, was supported by the then Labour Opposition. The United Kingdom does not have a particular responsibility for Rwanda and the previous Government's policy was in line with that of the rest of the international community. With hindsight, the international community should have acted differently, but we do not have the benefit of hindsight when we make such decisions. When the international community decided to send a UN mission to Rwanda, the United Kingdom committed troops to the operation.
Dr. Tonge: The issue is not whose responsibility it is to intervene in any particular country. Those countries do not stand alone. The problem in Rwanda arose from the mutual antipathy of the Hutu and Tutsi people. They are spread throughout the Great Lakes region of Africa and any conflict between them was bound to intensify. Intervention in a particular country is not the responsibility of solely one country, but of the world.
Mr. Blunt: The hon. Lady has identified one of the complications in the Great Lakes region. The fact that the two ethnic groups have a long history of hostility makes military intervention on one side or the other and trying to establish peace difficult. That is not the situation in Sierra Leone with the RUF. Sierra Leone is different because ethnic conflict is not present as it is in the Great Lakes region. We should not be distracted by the question of international intervention in the Great Lakes region.
Dr. Tonge: The Great Lakes region illustrates how a problem in one country can affect the entire region. We have been discussing the diamond trade. Wars may be triggered by ethnic conflict and fuelled by the diamond, oil or gold industry. They affect the whole region and Sierra Leone is another example of that.
Mr. Blunt: Certainly, the gold and diamond industries were not issues in the Great Lakes region.
Speaking of west Africa as a whole, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie drew attention to the very uncomfortable choice that faced the international community in respect of Nigeria leading regional intervention into Liberia. He drew attention to the nature of the Nigerian regime at the time. Nigeria was subject to sanctions from the Commonwealth and

167WH
elsewhere for the execution of Ken Sarawiwa and the oppression of the Ogone people. However, the international community welcomed the Nigerian leadership of the intervention in Liberia. Foreign ministries throughout the world, and not least the members of the Security Council, have to make uncomfortable choices.
I take issue with the hon. Gentleman's comments on the Lomé agreement, which he endorsed. Making Corporal Sankoh Vice-President of Sierra Leone and Minister for Natural Resources turned out to be a disaster, which should have been predicted. It is the latest stage of British responsibility for what has happened in Sierra Leone, which is why we have a special responsibility now to take the lead in trying to reestablish a decent civil society there.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Is the hon. Gentleman implying that the Lomé agreement was a British-negotiated agreement? If so, he is wrong and other Conservative Back Benchers are similarly mistaken. It was an African-brokered agreement by ECOWAS, the Economic Community of West African States, backed by the Commonwealth and the United Nations with Britain and the United States as observers. However imperfect it was, it must be remembered that there was no Sierra Leonean army, the RUF had thousands of troops and President Kabbah believed that he should obtain the best possible negotiated deal, however imperfect.
Mr. Blunt: The unfortunate truth is that President Kabbah believed that he had to agree to that deal because his only source of income was aid from the first world. He did not have control of the diamond fields or receive royalties from diamond production. It was made clear to him that if he did not sign the Lomé agreement, he would not receive further development assistance.
Mr. Gapes: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that President Kabbah should have said, "OK, I don't want a deal. I'll let Mr. Sankoh take over Freetown and massacre intellectuals, lawyers and everyone else"?
Mr. Blunt: Corporal Sankoh would have had difficulty doing that because he was under sentence of death in a Nigerian jail. He was released to conduct the negotiations leading to the Lomé agreement. It was clear from the specialist African press and the personalities involved that the agreement was forced on the Nigerians and President Kabbah against their better judgment. As the hon. Gentleman said, the production figures show that 90 per cent. of the diamonds sold through Liberia come from Sierra Leone and RUF areas. The RUF is a bunch of terrorist gangsters, so it is hardly surprising that, given its relationship with Liberia and having been left in control of the diamond-producing areas, it would not easily give up its source of wealth. That is precisely how it turned out.
If the United Nations force that was sent to implement the Lomé agreement had been robust and led by a first-world power with a strong mandate, it might have been possible by force of arms to have persuaded the RUF to surrender and to have forced the current confrontation with the RUF. The United Nations
168WH
Mission in Sierra Leone, UNAMSIL, was made up of nations that are militarily reasonable, such as the Indians and Jordanians, and of those that have proven in the field to be, absolutely lamentable, such as the Zambian contingent, which got into frightful trouble in Sierra Leone during the past six months and acted as a trigger—many Zambians were taken hostage. The next phase of operations with the RUF began to move away from the agreement, and the RUF thought that it might have a chance to turn over the operations of the United Nations and of the Sierra Leonean Government.
Our responsibility in the Sierra Leonean saga goes back to the arms to Africa affair. The Government display what appears to be an ethical reluctance to have anything to do with companies such as Sandline International and Executive Outcomes, which worked for the Sierra Leonean Government and the diamond producers. The Government's reactions in public and private make a rather interesting contrast. In public, they display enormous concern about appearances and presentation. That is why they were so anxious to secure an agreement at Lomé. The Sierra Leonean Government and the Nigerians—the other major power that was involved—were, in effect, forced to come to an agreement, although their instinct was to crush and eliminate the RUF, which they would have done if they had had the appropriate support and opportunities. That could have been achieved if President Kabbah had been given realistic support in the first place from companies such as Sandline International and Executive Outcomes.
The Government have made clear their great distaste for private-sector military companies, but if such companies had been used in Sierra Leone, they would have realised the objective, which we share, of ensuring victory for the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone and they would have secured the country's wealth-creation area—the diamond mines—which could have been handed over to a major mining corporation. That company could have helped to secure the area in exactly the same way that that has been done in other difficult parts of the world, such as Colombia. Royalties would have flowed to the Sierra Leonean Government—they would have had a source of income that would have enabled them to rebuild civil society in that country.
Dr. Tonge: The hon. Gentleman's comments make a good advertisement for arms brokers and for illegal arms sales. Does he agree that arms brokers should be registered and that their exports should be licensed on an organised basis?
Mr. Blunt: I agree with that absolutely. Transparency in this difficult area is extremely important. However, when one is trying to secure effective military intervention but, for understandable reasons, one does not want one's armed forces to be sucked into someone else's war, a strong case can be made for paying companies to take the necessary action. If one says that the public image of private arms companies is so unattractive that one wants to have absolutely nothing to do with them, one ties one's hands and takes away a tool that can be used to achieve one's foreign policy goals.
Mr. Keetch: I want to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He knows, for various reasons, that there are many security companies in my constituency. Would he have preferred it if British mercenaries rather than a United Nations, or a British, force had gone into Sierra Leone?
Mr. Blunt: Each situation is unique, but it would have been better if the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone had sorted out their own internal problem in the first place, with the assistance of companies such as Sandline International and Executive Outcomes and on the promise of future revenue from royalties from the diamond mines, than if, after two or three years of butchery by Corporal Sankoh's forces and the RUF, the whole international community had been drawn in.
Given the United Kingdom's responsibility for Sierra Leone, the Government should see the action through to its proper conclusion. They were faced with a choice when they decided to deploy military forces. At first, the operation was intended simply to evacuate British nationals. Then another aim was added—to secure Lungi airport to get a United Nations force into the country. The main objective should be to return Sierra Leone to the control of its democratically elected president and restore civil society and security for its people.
The RUF is a bunch of terrorist gangsters, which supports itself in power through the supply of money that it gets from Sierra Leone's diamond mines and its relationship with Liberia, where the diamonds are marketed. The key military objective is to destroy the RUF by taking control of the ground that is vital to it—that is, the diamond-producing area. I believe that that is achievable, given that the RUF has no cultural basis of support and commands no tribal loyalty. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about that. The operation should be properly followed up with the kinds of commitment that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie described—retraining the Sierra Leone army, training the police force and the civil service and putting in place civil institutions.
Following the achievement of that military objective, the mining areas could be held by UN forces, and, in due course, handed over to a civil mining company that would look after their security. Meanwhile, the local police force and army could be built up with the help of companies such as Executive Outcomes and Sandline International, which provide such services in similar difficult circumstances.
Dr. Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blunt: I have taken too long already, if the hon. Lady will forgive me.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie drew attention to the relative levels of involvement of UN and British forces. I agree with him that it would be infinitely better if it were a UN operation, under one flag, with a clear mandate to destroy the RUF through military action.
That raises the problem of who is to command and organise the UN operation. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said that first-world forces would have to be involved. Britain is the only first-world
170WH
country on the ground, so the Minister would have the difficult task of achieving British leadership and control of the operation so as to ensure its success. Given their previous leadership role, the Nigerians may resent the United Kingdom entering an area in which they are the main regional power. Another important factor may be the position of the current Indian commander of the UN force.
While difficult sensitivities will have to be addressed, the military objectives can be achieved with the forces that are on the ground in Sierra Leone. Given our country's responsibility for the situation, that is the course of action that we should pursue. It would be a crying shame if Government reluctance to establish control over the key wealth-producing area of the diamond mines—which is central to the restoration of civil society in Sierra Leone—led to a softly, softly approach based on the hope that the RUF would crumble in the face of a static British presence in Lungi and Freetown, and that the UN forces would gradually be beefed up to carry out that operation. The RUF might well collapse and victory might fall into our lap. However, we should not take the risk.
We have the opportunity to take firm action to restore a level of stability to Sierra Leone that it has not experienced for far too long. I hope that the Government will grasp that nettle. My hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench have made it clear that that is also their view. I hope that the Government will discharge their responsibilities to Sierra Leone in a way that can be admired and held up as an example of resolute action being used to achieve the proper outcome in that unhappy part of the world.
10.45 am
Joan Ruddock: I am here not to make my own speech but to represent my constituents. I am no expert in foreign affairs, and rarely engage in debates on the subject, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for raising the matter.
A third of my constituents is of ethnic minority origin, and among that group is a significant number from west Africa. I have received representations from three organisations. First, the National League for Human Rights and Democracy is a non-profit international human rights organisation that is a recognised nongovernmental organisation within the UN. It monitors and promotes issues of human rights and democratic values in west Africa. It is working on long-term solutions to the problems in Sierra Leone and examining models that have been adopted in Northern Ireland, for example. I hope to encourage it to make submissions to the Select Committee during its inquiry.
Secondly, I have received representations from the Lewisham Racial Equality Council, which feels that the status and concerns of people here need to be connected to their concerns about the countries from which they came. Finally, I have received representations from the South London African Organisation and I want to read its submissions into the record today. It believes that the present chaos in the west African sub-region is a consequence of the premature exit of the Nigerian-led west African peacekeeping force and the deployment of what it regards as an ill-equipped, under-resourced and badly trained UN peacekeeping force.

171WH
According to the organisation, most Sierra Leoneans argue that a weakness undermining the UN force is its rules of engagement, and that proactive engagement is the only suitable remedy for the complexity and severity of the conflict there. As one would expect, it condemns unequivocally the disruption of the UN forces and the peacekeeping mission. It appreciates the efforts of western Governments and the international community to secure peace and political stability, but it argues, as others have done this morning, for a much more proactive approach.
Prompted by recent developments, concerned Sierra Leoneans and other African nationals met on 8 and 9 May under the auspices of the South London African Organisation to put forward a number of proposals, which have been sent to me to convey to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). The organisation categorically condemns the killings and abduction of the UN peacekeeping troops by Foday Sankoh's Revolutionary United Front rebels. It asks western Governments—especially Britain and the United States—and the international community to support the Government and the people of Sierra Leone to secure sustainable peace and political stability by contributing rapid reaction troops. The organisation urges that this be treated as a matter of urgency.
The Nigerian-led west African peacekeeping force should, the organisation believes, be redeployed in Sierra Leone, as part of a well resourced, well trained and well equipped peacekeeping contingent. It believes that the current Lomé peace deal should be reviewed urgently, and that investigations into the shooting of peaceful protestors by RUF rebels at the residence of their leader, Foday Sankoh, in the capital, Freetown, should be part of such a wider review. The Sierra Leonean army and civil defence force should be strengthened, and the hitherto disputed status of the former resolved urgently.
The group does not want to engage in polemics about the rationale for a western contribution to a rapid reaction force, but it believes that the trustees of the Lomé peace accord—Britain, the United States and the international community—share an obligation to bring peace and political stability to war-torn Sierra Leone. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has clarified the position regarding the United Kingdom's role, but this organisation believes that the United Nations, including Britain and the United States, induced the Government and people of Sierra Leone to sign the Lomé peace deal with the RUF and its allies.
It is important that the Minister clarifies the position—he has done so today, and I shall make that point to the group. According to the group, there was a guarantee that the trustees would secure a sustainable peace through all humanly possible means. The group makes a contrast between the position of their country vis-à-vis the international community and that of Kosovo, where there are tens of thousands of NATO troops, including United States troops. Members of the group feel that there should be more international support, particularly from the United States, which recently agreed to extend operations by its troops in Kosovo, but still rules out sending a rapid reaction force to Sierra Leone. They say that the west and the
172WH
international community should have learned by now that simple logistical support will not be a long-term solution to the problems faced by Sierra Leone.
Finally, on behalf of the Sierra Leoneans and under the umbrella of the South London African Organisation, I have been asked to appeal to the Government to react positively to the situation in Sierra Leone. The group appreciates what has been done, but feels strongly—the letter is signed by 71 constituents—that more must be done and that there must be longer-term, sustained support to find a peaceful solution and allow a return to full democracy.
10.53 am
Mr. Mike Gapes: I want to make three points, but I shall be brief.
First, I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said. A number of my constituents are refugees or have come from west Africa to study in this country. Two years ago, I made representations to the Government about why it was taking them so long to resolve the status of the Sierra Leoneans in my constituency. One of the leading lawyers involved in the prosecution of the people who carried out the previous coup had had to flee to this country. Her children were in Guinea, but she did not know where they were and was desperately worried. In the end, she went to Guinea to find her children, before her status in this country had been resolved. That was regrettable, and we should look at such matters, because they affect many people who flee to this country. Perhaps the Daily Mail and The Sun could carry stories about the way in which people have fled Sierra Leone and elsewhere to come to this country.
I want to comment on what the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said. He talked about national interest, which is a difficult question. Obviously, it is not possible for this country, despite being a permanent member of the Security Council, to be involved in all attempts to resolve conflicts throughout the world. However, it would be regrettable if politicians in this country gave the impression—as some Opposition Mems have—that we are interested in saving the lives of white Europeans only, and could not care less about black Africans. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Reigate, who said that we should see the job through and continue to offer support. Given our involvement in the Lomé process, the diamond trade and other activities, and given our colonial history, we have a responsibility to the region.
What will happen in the long term if we succeed in liberating diamond production areas through the international community? Financially, personally and in terms of his surrogate army, the RUF, it is clear that President Charles Taylor of Liberia has a significant interest in the region. We must demonstrate foresight in respect of events in Liberia. Will it host continuing RUF incursions? Will there be guerrilla warfare? How secure will the region ultimately prove? That raises the wider question of stability and democracy not just in Sierra Leone, but in neighbouring countries.
I mentioned the UN report "An Agenda for Peace", which was produced by former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. We must reconsider that report, as well as how to establish effective regional

173WH
security organisations. As a north Atlantic, European security organisation, NATO should not be the world's policeman. That would give rise to political problems, and it is difficult to see how it could work in strategic and logistical terms. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said, NATO is the only regional security organisation that can begin to offer assistance, given the absence of effective organisations elsewhere.
The UN should consider the matter further. We have a role to play in building such structures because of the respect in which British military personnel are held throughout the world.
Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman's last comment implied that he believes that NATO has a role to play south of the Tropic of Cancer and I am sure that he will not want to leave that impression. Given his experience of defence, he will want to make it clear that it would be wholly improper for NATO to play such a role outside Europe. Moreover, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie has misunderstood the nature of NATO. His comments were naive—NATO members may have a responsibility in the region, but the institution does not.
Mr. Gapes: I agree. I know what is stated in article 6 of the North Atlantic treaty, but we shall not go into that now. NATO member states—particularly the United States, but also the United Kingdom and France—have military assets and capabilities that can be deployed globally. Such assets would have to be deployed in certain contexts, but to do so would raise the question whether the prime function—maintaining security in the north Atlantic—was being fulfilled. I have reservations about that approach, because there are implications that must be considered by NATO, the NATO alliance and our partners. Ultimately, we need regional security organisations, so we should do our best to support them.
Finally, I pay tribute to the Nigerians and the work that they have done in this region. I understand that 1,000 Nigerians have been killed in the Sierra Leone conflict. Such a loss would be an enormous burden for any society, and it is not surprising that the democratic candidate in the presidential election gave a commitment to get out of the situation because of it. The President's decision to re-enter the conflict required political courage and must be supported by other countries. We should be working closely with democratic Nigeria to do whatever we can, collectively and with others, to find a solution and to restore to the Sierra Leone Government control of their whole territory.
11 am
Mr. Paul Keetch: I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on securing this timely debate. He is right to have brought the matter to this Chamber. I congratulate also the hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on their important speeches.
174WH
I shall keep my remarks short, as I want to give the Minister time to answer the questions that have been asked. First, I should ask him whether there is any further information on the bodies bearing United Nations uniforms that were found yesterday and on whether they are those of UN personnel. We would be grateful for any information.
I offer my support and that of the Liberal Democrats to the British mission in Sierra Leone. The arrival of British troops could not have been timelier, and it provided an immediate and much-needed boost to the morale of the UN forces. It is increasingly clear that the presence of British troops is now essential to the success of the UN mission. Since British troops have been present, the UN force has been able to move deeper into the country, secure in the knowledge that its lines of supply, reinforcement and communication are covered. It is right that we should pay tribute not only to the Army presence—in the form of the Parachute Regiment and the Gurkhas—but to the support of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force helicopter personnel who are flying from HMS Illustrious. The operation is an example of the deployment that the Government rightly identified three years ago in their strategic defence review.
In the past few days, pro-Government soldiers have been able to make significant headway in digging deep into Sierra Leone, assisted by British forces. With the arrest of the rebel leader, Foday Sankoh, and the news that more UN peacekeepers have been freed, the military signs are encouraging. However, the humanitarian implications are still not so. The new refugee crisis to which the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie referred is a strong possibility. We should remember what happened in Kosovo. Of course, the rains are coming, and the whole environment will change much in the next few weeks.
It has become clear that a week is a long time in Sierra Leone. The original mission of British troops was to evacuate British, Commonwealth and European nationals, but that has now advanced to another stage: Royal Navy and Royal Air Force Harriers have been undertaking reconnaissance missions, heavy artillery is being taken off HMS Ocean and deployed ashore to protect our troops at Lungi and Special Air Services and Pathfinder patrols are operating in the front line and exchanging fire with rebel forces. That shift in emphasis has allowed the UN to buy time for additional reinforcements to arrive. What is the Minister's impression of the new UN forces?
We urge the Government to accept that British forces are now central to the UN mission in Sierra Leone and that the premature withdrawal of our troops would have a devastating effect on that mission and on the UN's credibility in peacekeeping missions in general. We must keep some of our forces in Sierra Leone until UN troops have established their authority throughout the country. The hon. Member for Reigate called for one flag, one control and one force. There are good reasons why that should happen. Should not Britain continue to contribute to the reinforcement of the UN force and not merely enable that reinforcement to occur?
The UN cannot be expected to keep a peace that is not there in the first place. There is a stark difference between the mandates of peacekeeping and peace enforcement. Fundamentally, the UN needs a new and robust mandate that the troops can enforce. We must

175WH
not forget that the UN constitutes nothing more than the will of its individual members. There has been much talk about the lack of suitable training, the ability to cope and the poor equipment of some UN units. However, if nations that have the capacity to support UN peacekeepers, whether financially, logistically or by providing high-quality equipment, choose to turn our backs, a UN failure will be our failure. It will not be the failure of nations of lesser economic or military capability, which none the less dedicate men where others fear to tread.
Some have argued that African nations should find an African solution to the problem. However, we have a moral responsibility as a permanent member of the Security Council, as the former colonial power and as the leader of the Commonwealth to provide a solution when others cannot. The Government are floating plans to train and arm the Sierra Leonean army and to ensure that 6,000 UN troops are available to secure SLA advances. We also welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence that military help to UN peacekeepers would continue even after the Parachute Regiment had been withdrawn. That support must be conditional—it must go to the right forces. There are now six separate armed command structures in a country of between 4 million and 5 million people, plus the RUF. We must ensure that British military assistance in terms of weapons or training is directed at the right location.
I pay tribute to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on the diamond trade, which is central to the problem. I welcome the reply that the Minister gave my hon. Friend on 18 May, when he said that he had had discussions with the G8, with Belgium and with De Beers. That was helpful and we will support Government moves to ensure that diamonds are part of the answer.
It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the United Kingdom does not carry the can for the west's unwillingness to connect in Africa. To withdraw prematurely would mean that our intervention had been in vain. By sending our troops to Sierra Leone and by assisting the UN peacekeepers, we have created a responsibility to the United Nations. We must ensure that we live up to that responsibility in the times ahead.
11.6 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I welcome you, Mr. Gale, to the Chair for the first time in this Chamber. I am delighted to see you presiding over our deliberations. I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on initiating the debate and I echo the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) that it is taking place in this Chamber and not on the Floor of the House, where more hon. Members could participate.
I would like to add the Opposition's tribute to those already paid to our troops deployed in a hostile environment in Sierra Leone and also to their families back in this country, many of whom will be concerned until the troops return home safely. I am sure that our troops there will rise to the challenge of active service, not least because they are some of our finest service
176WH
personnel. We all know that they will do a first-class job no matter what is required of them. I would like to express our concerns for the hostages being held by the RUF and for the aid workers still missing. We all hope for their safe return. We heard this morning of the RUF's demands for Foday Sankoh's release in return for the hostages. While appreciating the restrictions under which the Minister operates, we hope that in his reply to the debate he will reassure us about the Government's reaction to those demands.
We have a long historic connection with Sierra Leone, which has been maintained through the Commonwealth and our old colonial responsibilities. Freetown began as a destination for slaves freed by the Royal Navy. Believe it or not, at the end of the 19th century the level of education in Sierra Leone was higher than in this country. Today, however, it is one of the poorest countries in the world, with a derisory gross domestic product per head and a male life expectancy of a mere 37 years of age. However, that disguises the fact that its diamond mines are a major source of wealth. They are at the heart of the current round of killing and fighting, I am afraid. With great sadness we are again discussing Sierra Leone and the parlous state of affairs there.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I apologise for not having been in the Chamber for the whole debate, but I have been in a Standing Committee. That is a problem for hon. Members serving on Committees who wish to attend debates in this Chamber.
Do hon. Members agree that De Beers has a responsibility? As was said earlier in the debate, diamonds are coming out of Sierra Leone through Liberia and De Beers should close its purchasing offices there. Diamonds appear to be fuelling the conflict. Will Opposition Members add to what has been said about that?
Mrs. Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend, who saves me from having to cover the point later in my speech. Yesterday, the Minister gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee saying that he was taking action over diamond sales and blood diamonds and the Opposition will of course support him.
Mr. Blunt: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Gillan: I am very short of time and hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way.
I want to discuss some of the issues that were raised in the Select Committee because the Minister's evidence caused more confusion, with serious implications. I should like the Minister to clarify his evidence about requests from President Kabbah for Brigadier Richards to stay on in Sierra Leone, for an officer to train the Sierra Leonean army and for an official to be transferred into the office of the chief of defence staff. It was revealed that the decisions were taken by officials without reference to the Minister. Does he think, with hindsight, that that was wise? Can he confirm the date of President Kabbah's request, the date of the refusal and the date on which the Minister or his predecessor was informed that the requests—apart from the one for an official to be transferred to the office of the chief of defence staff—had been denied? Does the Minister consider that he has

177WH
proper control of officials in his Department—particularly if they think that such decisions should be taken without bothering Ministers?
Surely there can be no doubt, after the Foreign Affairs Committee's previous investigation on Sierra Leone, when it adjudged what had gone on to be disastrous, that Ministers should be involved. Yesterday the Minister intimated that the issue was covered in Peter Penfold's briefings, particularly the final telegram, which the Minister said he would reveal in confidence to the Committee. If everything were in order, would the Minister place all the telegrams from Mr. Penfold in the Library of the House, including the valedictory dispatch? Anything less would lead us to believe the worst. He seemed very willing to provide them to the Select Committee yesterday, so I see no reason why they should be denied to other hon. Members.
Mr. Keetch: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Gillan: No. There is not enough time and there is a lot of ground to cover.
I hope that the Minister will provide explanations of the involvement of Air Foyle, following his replies to the Select Committee yesterday. I understand from reports that Air Foyle flew surface-to-air missiles, Kalashnikovs and rocket-propelled grenade launchers from the Ukraine to Burkina Faso last year. The Select Committee has asked the Minister to provide the dates on which officials and Ministers were informed about the flights and the date when the MOD contracts were awarded to Air Foyle. I hope that the Minister has those dates to hand.
The Lomé peace accord has been mentioned by other hon. Members this morning. Will the Minister expand on his evidence yesterday and confirm his and the Government's role? For example, how often did he meet Foday Sankoh? Obviously he spent a great deal of time with him, because he told the Committee yesterday that he repeatedly told him, "You have signed this agreement and you are going to stick to it." Did the Minister have any discussions with Mr. Sankoh about controlling the diamond-producing area of Sierra Leone and what was said on both sides? Can the Minister say categorically that no British official or Minister, or any other agent from the United Kingdom, brought any pressure to bear on President Kabbah to give Mr. Sankoh control of the lucrative diamond area? That matter was raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). There is some concern that inducements were given. During the Lomé negotiations did any party raise the subject of British aid and were any conditions attached to the aid? Were aid payments linked to the outcome of the Lomé agreement, and if so, how?
Why did the Minister acquiesce to the appointment to high office, and to the control of the country's finances, of a man who has raped, pillaged, maimed, tortured and cannibalised his people and murdered his family? Is the Minister happy to have done business with him on behalf of the United Kingdom?
178WH
Finally, I raise the military issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate. Two weeks ago, we were told that our troops had a clear mandate to organise the evacuation of British citizens and ensure their safety. It is clear that that was not the whole truth; following the Minister's frankness in evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, we are now closer to the truth. The Minister told us that the troops' mandate was to evacuate British citizens, to secure Lungi airport, to facilitate the entry of UN peacekeepers via that secure airport, to provide logistical support to the UN force, to carry out searches for the hostages and to assist in any way that is considered desirable. That sounds like a mission brief. I believe that the Minister said yesterday—I could have checked his words had the transcript been available—that nothing is outside its mandate. If that is so, he should clear up the uncertainty and confusion about the deployment of forces. The remarks of a British officer with detailed knowledge of the operation demonstrate that confusion. He said that one of the problems in putting the mission together was that
the Government blows hot and cold on this issue, especially Robin Cook.
British forces continue to receive our support in whatever they are called on to do. However, the nature of our commitment is changing and Ministers have still not provided enough clarity. We read reports about the possibility that the United Kingdom might supply arms. The subject is being considered at a meeting today. The mission now appears to be an open-ended commitment, with the Minister giving the impression that our troops could be tied up in Sierra Leone for months. Despite the Foreign Secretary's assurances at the beginning of the month that British troops would not be committed as a combat force, they are taking on a combat role. The longer the mission lasts, the more likelihood there is of troops being drawn deeper into the conflict.
The Government's record on Sierra Leone has not been a happy one. British marines and paratroopers are doing a great job there. They will have the support of the Opposition in whatever they are asked to do. However, the Government's activities—and, in some cases, the inactivity of Ministers—will continue to be the subject of close scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will have enough time to answer the many questions that are being repeatedly raised about the Government's involvement in Sierra Leone.
11.18 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Frankly, I doubt that I shall have time to do so.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on securing this important debate at such a critical time. I pay tribute to his long commitment to foreign policy, especially in Africa. His remarks were thoughtful and well informed, which contrasted favourably with many of the debates on the issue in recent weeks. I agree with him that the debate has been flawed—the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) made a similar point—in that it has focused on how fast we can depart rather than on what we are seeking to achieve.
Mrs. Gillan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hain: No, I am sorry, but I do not have time.
Mrs. Gillan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Hain: The remarks of other hon. Members were equally important, especially those by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes).
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that control of the diamond trade is crucial. That is true for Angola, the Congo and especially Sierra Leone. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) made the same point. He and other h Ms raised important issues concerning diamonds and the role of Liberia. Although De Beers has pulled out of Sierra Leone, it retains an office in Liberia. As all Sierra Leone's diamonds go across the Liberian border, De Beers should give the matter some attention. However, I must acknowledge that De Beers has co-operated with us in developing pioneering work to regulate the international diamond trade.
As the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) described his plans for the use of private armies to solve every conflict in the world, I had an image of Commander Blunt, the hero of "Wild Geese", the sequel, intervening in conflicts.
Mr. Blunt: Will the Minister give way? He has misrepresented me.
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that he cannot accuse a Minister of misrepresenting facts in this Chamber.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman made one good point about how important it is to get control of diamond areas, but we must bear in mind that the diamonds are alluvial diamonds. They come from a vast area of bandit country and the terrain is difficult. The logistics must be considered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) made many well-argued points on behalf of her constituents. I hope that they will be reassured. I understand the African anger about the apparent readiness of the west to intervene in Kosovo but not in Africa. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said in his well-informed speech, Africa needs regional security and peacekeeping. It needs to use the Southern African Development Community, ECOWAS in west Africa and the EAC—the East African Community—in east Africa to develop its own peacekeeping conflict-prevention capacity to provide the sockets into which a UN and western plug could fit. The absence of such a socket has been a problem in Africa for many years. I agree that NATO cannot do everything.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to the big fuss that was made yesterday and what the high commissioner did or did not say. On 11 April, President Kabbah called the high
180WH
commissioner, Peter Penfold, to say that he had decided to appoint a temporary Sierra Leonean chief of defence staff to replace the seriously ill Nigerian, General Khobe. He was concerned that General Khobe's departure would lead to a collapse of morale and would boost the RUF rebels. He asked us to move one of the British advisers who was working on the reform of the Sierra Leonean army into the defence headquarters with the new chief of defence staff. We did that, as the hon. Lady acknowledged. The president also asked us to advance the arrival of the new British commander of the military assistance and training team, which we agreed to do.
His third request, however, was to delay the departure of Brigadier Richards, who had been on a tour of duty, so that he could take over as the Sierra Leonean chief of defence staff. However, as there is no Sierra Leonean army to speak of, how could a senior British soldier—I hope that the hon. Lady is not advocating this—be catapulted into that position? We replied that our objectives are to strengthen the UN mission—we gave instructions to Peter Penfold to that effect—and to increase and stiffen the operation so that it is deployed further across the territory. We received no complaint about that. On the contrary, Peter Penfold reported that President Kabbah was content with our response and that UN forces were following our suggestion and deployment had begun.
As for ministerial involvement, the response was a routine operational matter. I saw the telegrams and there was no need to invite a submission or interfere with the decision. It was a perfectly straightforward operational matter within ministerial policy guidelines. It had nothing to do with the recent collapse of the peace process. The collapse was triggered not by that exchange—it would not have had an influence—but by the deployment of UN forces in the Makeni diamond producing area, which was controlled by the RUF. The UN forces asked the RUF to disarm, but they refused and took some of the UN forces captive because they feared that they would lose control of the diamond producing areas. That triggered Foday Sankoh's reneging on the Lomé peace agreement and the subsequent troubles. It had nothing to do with the exchange of telegrams. I am glad to have had the opportunity to put that on the record.
As for the Lomé agreement, I answered that point earlier. There were no inducements. There was no pressure. There was no bargaining over aid and development assistance. President Kabbah negotiated that deal. It should be remembered that he was besieged by thousands of RUF soldiers—the most belligerent and well-armed force in the country—and he had no forces of his own. There was no United Nations peacekeeping mandate; that would have taken months to achieve. One of the problems is the slowness of the UN's reaction to such matters. There was no alternative to that least-worst, imperfect deal. We will have to live with that fact, but there was no British pressure on the president to sign that agreement.
I have answered the question about Air Foyle. In March 1999, it apparently transported some arms from the Ukraine to Burkina Faso. We referred the matter to the UN sanctions committee, but there is no evidence that Air Foyle knew that those arms would be transported separately by another carrier to the RUF.

181WH
Violence and instability are not new to Sierra Leone. They have plagued it for more than 30 years. During the past nine years, since the RUF launched its war against the people of Sierra Leone, the country has been afflicted by unimaginable brutality. The people have seen their hopes and their prospects for peace repeatedly denied. The only time the RUF was repelled was in January 1999, when it besieged Freetown and 6,000 people were killed there. The Nigerian-led ECOWAS force repelled the RUF, which created the circumstances for the Lomé agreement. I echo the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South to the extremely important role played by the Nigerians—and the sacrifices that they made.
After nine years of brutal, bestial war, considerable progress has been made in the search for stability, security and peace. The UK and the international community have sustained President Kabbah, the elected leader, in power. The level of violence and the number of atrocities have been drastically reduced. We have supported the Lomé peace agreement, which offered the people of Sierra Leone a chance of lasting peace and stability. A large UN peacekeeping force has been deployed to help implement it; 2,000 more UN peacekeepers have come to Sierra Leone since British forces arrived, and another 2,000 will follow.
The reconstruction of the country has begun. We are building new and effective armed forces for Sierra Leone, accountable to a civilian ministry of defence. More than half of the former combatants have been disarmed—a considerable achievement—and led away from violence towards a new civilian life. Preparations for democratic elections early next year have begun. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie for leading a visit by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in March 2000. Substantial progress has been made, but the RUF's actions in the past few weeks have posed a challenge to that progress.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked about the RUF demand that Sankoh be released in exchange for the release of hostages. Let me make it absolutely clear that we do not negotiate deals with hostage takers. That has consistently been British Government policy. Sankoh and his followers must understand that they are in defiance of the United Nations and the international community. The hostages must be released safely and in good health. We will not trade Sankoh's freedom. He must face justice. He has a lot to answer for and he must be held fully accountable for his actions. I had a half-hour meeting with him, and challenged him about the diamonds. He became extremely unhappy and frustrated when pressed on the subject.
Our response has been swift and decisive. Our first priority was, and is, to protect British lives. Within days, we deployed the spearhead battalion with back-up forces, which enabled us to mount a swift and efficient evacuation of British and other entitled citizens. We have helped to secure the situation and we deserve praise, not continual sniping. The entire international community is praising us, and I invite the Opposition to do so as well.

Pension Rights (Married Women)
11.30 am
Mr. Steve Webb: I wish to raise an issue of justice that affects thousands, perhaps millions, of married women throughout Britain. Much of my speech will consist of short excerpts from letters that I have received from married women, because I want the debate to consist not of a politician from one party criticising a politician from another party, but of the authentic voice and anger of married women pensioners and those approaching pensionable age.
I shall begin with a letter from a Mrs. R. of Chingford, who says:
I am 54 years now…I have worked since I was 17 except for 3 years when I had my son, and am only entitled to 99p per week…It looks as though a lifetime of work and paying NI will leave me a very poor pensioner.
That is typical of the sense of injustice and anger in the 40 or 50 letters that I have received—a further four arrived this morning—on this issue.
As word gets around, I receive new letters expressing happiness at the fact that someone is taking up this issue, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively and constructively to the debate. I cannot hold the present Government responsible for these problems, many of which occurred decades ago, so I hope that the Minister will not adopt a defensive posture, but will join me instead in trying to right an historic injustice.
As the Minister will know, married women were initially allowed to pay a reduced rate of national insurance contributions in return for forgoing pension and certain other benefit rights. From 1977, no new cases were allowed, but 4 million women—about one in 10 of the then adult population—were allowed to continue with such payments, so the scale of the problem is large. In 1989, national insurance for the low paid was restructured, so that many married women on the reduced rate paid no more—perhaps even less—in opting instead for full national insurance. It is the initial system, the 1977 reforms and the 1989 reforms that I want to examine today.
The Department may have believed that married women who paid reduced national insurance contributions knew what they were doing, given that they signed a form stating that they had read the booklet and had made an informed trade-off. However, the reality is very different. Many married women have written to me saying that they had no idea how the system worked. Mrs. R. of Oldham said:
I recently wrote for a pension forecast and was appalled to find that I am only entitled to a pension of £22 when I reach the age of 60 in two years time…Absolutely no information was given to the fact that we would receive such a derisory pension. Had this been made clear at the time, I would immediately have elected to pay the full contribution.
There is also ignorance about the home responsibilities protection provisions. Mrs. S. of Weston said:
I was advised to pay a reduced stamp. I was not made aware at the time that I would not receive HRP credits for the time bringing up my children.

183WH
That issue has been raised by a number of women. Mrs. S. says that
thousands of women like myself…did not fully understand the implications of being on a reduced NI stamp until it was too late.
In other words, people genuinely did not understand the way in which this complex system worked. In many cases, married women did not make an informed and considered choice to save money now and pay in future—it was not like that.
Not only did many people not understand the system; some were given no choice. Mrs. S. of Morecambe writes:
In 1975 I got a small part-time job and told my then employer that I wished to pay full NI contributions. I was informed that this was not possible as all married women in part-time jobs had to pay reduced contributions.
She continues by emphasising:
At no time did I elect to pay reduced rate.
The Minister may say, "That is not possible: she must have signed a form." Perhaps she did, or perhaps the employer added her name to it—who knows. However, her perception is that she did not choose to pay reduced rate and would not have chosen to do so, had she known what was going on.
Some married women were given duff advice by their employers. One of my constituents, Mrs. H. of Compton Greenfield, who went back to work part time in 1972, was given no choice. She says:
My employer at that time employed an accountant who automatically deducted the reduced rate, and the implications were not explained to me. At no time was I informed about pension rights.
Some women asked their employers and got duff advice. Perhaps more worryingly, some also got duff advice from the Department of Social Security. For example, Mrs. J. of Billericay says:
I reached retirement age in October 1999 and filled in the form. The amount was £19.65 per week…I elected to pay married women's stamps when I got married in 1964—
this is the key element in this case—
because the Social Security said this would secure a full pension in my own right at 60 years, topping up my husband's contribution.
She went to the DSS and got duff advice. Similarly, Mrs. M. of Yeovil states:
A work colleague and myself were informed by the DSS office at Yeovil that, regardless of the stamp amount paid…our pensions would not be affected.
The Minister will have seen The Daily Telegraph on Saturday, which carried a story about a lady who had contacted me. When she asked, she was told that she had asked the wrong questions. That is the problem. People do not know how the system works. When they ask questions, they are given duff information; they are told that they have asked the wrong questions. If only they had known the right question to ask, they might have been given the right answer. That is the backdrop to the issue.
184WH
The 1977 rule change prevented newly married women from opting in. Married women at that time were contacted. I am not saying that the relevant information was not in the forms, nor that letters did not go out. I am aware that contact was made. However, I am querying the nature and the effects of the contact. Mrs. K. of Oldham says:
In 1977 when the law changed, I along with many others asked for advice either from our employers or the local social security office. The advice I got was "don't bother, you'll not get a pension, you won't have enough stamps on when you retire."
That woman is now receiving a pension of £29 a week. She says:
Just think what it could have been if I had started paying when I was 40.
That was when the issue arose. The advice given may have been right for some people, but I guarantee that it was not right for all.
Similarly misleading advice from the DSS can be found in the case of Mrs. M. from Wotton-under-Edge, who says:
In the 1980s—
after the rule change—
I telephoned the national insurance office to ask if this would affect my full pension at 60, and was told emphatically that it would make no difference whatsoever to my full pension at 60.
That was very clear.
A further example, relating to home responsibility protection and to the contents of the paperwork, is that of Mrs. C. of Dursley, who used to work for the DSS. She says:
When the election had to be confirmed, we were not issued with any paperwork or guidance. The certificate of election does not give any details—the implications on HRP do not get mentioned.
With regard to home responsibility protection, women who did not work at all would receive credits on their pension. Women paying full-rate national insurance would receive a pension entitlement. However, women who worked and paid some national insurance would receive no home responsibility protection. They would have been better off from the point of view of their pension if they had paid no national insurance at all. That is a crazy situation, and it is not surprising that no one understood it.
In 1989, we reach the key point in this saga. The Government reformed national insurance so that low-paid workers who did not pay much national insurance would have the right to a full pension. However, married women went on paying what was still called the reduced rate, which, by comparison, was pretty similar by then. Many women would have been well advised to go back in at that stage: all those who could have saved on national insurance by so doing, and those who might have paid a few pence more but started to build up pension rights. However, there were again problems with publicity. Mrs. K. of Oldham says:
I don't remember a major publicity campaign in the late 80s. How would people know about leaflets at the local Benefits Agency? It wouldn't have been difficult to get in touch with those concerned…[they] don't seem to have any problem when it's an underpayment, do they?
That lady knew nothing about the change in 1989.

185WH
Likewise, Mrs. Y. of Bath says that she did hear from the Department but could not make head nor tail of what she was told. She says:
I can remember having a letter many years ago—saying something about paying the higher rate National Insurance, but it was written in the usual official jargon which few understand and it certainly was not drawn to one's attention as being of major importance…the DHSS must have realised from the lack of response that thousands like me had not understood the full implications and should have issued something in "normal English" which spelt out the advantages a little better.
That is a key point. The change in 1989 should have prompted many married women to opt back in to the full rate and the number of women on the reduced rate should have dropped correspondingly, but that did not happen. The Department of Social Security should have noticed that few people had responded to the change and realised that it needed to try harder.
Two groups have been particularly affected. The first of those is women with much younger husbands; I refer to this as the toy boy problem. One woman said in her letter:
My husband is 15 years younger than me.
That means that she will be 80 before she receives a pension on his contributions to the age of 65. She might be dead by then, having had 20 years of retirement with no pension in her own right. The Minister may say that for many women it will not matter, because they will get a pension on their husband's entitlement and could not have made as much on their own contributions. However, for the woman that I quoted, and others like her, it matters a great deal.
The second group comprises women who worked on a full stamp before they were married. Mrs. C of Guildford states:
We were advised verbally that it was a waste of time paying a full stamp, but not told of the implications. The eight years I worked before marriage paying full stamp were wiped out.
In a couple more years, she would have had a 25 per cent. pension, but all those years were wiped out because she did not quite make the threshold. She probably could have got a pension, but was wrongly advised.
Pensioners from around the country have been telling me of the disgust that they feel when they receive their pension forecast, which is often the first time that they realise—at the age of 58 or 59—that they are expecting a pension that will not materialise. Mrs. M. of Wotton-under-Edge said:
I was 60 in 1995 and…had written to ask for a printout of my pension rights. I was totally shocked when it came back stating my pension would be 8p per week.
She had only seven years' worth of full stamps but, when she offered to make it up to 10 years, was told that she had left it too late. She continued:
I asked why I had not been advised but was given a curt answer. I have always been totally disgusted with the way the pension blunder has been handled by the government—
that is, the previous Government. In practical terms, some married women cannot retire; they have to carry
186WH
on working because they do not have enough money to live on. Mr. Y. of Tyne and Wear wrote:
My wife receives the princely sum of 65p per week pension…she still works although she would like to retire—why can't she?—because the pension would not let her.
Married women all over the country who are just below, or above, pension age are disgusted, appalled and shocked when they receive such forecasts, because they had no idea how the system worked or they were given bad advice. Some are having to carry on working, and most feel that this is another case of women getting a raw deal out of the pensions system.
What should be done? I sought to give the Department advance warning of some of the points that I wanted to raise, and hope to receive recognition that the matter needs serious, long-term investigation. I ask the Minister to deal with three aspects in his response. First, married women deserve an apology—not from him, but on behalf of successive Governments—for the way in which they have been let down by the pensions system. One can argue that the forms gave the necessary information, and that if people had known the right questions to ask and had been aware of how the system worked there would have been no problem. However, many were not in that position and they continue to write to me every day to tell me so. They deserve an apology.
Secondly, the matter deserves serious consideration by the Government. I was treated somewhat dismissively by the Secretary of State when I raised it during Social Security questions a few weeks ago. The cases that I have mentioned, and others, require independent investigation, perhaps in association with Age Concern or another organisation that has contact with pensioners' groups. People must have confidence that a root-and-branch investigation into what went on and what went wrong is being undertaken.
Thirdly, redress must be given. That may be different in every case and inappropriate in some. Nevertheless, where people have been misled by officialdom, or if the Government have failed to contact them to tell them how the system works and what to do about it, the Government—even the successor Government—have a duty to respond to those cases, perhaps by reconsidering the home responsibility protection rules, or by allowing people to buy back years, even some years later. There may be other forms of necessary redress, but redress must be made.
The 40 or 50 letters that I have received are the tip of a large iceberg. I am grateful for the chance to bring the matter to the attention of the Chamber, and I look forward to a constructive response from the Minister.
11.45 am
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I hope that I will be able to give the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) a response that will be at least partially satisfactory. No Minister could ever give a totally satisfactory response in a half-hour debate such as this.
What is perceived to have gone wrong in the cases mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—although I note that the ages of the individuals vary—was a long time ago; in a bygone age, as far as my Department is concerned. To refresh my memory of the issues, I have

187WH
checked parliamentary questions that I asked and comments that I made in the 1970s. In the late 1970s, changes were made which prevented married women from opting out if they were new to the work force. There was also the abolition of the half-test rule. At one time, I had a file 6 in thick, and I remember writing to those constituents for whom we were unable to put matters right, saying that we had put them right for the future and that the next generation would not be in the same mess.
I remember asking my noble Friend Lord Orme, who was a Social Security Minister at the time, why the Department could not give advice. It was as if there was an ordinance that Departments did not give advice—they were not in the advice business. All we could say to constituents was, "Make a claim and you will get a decision", when what they really needed was an advice shop in the Department. I can assure hon. Members that, in the 1940s, '50s, '60s, '70s and most of the '80s, no such thing existed.
The culture has changed since then, although I do not say that the future is completely rosy. The women whose cases the hon. Gentleman has raised are, rightly, aggrieved about the way in which they have been treated. However, most people in this country have not got a clue about how the national insurance system works. I must be careful about my language; it seems to me that most people do not fully appreciate the starkness of the position. Single men pay the same rate of national insurance as married men. The stark reality is that married couples who rely on the pension of the man are subsidised by the contributions of single people. Although no one puts it quite like that, that is how the system works. There is no differential between the rate for single people and married men. A married man will collect 160 per cent. of pension, including 60 per cent. for his wife, if she is not contributing.
There are many quirky bits such as that in the national insurance system and, occasionally, they come up and bite us. I remember the married women's option, as it was called; I dealt with it when I was a junior manager in the engineering industry in the 1960s. It was a flat rate of one shilling. Everyone knew that the only thing that it covered was industrial injury. The women on the production line at Salter's in West Bromwich knew that—it was common knowledge. That was all they got for their shilling. Of course, their wages were so low that they could not have contemplated paying the full rate. More women were coming into the work force, but they were, predominantly, on low pay. That is why there were campaigns about equal pay and related issues at that time.
There was an informed choice. The hon. Gentleman may know of someone who claims that they did not sign a form. However, we still have tons and tons of paper records around. There was a form that had to be signed. I admit freely, having read it again this morning, that the form was not brilliantly clear, and I can guarantee that it would not pass the plain English test. Nevertheless, a signature was required before someone could opt out of the full rate of national insurance.
To that extent, it had to be an informed choice, and leaflet NI1 did explain the situation in relation to pensions. By the 1970s, many more women were working, which was the reason for the change in 1977. The option was withdrawn in the 1978–79 tax year
188WH
because 3.6 million women had opted out of the full rate of national insurance contributions. That figure is now 175,000. We stopped that unfairness for the next generation, and that reduction over 20 years means that we are on the way to eliminating it. That may not solve the problems of the examples given by the hon. Gentleman this morning, but reducing the number of women who opt out means that more will collect a lifetime's national insurance contributions because, by and large, women are working longer and the difference in wage rates is closing.
I do not suggest that everything was hunky dory under the previous Labour Government, but things started to go wrong in 1989 when the structure of national insurance contributions changed and gave rise to an anomaly in which someone who opted out might end up paying more national insurance than someone who was paying the full rate. The change in 1989 was for the good reason that, unlike tax, a £1 rise in wages might result in a £3 rise in national insurance contributions. That was barmy and the then Chancellor, Lord Lawson, introduced the change to deal with that.
In August 1989, a mail shot to the women concerned advised them to examine their position before the structural changes were introduced. The Government wrote to those women in a form that would probably not pass the plain English test—that is a bold statement, but the wording of the document does not look like plain English to me. A warning bell was rung and a light flashed to warn women to take action, but not many seem to have done so. I do not know why.
Further changes have been introduced more recently so that many women on low earnings do not pay contributions, but will be credited to the level of the basic state pension. It is beneficial for married women on low earnings to revoke the reduced rate election if they have continued to work and have remained opted out since 1978. The Inland Revenue now administers national insurance assessment and collection and is planning a mail shot later in the year to target those women.
I have seen some of the hon. Gentleman's questions, most of which go to the Treasury, which deals with national insurance matters, but I may not have seen all of them. Any Government mail shot in 2000 should be checked for plain English and it should be clear and explicit about what to do if people have questions. The Government would fail if they sent out a mail shot that was not consumer friendly. We estimate that some 6,000 women will receive it.
When the Labour Government made the changes in 1977, we did not want married women to lose out later in life and, in a leaflet, we gave a full explanation of the changes. However, not everyone, particularly if they are working shifts, checks with the Benefits Agency. In those days, it was impossible to get through on the telephone and letters were not answered for weeks, even letters from Members of Parliament. The system for responding to the public has been vastly transformed, but in the 1970s and 1980s it was not a customer-friendly service.
The hon. Gentleman was unfair to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security was dismissive when the hon. Gentleman asked a question on the Floor of the House last Monday. My

189WH
right hon. Friend said that the hon. Gentleman had asked the question before, but had not given sufficient information. I repeat that now. I require more information than the hon. Gentleman has provided when he has written to me in the past.
I have some correspondence in which I was given only the name of the lady in question. It contains no address, date of birth or national insurance details, yet I was asked to say that she should be eligible for an increase in her pension because she had worked in a Royal Ordnance factory during the war. I had to write back and ask for more information. If we have the basic information to enable us to check the files—date of birth, national insurance number, maiden name and so on—we will check every case submitted to us.
In cases in which someone has made a genuine inquiry—perhaps in the form of an early forecast requirement—and has been misdirected, there remains the option to buy back in. We must be careful that that would not constitute a one-way bet against the taxpayer. Every case would have to be individually assessed. However, I do not believe that there is any need for a large-scale inquiry. This is not like the issues surrounding SERPS.
However, if it appears after evidence has been submitted and we have checked our files that someone has been misdirected or misinformed by my Department, we will consider allowing her to buy back in the contributions that she has missed. In that way, she would be able to regularise her benefits. Successful applicants would be given the opportunity to pay arrears at the rate in force at the time that the payment was due. For some women on low incomes, that could even lead to a refund.
Mr. Webb: Would the Minister include in that category the people who, since 1989, could have saved money by going back into full-rate contributions?
Mr. Rooker: I am not sure about that. It would not be possible, once one had elected to come out, to swap over again. We are quite prepared to look at each case on its individual merits. We do not have any such cases before us at present, although from time to time, people make individual inquiries of the Department. The situation is not unique.
190WH
In 2002, we shall start to operate the pension forecast. It will be phased in over a number of years, and will mean that everyone who is working will receive a pension forecast every year. It will include information on their state pension and their occupational pension. Women and men in their 20s and 30s, among others, will receive a P60 and a pension forecast every year. They might respond by saying, "I thought it would be more than that. What can I do about it?" The time to ask such questions is earlier, rather than later when one cannot do anything about it.
I have heard from constituents who have discovered at the last minute that their pension entitlement was 24 per cent. If one's pension entitlement is less than 25 per cent., it will be zero. Unfortunately, some people find out about such things at the last minute, when it is too late to make up the shortfall. They will get zero. That is an aspect of the workings of the national insurance system that has been in place since it started. Nothing is being reinvented here.
However, I take on board the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and, if we have evidence of misinformation or misdirection in individual cases, we shall do our best to check the files and, if need be, regularise the situation. We are not asking people to turn the clock back, but we shall need evidence in these cases. I hope that, in 20 years, there will be no need for a Social Security Minister to stand up and answer this kind of question.
Mr. Webb: The Minister mentioned evidence. Obviously, it is very difficult to obtain evidence from 10 or 20 years ago. What sort of evidence does he have in mind? Does it have to be documents?
Mr. Rooker: I suspect that it will have to be. Unlike in the circumstances relating to SERPS, the burden of proof will not be on the Department. When the changes were made, mailshots were carried out. The publicity was adequate in the sense that leaflets were sent out by the Department and debates were held in the House. I realise that the media now tend to ignore the House but, in those days, they used to report the House more thoroughly, so there is less excuse for people being ignorant of this matter. However, we will look at every individual case that is put to us.

Mike Tyson
12 noon
Ms Jenny Jones: I begin by thanking Madam Speaker for allowing me this debate. When I made the request last week, the decision on Mike Tyson's application to enter the country had not been made. Since then, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made his ruling. Regrettably, it is not the one that I would have liked. The issue is attracting a lot of public attention and it is therefore still relevant.
Last year, the Government published an important document, "Living without fear: an integrated approach to tackling violence against women". Its opening statement was that violence against women is a serious crime with serious consequences. The document stated that one in four women in the United Kingdom experience domestic violence at some time in their lives and that the number of reported rapes has nearly doubled in the past 10 years, a steeper rise than for any other crime. At the same time, the conviction rate for rape has dropped from 24 per cent. to 9 per cent. Seven out of 10 women aged between 16 and 29 fear rape. They fear rape and personal attack more than any other crime.
In my opinion, and that of many others, the document set out in an intelligent and coherent fashion how the Government would tackle violence against women. It was welcomed by all sectors of society. Many felt at last that we had a Government who would give the issue priority. The document was followed by a review of sex offences legislation. The newspapers anticipate a paper being published later this month by the working body reviewing sex offences. Changes to rape trials to try to increase the conviction rate have been trailed by the papers.
People's expectations of the Government have been raised. However, a high-profile convicted rapist has been allowed into the country for the sole purpose of commercial gain—not once, but twice—and under an immigration rule that I believed was designed to prevent people convicted of serious offences from entry. Mike Tyson is not only a convicted rapist. His violence towards women is well documented. I shall not mention every story that the national press has printed about him. One, however, does sum up his attitude towards women and the evident problem he has controlling his violence towards women. A national paper in America once asked him what was the greatest punch he had ever thrown. He joked that it was the punch he gave his ex-wife.
In allowing Mike Tyson into the country, the Home Secretary exercised the discretion given him by our immigration rules. What signals does that decision send out? I feel that it has weakened the Government's determination to deal with violence against women. The fact that Tyson has been let in mainly for economic benefit sends out the message that tackling violence against women may be less important than making as much money as quickly as possible. Is rape to be taken seriously, or is it only to be taken seriously provided it does not cost too much? What weight was given to the Government's policy on violence against women when the Home Secretary made his decision?
192WH
I turn to the Home Secretary's reasons for allowing Tyson entry, which were printed in the written answer to the House on 18 May. The Home Secretary said that Mr. Tyson's behaviour on his previous visit to the United Kingdom was satisfactory and asserted that
any risk to the public…would be minimised by…his high media profile, the presence of his trainers and other supporting entourage, and the limited duration of his visit.—[Official Report, 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 210W.]
What happens if a member or members of that supporting entourage have committed or been convicted of worse offences than those committed by Mike Tyson? On 18 January, The Express published an article on Mike Tyson's first visit. It stated that one member of his team, Steve Fitch, had served a five-year term for manslaughter, which is a more serious offence than rape.
Will the Minister tell us what steps immigration officers will take to examine every member of Mike Tyson's entourage and to establish whether any of them have been convicted of a serious offence, as Steve Fitch was? If it is discovered that a member of the entourage has been convicted of such an offence, will that person be allowed into the country under the discretion that the Home Office has exercised under rule 103?
I am fairly certain that Mike Tyson would not set out to harm anybody on his first few visits to the United Kingdom. After all, he is trying to impress on people here that there is another side to his character. Last time, he turned up with a formidable public relations machine, which set out to give an impression of him that was slightly different from that which had previously prevailed. As he has twice been given permission to enter this country, it seems likely that he will able to travel here with impunity.
Having said yes twice, it is most unlikely that the Home Secretary will say no on a third or fourth occasion. The risk of the mask slipping on Mike Tyson's behaviour in Britain will increase with every visit that he makes. It is likely that he will at some time in the future start to demonstrate here the behaviour for which he is infamous in the United States. It will be interesting to see how the Home Office reacts when that happens.
As to satisfactory behaviour, it is true that Mike Tyson did not engage in any violence outside the ring when he was in Britain. He did, however, climb over the gates of the royal parks to go running. I am told that that was technically an offence but that the police chose to exercise discretion and did not arrest him. His offensive remarks about the women's groups and women parliamentarians—hon. Members who sit in the House—who criticised his entry into Britain were slightly more concerning.
I remind hon. Members that he described us as a bunch of frustrated women who wanted to be men, and he went on to express an opinion about the men to whom these women might be married. I am told that the phrase that he used is a colloquial obscenity, so I am loth to repeat it. If I did so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you would tell me that I was using unparliamentary language. Mike Tyson did not attack anybody while he was here, but does the Minister agree that making derogatory and offensive remarks about women Members of Parliament is not the sort of behaviour that we expect of somebody who is a guest in this country?

193WH
The final reason for allowing entry was that not permitting it would result in a loss of economic benefit to the United Kingdom and would not enhance the UK's standing as a venue for a major sporting event. It is interesting to consider where the economic benefits of the bouts lie. I asked the Library to research some figures in relation to the Manchester fight with Julius Francis. Mike Tyson made £4 million in a two-round fight that lasted four minutes and three seconds. That means that he earned £16,460 per second. His opponent, Julius Francis, received £350,000 for managing to stand on his feet for just more than four minutes. The boxing promoters made a lot of money and, as we know, the sole broadcasting rights went to Rupert Murdoch's Sky television, which broadcasted the event on a pay-to-view basis; I think that these matches can be watched at a cost of £13 a fight. There is certainly a lot of money to be made, but the extent to which it was distributed around Manchester and United Kingdom is questionable.
Sheffield Hallam university estimated that the predicted loss to the Manchester economy of £12 million had the fight not gone ahead was highly exaggerated. The faculty's researchers calculated that the losses would probably only have been about £1.5 million. No evidence was ever produced to show that any business would be bankrupted had the fight not gone ahead. That casts doubt on who gets the economic benefits.
With regard to the UK's standing as a venue for major sporting events, I must tell the Minister that there are mixed views in the boxing fraternity about the Tyson fights, especially the one held in January. It might be wondered why I know about boxing. I have never before expressed views on the sport, which in itself is not the subject of the debate. However, I have two close relatives who were champion amateur boxers in their youth, so I might know a bit more about the subject than some hon. Members have given me credit for.
The view held is that the previous Tyson fight was not of the gladiatorial standards that we used to see with the fights of Muhammad Ali. The same might be true of this fight. One amateur boxer told me at the weekend that such fights are not so much gladiatorial as like a sick circus. Many in the boxing fraternity consider the Tyson fights to be an exercise in making as much money as easily as possible for a few people. We must ask whether the UK really wants to get a reputation as a sporting venue for such events.
I want to consider the point that I raised during Prime Minster's questions last week. Like many hon. Members, I represent a multicultural constituency. A significant part of my caseload is helping constituents who are trying to get close relatives into the country for weddings, funerals or visiting sick relations. We are not always terribly successful at that. It can be difficult to explain to a constituent why a close family member cannot be brought into the country, especially for something such as a funeral. The situation can be distressing. After Mike Tyson was allowed into the country in January, I found myself being asked why, for example, constituents could not get their mother, who had never committed an offence, into the country, when Tyson—rich, famous and convicted of a serious offence—could enter.
194WH
Our immigration rules are complex, and different rules apply to people coming from America from those that apply to people coming from the Indian subcontinent. However, the public perception is that it does not matter what crime people commit if they are rich and famous because they can circumvent UK immigration rules. That is an unfortunate message to send out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) wishes to make a short contribution. I am grateful to the Minister and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having kindly agreed to that. There is much public disquiet about the decision second time around. On the first occasion, many people who were unhappy with the decision might have gone along with it because many seats for the fight had already been booked and because we had been told that a lot of money was at stake.
Circumstances second time around are different. Many Members of Parliament are less than happy. When I checked last night, the number of signatories to early-day motion 741 on the matter was 81 and climbing. The total could reach more than 100 by the end of the week. I had never seen some colleagues as furious as they were last Thursday when the decision was made. There was real fury and anger at the decision having been made for a second time. Public opinion and the impressions of Back Benchers must be considered—that is why we are here.
12.13 pm
Mrs. Maria Fyfe:I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) on gaining the debate and on her excellent work to further the issue. Her seeking the debate and her other activities demonstrate that the affair is not of interest to Scotland alone. Like others, I supported those protesting in England last January, and I warmly welcome the support shown by English colleagues and friends regarding Mike Tyson's coming to Scotland. The United Kingdom Government have retained responsibility for the matter, which is therefore a UK issue. Equally, however, I welcome the many voices in the Scottish Parliament that have stuck to the real issue, which is about violence against women. We must not lose sight of that. Before I deal with that problem, I want to raise a matter that arose from the process by which the Home Secretary's decision was made.
Mr. Frank Doran: My hon. Friend mentioned the Scottish dimension, which is important. Will she comment on the cynical attempts of the Scottish National party to exploit the issue, in particular its attempt to undermine the devolution settlement that, just two years ago, it fought side by side with other political parties in Scotland to achieve?
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady would confine her remarks to the subject of the debate.
Mrs. Fyfe: Thank you, Mr. Gale. My hon. Friend made his point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) met the Home Secretary on 3 May. On 12 May, triumphant quotations in the Scottish press

195WH
from the organisers of the bout said that Mike Tyson's visa was waiting for him. I immediately sought a meeting with the Home Secretary. On 17 May, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and I met the Minister of State with responsibility for immigration and asylum. At 4.30 pm, we were told that no decision had been made and that Ministers had not seen the paperwork. However, in a written response to a parliamentary question tabled that day for answer the following day, it was clear that the decision had been made sooner than we thought. At what time on Wednesday was the parliamentary question planted? What consultations did the Home Secretary have between 3 and 17 May? What was the hurry to reach a decision on 17 May in light of the emerging protest in the Scottish Parliament and in Westminster, on which he was fully informed? The decision is inexplicable. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West on that matter.
The reasons for granting the visa that were given on 18 May were greeted with incredulity and derision in Glasgow. We were told in January that the visa was granted because of exceptional circumstances—tickets had been sold and businesses would go bankrupt if the event was cancelled. Exceptional circumstances means not routine, but because the first visit created a precedent, it appears that Tyson must be allowed entry on the second application and, presumably, again and again. Did the Home Secretary realise in January that a legal precedent would be set for a second application? If so, why did he not tell us? The House of Commons and Labour Members of Parliament played fair with the Home Secretary in January. We thought that we understood the position; evidently, we did not.
The Home Secretary said yesterday that he was worried about public order on the streets and was satisfied that there was no danger of that being a problem. That is an outdated attitude. What about private disorder? What about beatings, batteries and rapes behind closed doors? What about the women who hope that their man's team wins on Saturday because they will be battered if it does not? What message does the feting and lionising of this man, whose has a string of violent actions against women and men, send to young men who are growing up? Plenty of other famous boxers must be more credible role models. It has been denied that Mike Tyson committed the crime of rape against Deirdre Washington but, as my hon. Friend said, there is a string of other violent incidents in his adult life, which is too long for me to recount. Were those all based on false allegations?
I am sorry that many women and men will be saddened and sickened by the decision. People are already saying that money talks. The only way to convince them otherwise is to introduce fair legislation that lets people without wealth and influence get into the country for family funerals and weddings and to visit the sick. The current message is that that is a lot less important than a boxing match.
12.19 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this issue. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) for securing the debate. She and my hon. Friend the
196WH
Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) set out a strong and resolute case. I do not expect them to agree with what I am about to say, but I want to explain the circumstances that led to the debate.
I completely understand the strong feelings that have been expressed in the House, in Scotland and in the United Kingdom generally, which is why I welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter.
Mr. John Swinney: Would the Minister care to say what consideration she gave to the representations made by the representative of the Scottish Parliament, the Deputy First Minister, who I believe contacted her on the matter? Will she say how those representations were considered by the Department, and whether that could have influenced the Home Secretary's decision?
Mrs. Roche: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall deal with that aspect.
My hon. Friends have set out clearly their arguments against agreeing to Mike Tyson's wish to enter to the United Kingdom. In dealing with the application for entry clearance, it was necessary for us to weigh all the relevant arguments for and against his admission. In his statement to the House, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained the basis on which we reached the decision to allow him entry. We did not reach that decision lightly, but did so after a careful assessment based on the history of the application and the need for fairness and consistency.
We were strongly aware of the objections that were raised to Mike Tyson's being admitted when he last visited the UK, in January, and of the immediate reaction to the news of his intended return. It is understandable that concerns should be expressed about his well-publicised criminal record. I have strong sympathy with those concerns. As I said last week, like all right-minded people, I consider the offences of which Mike Tyson has been convicted to be deplorable.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does my hon. Friend recognise the concerns about the criminal records of some of Mike Tyson's entourage, and of others associated with the event?
Mrs. Roche: That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Anyone who seeks to enter the United Kingdom will be considered under the immigration rules.
It was necessary for us to base our entry clearance decision not on Mike Tyson's previous convictions alone but on a careful assessment of the relevant circumstances in accordance with the immigration rules. The primary purpose of the immigration rule that allows entry to be refused to those with criminal convictions is to protect the public from the risk of serious crime. In this case, we were bound to take account of the fact that Tyson's behaviour during his previous visit in January was satisfactory. As on that occasion, he will be subject to close media attention throughout his visit and surrounded by his supporting team. As a result, the opportunity to reoffend will be minimal. It was therefore decided to grant entry clearance for a brief period that will be focused entirely on the fight.

197WH
Mike Tyson's case has been dealt with on the basis of its exceptional circumstances. Given that there would be no significant risk to the public in allowing him to enter, the benefits of allowing the fight to proceed appear to outweigh the arguments for preventing it.
Consultation was raised. We consulted the Administration in Scotland and took account of their views in reaching a decision. I spoke to Jim Wallace, the acting First Minister, before the decision was taken.
Mrs. Fyfe: Did that discussion with Jim Wallace take place because he telephoned the Minister of State, or did she get in touch with him first?
Mrs. Roche: I am trying to remember; I think that I telephoned him. Certainly, we knew that he was anxious to talk to us, but we placed the call because I wanted the Administration's view, particularly about the implications for public safety. My recollection is that I placed the call to Jim Wallace on the Thursday.
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. I appreciate that the hon. and learned Gentleman is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, where personal names are used, but we are still in the House of Commons, where we refer to Members by constituency. The acting First Minister is the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland.
Mrs. Roche: That is certainly correct, Mr. Gale, although I cannot promise to remember his constituency precisely. I think that I have been affected by the refreshing informality of the new Parliament, something that I warmly welcome.
Mr. Michael Connarty: On the matter of precision, will the Minister tell us the exact date and time of her conversation with the acting First Minister?
Mrs. Roche: Yes, I can be precise. It was on the Thursday—[Interruption.] I spoke to him twice. The first occasion was on the Wednesday, from my office in
198WH
the Home Office. On the Thursday, I was on a visit and I spoke to the hon. and learned Gentleman that morning after he had obtained some information from me.
Mr. Connarty: I am looking for the date, not the day. There are many Wednesdays in the month.
Mrs. Roche: Last Wednesday was the first time I spoke to him and I did so again on the Thursday morning.
Mr. Connarty: When exactly did the Home Secretary take the decision?
Mrs. Roche: If my hon. Friend can contain his impatience, seeing that I have about three minutes left, I shall deal with that point, which was raised earlier.
I saw my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West and for Maryhill on the Wednesday afternoon. I told them that a decision was imminent and that neither the Home Secretary nor I had seen the papers. Those came up in the early evening and a decision was taken. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary personally advised the acting First Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland of his decision.
I emphasise that Mike Tyson's entry clearance is strictly for the purpose of the proposed fight and for a single entry only. He will come here to prepare for that fight and leave once it is over. We have made it clear to him that there is no automatic presumption that he will be allowed entry again. If he wants to return, any application will be considered on its merits at the time. As we said, we are considering the rule again. My right hon. Friend published a consultation paper on the subject.
Our decision to admit Mike Tyson had no bearing on the abhorrence with which we regard violence against women. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was kind enough to point out activities undertaken by the Government, and our commitment to combating violence against women remains resolute. She also raised the important question of family visits, and will know that the Government—
Mr. Gale (in the Chair): Order.

Electoral Malpractice
12.30 pm
Mr. William Thompson: I am privileged to have the opportunity to debate electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland.
When voting recently in the London mayoral election, I visited a mainland polling station for the first time. Only one man was standing outside; no Labour, Liberal Democrat or other party representative was present. The man was wearing a blue rosette, which I assume showed his membership of the Conservative party, and he spoke nicely to everyone who arrived. On my entering the polling station, there was no sign of the polling agents, as we call them, who mark off voters as they arrive. I was asked simply for my name and number—no one tried to check my identity beyond that. The atmosphere was calm and quiet, and I said to myself, "How different elections on the mainland are from those in Northern Ireland."
In Northern Ireland, every vote counts, so parties must work extremely hard to ensure maximum turnout, and there is always the temptation to indulge in electoral malpractice. Indeed, after the 1997 local government elections and general election, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee issued a report that accepted the existence of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland and the need to do something about it. The Government also established a committee to consider the matter, which published a report on administering elections in Northern Ireland. It, too, acknowledged the existence of, and need to address, such malpractice.
Both committees recommended an enhanced household form, a postal vote and proxy vote application forms. Significantly, they established that electoral smart cards using signature verification are the most effective way to prevent fraud and malpractice in Northern Ireland.
The latter report was published in October 1998. In replying to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's report, the Secretary of State said:
Although it has not been possible for me to give any firm commitment to the introduction of select proposals at this time, this should not in any way indicate that I do not take the issue of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland seriously.
He went on to say:
The Elections Review will be submitting its final report in the summer of 1998, and I am intending to publish its findings at the earliest possible opportunity. However, as you acknowledged in your report, it is unlikely that any substantial changes will take place before the elections to the European Parliament in 1999.
Those elections have long since passed, and we in Northern Ireland want to know what has happened to the report and what progress is being made. There is a general feeling that the Government are dragging their feet. In a letter dated 15 May to my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the Prime Minister stated:
We will bring forward early legislation on electoral fraud. I would hope to find parliamentary time for this before the general election.
I welcome that.
200WH
In Northern Ireland, local government elections are held every four years. The next elections are due to take place in May 2001, and it is possible that there will be a Westminster election at the same time. Under Northern Ireland's system of proportional representation, which nowadays is not much liked on the mainland, it is possible for results to be very close—in fact, close in decimal figures. Any malpractice or fraud is therefore liable to have extremely serious consequences, in that it may lead to a result that is not true to the views of the electorate.
The problem must be dealt with before the local government elections—and, potentially, the Westminster election—in May 2001. The history of Westminster elections in Northern Ireland reveals that some constituencies are very closely contested, especially those in the west of the Province. That often results in an extremely high number of postal votes. In the 1997 Westminster election, the total number of absent vote applications was 38,885, which would be unheard of over here on the mainland. In my constituency, the figure was 4,372. Postal vote applications rose by 38 per cent. in Mid-Ulster, 37 per cent. in Belfast, North, 43 per cent. in Belfast, East and 45.84 per cent. in Belfast. West. It is believed that up to 10 per cent. of postal vote and proxy vote applications are fraudulent. It is vital to try to ensure that such malpractice does not happen, because malpractice may seriously affect election results, especially in closely fought constituencies.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Gentleman may recollect from the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that the chief returning officer told the Committee that he had received four applications for postal votes from people who had died. Information about deaths from the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Northern Ireland is passed to the chief returning officer, but he could not legally refrain from issuing the papers for postal votes.
Mr. Thompson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
The presiding officer, electoral officer or deputy electoral officer may not be notified of a death that occurred, and he could not refuse a ballot paper even if it was known on election day that the person had died before the election. That shows the necessity for a legal change.
The recommendation for an electoral smart card utilising signature verification is an expensive solution and could not be introduced for some time. It is unlikely to be available for the elections next year, so I shall suggest some changes that could be made immediately to reduce malpractice next year.
At the beginning of October, every household in Northern Ireland receives a form on which to state the number of electors in that household. Those forms are not satisfactory because some people include all their family, although some members of that may not be resident in the household. Objections can be made to a court, but it is almost impossible to prove that someone is not resident if the household form states that he is. Names remain on the register when they should not be

201WH
there, with the result that the register is not as accurate as it should be. I suggest that changes should be made to the form this year and there should be time to do that. The form should ask for the date of birth and national insurance number of each elector, the elector's mother's maiden name and the number of rooms in the dwelling. There should also be a little box in which each elector states whether he possesses a driver's licence. The majority of electors in Northern Ireland hold a driver's licence with a photograph and they could be required to use that as identification at the polling station.
The application forms for postal votes and proxy votes at next year's elections should reflect the changes on the household form. They should ask similar questions so that, when the form is returned to the electoral office, a check can be made on whether it accurately reflects the records held in the electoral office. That would help to prevent people from submitting proxy vote or postal vote application forms for those who are unlikely to vote.
I also recommend that the marked register be done away with. Surprisingly, it is possible to buy in Northern Ireland a set of registers naming all the people who voted at the last election. One can normally do that, but such registers are not cheap. Although normal political parties do not have the money to pay for marked registers, Sinn Fein seems not to be short of money and can readily avail itself of them.
When one accumulates a number of registers over time, it becomes clear that those people who never bother to vote and have never visited a polling station can be identified. As a result, false proxy votes can be cast or false postal vote applications made on their behalf. A large number of applications arrive on the chief electoral officer's desk a few days before an election, and it is virtually impossible for him to sift through 38,000 votes to establish which applications are legitimate and which should not be upheld. If the marked register were done away with, it would be harder for someone to discover the identity of a person who had never voted. It would then be difficult to vote in that person's stead through proxy voting or postal voting or through voting at a polling station by pretending to be someone else.
Changes should be made at the polling station itself. The presiding officer should be empowered to refuse a ballot paper if he, his staff or a polling agent have reason to suspect malpractice of any kind. As I understand it, a ballot paper cannot be refused unless a polling agent objects. A polling agent sits in a booth and must be sure of his facts before making such an objection. He does not see the identification documents, and it is difficult for him to object, so it is the presiding officer who should be so empowered. If, according to his judgment and good offices, he suspects malpractice, and if his staff or a polling agent objects to a vote, he should be empowered to intervene and suggest that the police make an arrest.
The polling station electoral register should state whether a voter holds a driving licence, so that it could be used for identification purposes. The register should also show a voter's date of birth and mother's maiden name, so that relevant questions could be asked where
202WH
an application for a ballot paper was suspect. A ballot paper would then be provided only when satisfactory answers were given.
Throughout the United Kingdom, the police seem to have forgotten that their duty is to prevent, as well as solve, crime. Voting twice, or voting in an election in which one should not vote, is a criminal offence, so it is the duty of the police to make an arrest if they suspect that a criminal offence has taken place or is likely to take place. In Northern Ireland at the moment, the police say that it is nothing to do with them and that they cannot intervene. That is contrary to the rules that govern the conduct of police constables. The police should act if they think that a crime is about to take place.
We should consider the possibility of giving each elector a personal identification number. Such numbers are in common use with Visa cards and smart cards. Electors would receive a PIN, which they would bring to the polling station. There, they would have to state their number, which could be checked against the electoral register. There are difficulties with such a system: PINs might not be delivered or people might say that they had not received a number. None the less, such possibilities should be considered.
Local government elections will take place in Northern Ireland in 2001 and are likely to be followed by a general election. Malpractice must be reduced to the lowest possible level, and the Government have a duty to act expeditiously to see that that happens before the next election.
12.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) on his choice of subject. It is an important subject, as was illustrated by what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said during his recent appearance before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. We are in regular contact with the chief electoral officer, Mr. Pat Bradley, who is widely respected throughout Northern Ireland. I have every confidence in him. He is about to retire, but the process of appointing his successor is under way.
We share some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I do not think that it is fair to say—normally, he is a fair man—that we are dragging our feet on the issue. The hon. Gentleman put forward ideas that he would like us to consider. I do not intend to go through each in sequence—for one thing, there is not enough time—but I will carefully consider his points. We are committed to having a Bill on the subject, but the question is whether there is sufficient time; I shall return to that. The Bill may cover some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. However, I give a warning: although we agree that it is important that electoral procedures should be robust enough to prevent them from being abused too easily, we do not want to make access to the vote so difficult that it puts legitimate voters off. That is a difficult balance to strike, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, but we must strike it, none the less.
Both the report by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which has been mentioned, and the Northern Ireland Office report "Administering

203WH
Elections in Northern Ireland" noted that there have long been concerns about electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland. However, the Northern Ireland Office review concluded that
elections in Northern Ireland are efficiently and fairly administered, often in very difficult circumstances.
What I am unable to do—the hon. Gentleman had a stab at it—is quantify the problem. There are very few arrests for electoral malpractice, but not, frankly, because the police do not take the matter seriously. I entirely accept that that is not a sign that all is well or that there is no need for change—far from it. Electoral abuse is difficult to prove, not least because many people who appear to have had their votes stolen may be afraid to speak out or to give evidence, or they may not know that their vote has been stolen.
Whatever the difficulties of attaining evidence, it is important to ensure that we act in a way that is proportionate to the problem. Electoral abuse is an affront to democracy, but we do not want to introduce measures that would deny innocent people their vote or make them feel that the system was so oppressive or off-putting that they would not go to a polling station, bother to apply for an absent vote or register in the first place.
The fact that the Government have recognised the difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland means that the measures that had been introduced in pilot schemes elsewhere in the United Kingdom—they are designed to facilitate and encourage absent voting, and may use more flexible voting times—will not be extended to Northern Ireland. We recognise that moves that are intended to encourage and assist voters in Great Britain may serve only to aid those who are intent on electoral abuse in Northern Ireland.
It is important that we have extended the legislative provisions on rolling registration to Northern Ireland—it means that people can put their name on the register throughout the year rather than during a narrow time frame. That should ensure that the register is more accurate.
We hope to introduce early legislation on electoral fraud. Many of the measures that we want to introduce, including those that were recommended by the
204WH
Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and in our review, will require legislation through a Bill. The hon. Member for West Tyrone referred to the letter that passed between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who is the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we hope to find parliamentary time for such a Bill before the next general election. However, no Minister would give a firm commitment about the contents of Her Majesty's Loyal Address before it was delivered.
Mr. Thompson: Could not the Government introduce such measures through an Order in Council?
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman spends much time urging me not to use Orders in Council, and I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not readily accede to his request on this occasion.
I want to discuss some of the recommendations of the Select Committee and of our report. Electoral cards remain, as the hon. Gentleman conceded, our long-term objective but, frankly, current technology is unlikely to provide a satisfactory system at a reasonable cost. In the meantime—before the eventual introduction of electoral smart cards—we hope to develop measures that will help to combat electoral abuse.
Signature verification, as the hon. Gentleman conceded, would be an important means of providing authentication of absent vote applications and it could possibly be used to provide additional identification at polling stations. The necessary process is under consideration and the approach is technically possible. I shall not discuss that in detail because time is short. We are also considering the investigatory powers of the chief electoral officer. We should have detailed consultations in that regard.
There are various steps to be taken, and there is the prospect of introducing legislation before the next general election. We take the matter seriously and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it in this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to One o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Involuntary Manslaughter
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reform the law relating to involuntary manslaughter, and in particular corporate manslaughter; and if he will make a statement. [123518]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today issued a consultation document containing the Government's proposals on how the law on involuntary manslaughter might be reformed. The paper accepts and builds on the Law Commission's proposals contained in their report number 237, "Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter".

  Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Library.

  This is an important document dealing with a complex area of the law, but one which most commentators accept is in need of reform. The Government are deeply indebted to the Law Commission, not only for the detailed consideration they gave to this subject in their report number 237, but for their continuing help by participating in the inter-departmental working group we set up to consider their proposals.

  The consultation document concentrates on those areas of the Law Commission's proposals which are more contentious or where, for the reasons set out in the document, we have taken a different view from the Law Commission. In a number of areas we have not come to any conclusion but are seeking comments on possible options.

  We wish to clarify and rationalise the existing law relating to individual involuntary homicide and we agree with the Law Commission that the law relating to corporate liability for involuntary manslaughter is in need of radical reform. Our proposals in this respect raise important and difficult issues of policy, principle and practice.

  I would urge all those who are concerned about the reform of the law on involuntary manslaughter to read this paper and respond to it.

  Criminal Justice System Business Plan
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the criminal justice system business plan. [123711]

  Mr. Straw
  My right hon. and noble Friends the Attorney-General, Lord Williams of Mostyn QC, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and I will today be publishing jointly a Business Plan for the criminal justice system in England and Wales 2000–01.
  396W
  The Plan describes the aims, objectives and performance targets that the Government expect the criminal justice system as a whole to work to deliver

  Copies of the Plan have been placed in the Library.

  Immigration and Asylum (Financial Bonds)
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the results of the consultation process on the design of a pilot study for financial bonds for visitors under sections 16 and 17 of the Immigration and Asylum Act. [123712]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have today placed in the Library a detailed analysis of responses to our recent consultation paper on bonds for visitors, together with an analysis of responses to this proposal in the 1998 White Paper on Immigration and Asylum. I am grateful to all those who responded to our consultation document. We have taken full account of their views, and of the many other representations made to us, in considering how the pilot study should run.

  The pilot study on financial bonds will begin in October at two posts overseas, Manila and Casablanca. It will run for six months, followed by a further six months to monitor departure from the United Kingdom, and a further brief period for analysis of the results.

  The scheme is intended to enable more people to visit the United Kingdom by providing an additional facility to prospective visitors in borderline cases where their intention to return is in doubt. It will enable a British Citizen or overseas national settled in the United Kingdom who is a family member to provide a financial bond, in the form of a cash payment in advance, as an additional guarantee that the visitor will leave the United Kingdom at the end of their stay. The scheme will be open only to those seeking to visit close family members in the United Kingdom. The amount of the bond will be set at £3,000. The bond will be returned when the visitor leaves the United Kingdom.

  We shall monitor the scheme closely to ensure that it operates fairly, effectively and swiftly. We shall make available our analysis of the operation of the pilot study when it is complete.

  Further details about how the scheme will operate will be provided nearer the time.

  Pet Cloning
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines exist in respect of the use of DNA from pets for future cloning purposes; and if he will make a statement. [122920]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The cloning of a pet animal would not be a permissible purpose under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which the Home Office operates. There are, therefore, no guidelines for the use of DNA from companion animals for cloning purposes.

  Prisoner Education
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many teaching staff have been employed in prisons and other custodial institutions in each of the last five years. [123496]
  397W
  Mr. Boateng
  Prison education is contracted out. The Prison Service purchases and measures education in terms of teaching hours rather than numbers of teaching staff. The number of teaching hours purchased in each of the last five years is given in the table.

  Financial year

  Teaching hours bought

  1995–96

  1,245,580

  1996–97

  1,169,717

  1997–98

  1,117,241

  1998–99

  1,213,562

  1999–2000

  1,354,165

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the procedure is for prisoners receiving educational publications from relatives. [123492]

  Mr. Boateng
  Educational publications for prisoners, such as books or periodicals, can either be left at reception, brought in on visits or sent in by post. These would be checked by prison staff before being passed on to the prisoner.

  The governor of each establishment has the discretion to restrict the handing or sending in of any item of property. If the governor of an establishment restricts the handing or sending in of property which prisoners may normally have in their possession, facilities will be made available for prisoners to purchase these items either through the prison shop or through approved mail order arrangements by using their private cash and/or earnings.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what educational facilities are available in the Aylesbury Young Offenders Institution. [123493]

  Mr. Boateng
  The education department at Aylesbury Young Offenders Institution is run by Amersham and Wycombe College, which is expected to deliver 16,000 hours of education classes in the current financial year. Prisoners who are employed on a full-time basis have access to two hours education per week, and those in part-time employment for approximately 12 and a half hours per week. A wide range of courses is available and prisoners' individual needs are identified as part of their sentence plan.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners undertake distance-learning courses at their own expense. [123498]

  Mr. Boateng
  As at 3 April 2000, a total of 383 prisoners in England and Wales were registered on Open University distance-learning courses. Of these, 139 have not previously studied with the Open University.

  A range of other distance-learning courses are available in prison, including GCSE, A level and vocational courses.

  The majority of prisoners undertaking distance-learning courses pay for their courses through mixed funding arrangements, including self funding and charitable funding. Information on the number of prisoners who undertake distance-learning courses entirely at their own cost is not held centrally.
  398W
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent on educational facilities in prisons and other custodial institutions in each of the last five years. [123495]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information is not available centrally on funds spent at individual prison establishments specifically on the provision of educational facilities over the last five years.

  However, funds from the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) have been made available to prison establishments to spend mainly on enhancing basic and key skills through, for example, extending education contracts, improvements to prisoners' basic pay to encourage them to participate in basic education, training Prison Service staff as basic skill support tutors and developing imaginative integrated basic skills tuition. Some of this money will also be invested in enhancing educational facilities. The table gives a breakdown of these funds provided to each prison establishment over the three year period covered by the CSR.

  Comprehensive Spending Review allocations to prison establishments

  £

  Area

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Central

  Aylesbury

  102,000

  42,000

  42,000

  Bedford

  93,478

  82,347

  84,810

  Bullingdon

  149,992

  127,555

  154,066

  Grendon

  27,000

  27,000

  27,000

  Gartree

  10,006

  10,257

  10,513

  Reading

  215,829

  202,262

  207,312

  Woodhill

  101,180

  960,82

  97,965

  Area total

  699,485

  587,503

  623,666

  Kent

  Aldington

  24,702

  0

  0

  Canterbury

  57,954

  58,970

  60,137

  Cookham Wood

  16,420

  16,913

  17,470

  Dover

  334,959

  300,000

  300,000

  East Sutton Park

  5,352

  8,736

  8,964

  Elmley

  133,483

  119,536

  122,848

  Maidstone

  70,143

  68,461

  68,834

  Rochester

  49,681

  45,786

  46,930

  Standford Hill

  26,844

  25,490

  26,127

  Swaleside

  33,392

  28,392

  28,392

  Area total

  752,930

  672,284

  679,702

  Mercia

  Birmingham

  168,028

  120,506

  120,506

  Brinsford

  103,410

  103,410

  103,410

  Drake Hall

  181,020

  141,020

  141,020

  Featherstone

  233,680

  233,680

  233,680

  Shrewsbury

  53,130

  53,130

  53,130

  Stafford

  274,797

  274,797

  274,797

  Area total

  1,014,065

  926,543

  926,543

  South Coast

  Camp Hill

  26,955

  28,900

  28,900

  Dorchester

  51,000

  51,700

  52,500

  Erlestoke

  32,364

  26,351

  27,010

  Guy's Marsh

  282,780

  195,353

  199,949

  Parkhurst

  84,734

  87,262

  843,49

  Portland

  25,000

  25,625

  26,266

  The Verne

  56,888

  51,955

  56,404

  Winchester

  50,452

  42,488

  43,551

  Area total

  610,173

  509,634

  518,929

  399W

  Comprehensive Spending Review allocations to prison establishments

  £

  Area

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  East Midlands

  Ashwell

  19,600

  19,600

  19,600

  Glen Parva

  431,423

  332,644

  337,348

  Leicester

  83,670

  85,386

  87,079

  Lincoln

  117,116

  138,264

  138,734

  Nottingham

  110,660

  110,660

  110,660

  Ranby

  39,254

  38,994

  39,835

  Stocken

  7,000

  1,000

  1,000

  Area total

  808,723

  726,548

  734,256

  London North

  Bullwood Hall

  47,158

  47,058

  47,058

  Chelmsford

  92,566

  94,842

  96,816

  Highpoint

  179,400

  179,400

  179,400

  Norwich

  170,855

  171,380

  172,505

  Pentonville

  291,700

  234,600

  236,000

  Area total

  781,679

  727,280

  731,779

  Mersey and Manchester

  Liverpool

  226,352

  226,352

  226,352

  Manchester

  42,414

  40,300

  41,600

  Risley

  158,060

  157,400

  160,950

  Sudbury

  18,854

  19,350

  19,900

  Area total

  445,680

  443,402

  448,802

  North West

  Garth

  21,006

  21,006

  21,006

  Haverigg

  21,040

  21,040

  21,040

  Hindley

  84,398

  84,398

  84,398

  Kirkham

  29,104

  23,139

  23,139

  Lancaster

  13,421

  13,770

  14,114

  Lancaster Farms

  13,000

  13,000

  13,000

  Preston

  69,000

  69,000

  69,000

  Thorn Cross

  63,000

  63,000

  63,000

  Wymott

  46,000

  47,138

  48,316

  Area total

  359,969

  355,491

  357,013

  High Security Prisons

  Belmarsh

  180,446

  180,446

  180,446

  Frankland

  154,643

  247,602

  248,258

  Full Sutton

  43,551

  58,306

  58,306

  Long Lartin

  29,800

  27,850

  28,700

  Wakefield

  32,720

  23,720

  24,720

  Whitemoor

  52,200

  50,500

  51,800

  Area total

  493,360

  588,424

  592,230

  London South

  Coldingley

  39,110

  38,447

  39,408

  Downview

  10,000

  10,250

  10,506

  Feltham

  438,718

  367,686

  376,878

  Highdown

  68,200

  68,950

  69,713

  Lewes

  47,600

  36,800

  37,688

  Send

  163,100

  136,949

  140,874

  Wandsworth

  106,000

  108,000

  109,575

  Wormwood Scrubs

  156,132

  156,132

  156,132

  Area total

  1,028,860

  923,214

  940,774

  North East

  Acklington

  116,000

  116,000

  116,000

  Castington

  100,000

  165,463

  165,463

  Deerbolt

  120,558

  93,044

  96,725

  Durham

  211,000

  186,000

  192,000

  Everthorpe

  30,000

  20,986

  21,360

  Holme House

  163,630

  151,906

  155,323

  Hull

  140,981

  115,131

  115,989

  Kirklevington

  6,067

  6,219

  6,373

  Low Newton

  183,000

  183,000

  183,000

  400W

  Comprehensive Spending Review allocations to prison establishments

  £

  Area

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Northallerton

  52,000

  47,000

  48,000

  The Wolds

  15,577

  15,577

  15,577

  Area total

  1,138,813

  1,100,326

  1,115,810

  Wales and West

  Bristol

  82,890

  81,550

  81,500

  Cardiff

  142,109

  142,109

  142,109

  Dartmoor

  31,300

  29,000

  28,900

  Eastwood P.

  84,920

  74,920

  74,920

  Exeter

  119,848

  119,848

  119,848

  Shepton M.

  121,174

  104,000

  104,000

  Swansea

  81,900

  81,900

  81,900

  Usk/Prescoed

  79,989

  69,823

  69,823

  Area total

  744,130

  703,150

  703,000

  Yorks

  Hatfield

  18,742

  18,742

  18,742

  Leeds

  180,656

  180,656

  180,656

  Lindholme

  27,789

  26,289

  26,289

  Moorland

  73,000

  73,000

  73,000

  New Hall

  167,500

  129,832

  141,383

  Wealstun

  81,500

  81,950

  82,873

  Wetherby

  211,870

  211,870

  211,870

  Area total

  761,057

  722,339

  734,813

  Education Services

  Computers

  38,800

  0

  0

  Total

  9,677,724

  8,986,138

  9,107,317

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what educational facilities are available to sex offenders in prisons held in accommodation separate from other prisoners. [123497]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is not possible to identify separately the education provision for sex offenders. The Prison Service aims to provide them with similar education facilities to other prisoners. However, where sex offenders have to be segregated for their own protection pending allocation to a prison which offers suitable training facilities for them, safety considerations may limit their access to education.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what separate educational facilities are available for sex offenders in the Aylesbury Young Offenders Institution. [123494]

  Mr. Boateng
  At Aylesbury, sex offenders are fully integrated with the rest of the establishment's population and have access to the same education.

  Pilot Voting Schemes
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions he has drawn about the impact of pilot voting schemes in the 4 May local elections. [123483]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 15 May 2000,Official Report, column 62W.

  Prisoner Suicides
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suicides there have been by prisoners in each of the last five years. [123491]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Self-inflicted deaths in HM Prison Service establishments in England and Wales: 1995–99

  Calendar year

  Number of self-inflicted deaths

  1995

  59

  1996

  64

  1997

  68

  1998

  83

  1999

  91

  Notes:

  1. To date (19 May) there have been 35 self-inflicted deaths in prison custody in England and Wales.

  2. Totals for each year contain the numbers of all self-inflicted deaths in prison custody; not only those deaths where there has been an inquest verdict of suicide.

  3. The term employed by the Prison Service to refer to an apparent suicide is "self-inflicted death". This is broader than the term suicide and includes all those deaths where it is clear that the person has acted specifically to take his/her own life. It is not restricted to the official verdict from the Coroner's inquest where verdicts of "open" or "misadventure" may be recorded in cases where there was doubt about a person's intent to end their life.

  Force Reaction Unit
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many former members of the group known as the Force Reaction Unit have been interviewed by the Metropolitan police Special Branch in the past 12 months. [122761]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has informed me that 15 former members of the Ministry of Defence Force Research Unit have been interviewed by the Metropolitan police Special Branch during the past 12 months.

  Arrested Football Fans (Copenhagen)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what legal action will be taken in the United Kingdom against those English football fans recently arrested in Copenhagen; [123414]

  (2) what action will be taken to prevent those English football fans recently arrested in Copenhagen from travelling to football matches overseas during Euro 2000; [123476]

  (3) how many of the English football fans recently arrested in Copenhagen have restriction orders against them prohibiting them from travelling abroad to football matches. [123475]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The 15 individuals arrested in Copenhagen were not convicted of any offence and no legal action can be taken against them in the United Kingdom. None are subject to a restriction or any other category of football banning order. Under current football legislation, the only individuals who can be prevented from travelling to Euro 2000 are the 106 hooligans currently subject to an international ban. However, the Dutch and Belgian police have extensive powers to refuse 402W
  entry to any individual or group felt to pose a risk to public order. The National Criminal Intelligence Service will provide them with details of the 15 individuals along with details of the 388 persons currently subject to domestic football bans. Police will be monitoring all England supporters at every United Kingdom exit point throughout the tournament and the information gathered will be shared with the Dutch, Belgian and French police, in addition to the United Kingdom police teams operating in all three countries.

  Crossbows
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers are available to him to control the ownership and use of crossbows; and what plans he has to extend them. [123469]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No such powers are available to the Secretary of State.

  The Crossbows Act 1987 applies to crossbows with a draw weight of 1.4 kilogrammes or greater. It makes it an offence to sell or hire a crossbow to persons under the age of 17, and prohibits persons aged under 17 from possessing a crossbow unless supervised by someone aged 21 or over.

  In addition, the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibits the possession in a public place of any offensive weapon without good reason or lawful excuse.

  There are no plans to amend this legislation at present.

  Cultural Events (Security)
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish the criteria by which police forces charge for providing security at(a) folk festivals and (b) other cultural events; [123468]

  (2) if it is his policy that police forces should have discretion as to (a) the amount of security that they provide at public and private events and (b) how much they charge for such services. [123467]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The decision whether to charge for costs of policing at local events is for the local police authority and the Chief Constable.

  Under Section 25(1) of the Police Act 1996,
  the Chief Officer of Police may provide, at the request of any person, special police services at any premises or in any locality in the police area for which the force is maintained, subject to the payment to the police authority of charges on such scales as may be determined by that authority.

  The rationale behind charging is that the taxpayer at large should not be asked to pay for services provided at private events or events which benefit only a relatively small section of the community. It is for the Chief Officer concerned to determine whether a given service would constitute a special police service. Special police services are not defined in the 1996 Act or elsewhere. I would expect them to be services which meet some or all of the following criteria:
  they are not part of the general duty of the police to keep the peace and protect life and property;
  the service to be provided is on private land; and
  the Service to be provided is for a commercially organised event.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law. [121906]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We set out our views on the general financial effects of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Human Rights Bill. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor's Department, set out the position with respect to the courts in her reply to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 10 April 2000,Official Report, column 21W.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for the period between the commencement of the Home Detention Curfew scheme on 28 January 1999 and 30 April 2000 inclusive,(a) the total number of prisoners released on the scheme, (b) the number of prisoners convicted of each specific offence who were released on the scheme, broken down by offences committed, including the specific offences committed by prisoners normally classified under the categories (i) other homicide and attempted homicide, (ii) other violence against the person, (iii) drug offences, (iv) assaults and (v) other offences, (c) the average sentence (i) received and (ii) served, and the average period spent on the scheme, in respect of each specific offence, (d) the number of prisoners released on the scheme, broken down by offences committed, who (A) breached the conditions of the curfew, (B) disappeared and were recaptured, (C) disappeared and remain unlawfully at large and (D) had their licences revoked, and for what reasons, (e) the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme while on the scheme and (f) the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme who committed a further offence while on the scheme that was similar in character to that for which they were originally convicted; and if he will make a statement. [121288]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 8 May 2000]: As of 30 April 2000, a total of 20,028 prisoners had been released on Home Detention Curfew since the scheme commenced on 28 January 1999.

  The original offences committed by prisoners released under the scheme during that period, the number of prisoners convicted of each specific offence, the average sentence received and served for those offences, and the average period spent on the scheme in respect of the

  Table 1: HDC discharges by offence type

  Months

  28 January 1999 to 30 April 2000

  Number

  Average sentence

  Average served

  Average period spent on scheme

  Total

  20,028

  14.4

  5.7

  1.5

  Manslaughter

  53

  33.9

  15.1

  1.9

  Other homicide and attempted homicide

  167

  23.0

  9.9

  1.8

  Attempted murder

  6

  28.5

  12.9

  1.9

  Making threats to kill

  34

  19.1

  8.0

  1.7

  Conspire, aid, incite murder

  1

  42.1

  19.1

  1.9

  Death by reckless driving

  126

  23.5

  10.1

  1.9

  404W
  prisoners convicted of each specific offence, are shown in table 1. The data are taken from the Prison Service's inmate information system based on the data recorded by each prison. The table provides as detailed a breakdown of offences as is possible from central records.

  As of 30 April 2000, 710 prisoners placed on the Home Detention Curfew scheme had breached the conditions of the curfew.

  Information on curfewees whose licences are revoked and who disappear before being recaptured is not held centrally. However, information is held on the number of curfewees unlawfully at large at any one time. On 30 April, there were 40 curfewees who remained unlawfully at large. This represents less than 5 per cent. of the total number of revocations. In the vast majority of cases, when a curfewee's licence is revoked, he can expect to be quickly apprehended and returned to custody. While the priority to be given to pursuing individual cases will be an operational matter for local police forces, Home Office Circular 1/1999 made clear that Home Detention Curfew recalls should be regarded as "urgent action" cases. In addition, the National Identification Service at New Scotland Yard issues "The Police Gazette" weekly to all police forces, including details of curfewees who are unlawfully at large. When curfewees are apprehended following a period unlawfully at large, they are required to serve the period of time outstanding at the point their licence was revoked.

  As of 30 April 2000, 965 curfewees had their licences revoked, using the powers available to the Secretary of State under Sections 38A(1) and 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The reasons for revocation were as follows:
  for breach of the curfew;
  because the curfewee's whereabouts could no longer be electronically monitored;
  because it was necessary to protect the public from serious harm; and
  because the curfewee had committed an offence or breached any requirement of probation supervision. (Curfewees who are charged with new offences may also be recalled on any of the preceding grounds depending on the circumstances of the case).

  Information on the specific offences committed by prisoners placed on Home Detention Curfew while on the scheme, and a breakdown of the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme who committed a further offence while on the scheme that was similar in character to that for which they were originally convicted were set out in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) on 22 May 2000, Official Report, columns 360–64W.
  405W

  Table 1: HDC discharges by offence type

  Months

  28 January 1999 to 30 April 2000

  Number

  Average sentence

  Average served

  Average period spent on scheme

  Wounding

  2,562

  15.6

  6.2

  1.6

  Wounding (inflicting GBH)

  1,556

  19.4

  8.0

  1.8

  Assault occasioning ABH

  951

  9.3

  3.3

  1.4

  Assault with intent to cause GBH

  55

  16.2

  6.7

  1.5

  Assaults

  524

  7.4

  2.5

  1.2

  Assault with intent to resist arrest

  10

  5.7

  1.8

  1.0

  Other assault

  396

  8.1

  2.8

  1.3

  Obstruct/resist constable

  8

  5.9

  2.0

  1.0

  Assault on police officer

  110

  4.7

  1.5

  0.9

  Cruelty to children

  23

  15.5

  6.4

  1.4

  Other violence against the person

  256

  15.4

  6.2

  1.5

  Cause explosion, place explosive

  2

  33.0

  15.0

  1.5

  Possess firearms with intent

  143

  18.9

  7.8

  1.7

  Possess offensive weapon

  92

  10.8

  4.0

  1.4

  Other violence against the person

  19

  9.0

  3.3

  1.3

  Buggery

  1

  6.0

  1.6

  1.4

  Indecent assault

  18

  11.5

  4.3

  1.4

  Unlawful sexual intercourse

  1

  6.0

  1.2

  1.9

  Abduction

  1

  36.0

  17.3

  1.2

  Bigamy

  11

  7.4

  2.4

  1.2

  Burglary

  1,887

  19.3

  7.4

  1.8

  Robbery

  811

  26.3

  11.4

  1.9

  Taking and driving away

  234

  9.6

  3.6

  1.2

  Other theft

  1,840

  11.3

  4.2

  1.5

  Handling stolen goods

  627

  13.6

  5.3

  1.6

  Fraud

  1,647

  13.2

  5.1

  1.6

  Forgery

  85

  11.1

  4.1

  1.4

  Drugs offences

  3,236

  20.2

  8.5

  1.7

  Production

  115

  15.8

  6.3

  1.6

  Supply

  1,079

  22.0

  9.3

  1.8

  Possession with intent

  1,366

  20.2

  8.4

  1.7

  Possession

  431

  15.7

  6.3

  1.6

  Unlawful import/export

  207

  24.5

  10.7

  1.7

  Other drugs offences

  38

  13.5

  5.1

  1.7

  Arson

  125

  22.8

  9.8

  1.8

  Criminal damage

  90

  12.2

  4.7

  1.4

  In charge or driving under the influence of drink or drugs

  692

  4.4

  1.4

  0.9

  Reckless driving

  329

  9.1

  3.2

  1.4

  Other motoring offences

  1,391

  4.6

  1.4

  0.9

  Drunkenness

  73

  5.0

  1.6

  0.9

  Blackmail

  60

  20.6

  8.6

  1.8

  Kidnapping

  30

  19.6

  8.1

  1.8

  Affray

  535

  9.4

  3.3

  1.4

  Violent disorder

  237

  13.8

  5.3

  1.7

  Perjury/libel/pervert the course of justice

  300

  9.8

  3.6

  1.3

  Threat/disorderly behaviour

  92

  8.6

  3.2

  1.2

  Breach of Court Order

  208

  9.5

  3.0

  1.9

  Other offences

  781

  11.8

  4.5

  1.4

  Offence not recorded

  1,101

  12.7

  4.8

  1.6

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were convicted of tobacco smuggling in the last 12 months; and how many of them were(a) imprisoned and (b) fined. [122903]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information held centrally on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database combines sections 50(2)(3), 68(2) and 170(1)(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 "Fraudulent evasion of duty etc. other than drugs". However, the type of goods involved (tobacco, spirits, beers, wines, oils and guns) are not identified separately.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is in respect of experiments involving animals where the primary objective is to obtain information concerning human medical conditions which can reasonably be assumed to be self-inflicted. [122918]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Evaluating research proposals involving the use of animals is difficult and requires a delicate moral balance to be struck. Scientific developments have saved many human lives and cured many illnesses. Human medical conditions are likely to
  407W
  derive from a variety of causes. For example, bronchitis and emphysema can be caused by a genetic predisposition, various occupational causes and passive smoking as well as smoking. It would be immoral, in our view, to deny victims of such diseases the assistance that new scientific knowledge could bring from current work.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to establish a Royal Commission into animal experimentation. [122940]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The position remains that we have not ruled out a Royal Commission, but strongly believe that resources can best be used to make immediate improvements to the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and to promote the fullest application of the 3Rs: to replace the use of animals with alternative methods, to reduce the numbers of animals used and to refine the procedures to minimise pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.

  In this context, the Animal Procedures Committee will be issuing a public consultation paper this summer as part of its review of the cost/benefit assessment. As part of this work, the Committee plans to produce an authoritative statement on the validity of animal experiments.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is in respect of animal experiments where the sole or primary purpose is one of commercial gain. [122916]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires that, in determining whether and on what terms to grant a project licence, the Secretary of State must weigh the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned against the benefit likely to accrue as a result of the programme specified on the application.

  For the purposes of the cost/benefit assessment, the cost to the animal is considered as the adverse effects of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. The benefits must be for humans, animals or the environment and relate to the scientific and/or medical progress likely to result directly from the programme outlined in the application.

  The identification and assessment of benefit is set out in detail in the Chief Inspector's paper on the cost/benefit assessment, included in the Annual Report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1997. My policy is that the profitability of a company applying for authorities and the researchers' career prospects are not valid considerations for the purposes of the cost/benefit assessment, but that the socio-economic advantages of cheaper healthcare cannot be ruled out as possible legitimate benefits.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what criteria have been used to make appointments to the Inspectorate in respect of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; what plans he has to review these criteria; and if he will make a statement; [122305]

  (2) if he will list the names of those appointed to the Inspectorate in respect of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; [122306]

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure that those inspectors appointed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to investigate allegations against
  408W
  licence holders have not been party to the original decision on granting that licence; and if he will make a statement; [122302]

  (4) how many establishments have been inspected by the Inspectorate appointed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 over the last three years; and with respect to each establishment of how many visits notification of the inspection was given; how many visits were unannounced; and if he will make a statement. [122304]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are approximately 300 designated establishments and the Inspectorate visits all of them. The number of visits to each establishment varies according to its size and the type of work being conducted at any particular time.

  Approximately 1,800 visits of inspection are conducted each year, two-thirds of which are without notice. Visits by appointment are usually made to conduct interviews with staff, to discuss new work proposals and ongoing work, to examine records of work, to investigate non-compliance or to view premises being considered for designation.

  When third party allegations are made against establishments or individuals, the investigation is handled by a Superintending Inspector from another region with no connection with the establishment or person, and no line management responsibility for the local inspector. The Chief Inspector quality assures these investigations and the resulting reports.

  The 1986 Act requires that Inspectors must be either medical or veterinary graduates: the former must be registered with the General Medical Council and the latter must be Members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

  Candidates are expected to have additional higher professional or academic qualifications, and to have first hand experience of designing and conducting research in a clinical, academic or commercial environment. They must have a sound knowledge of medicine and surgery and be familiar with current trends and technologies used in medical and biological research.

  Members of the Inspectorate are civil servants, appointed to advise the Secretary of State whether and on what terms authorities should be granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. It is the Secretary of State who has ultimate responsibility for deciding what is licensed and the conditions which will apply. It is not normal practice to reveal widely the names of individuals where it is not in the interests of personal safety and security to do so.

  Performing Animals
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent estimate he has made of the number of animals used in entertainment other than in circuses; and if he will make a statement. [122919]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Certificates of registration are sent to the Home Office by local authorities under the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925. Local authorities were reminded in January of their statutory obligation to provide this information. The Home Office has so far this year received details of over 2,000 animals
  409W
  which perform other than in circuses. Of these, 1,390 are included in two registration entries, and are used in promotional, film and television work.

  Burns Inquiry
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if any of those appointed to the Burns Inquiry secretariat have been(a) members and (b) supporters of (i) fox, deer, hare or mink hunts and (ii) other pro-field sports organisations, or have participated in hare coursing events; [123516]

  (2) if he sought to determine if those appointed to the Burns Inquiry secretariat had views on hunting with dogs prior to their being selected. [123515]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting has been set up as a Committee which is independent of Government.

  The appointment of the Inquiry team's Secretariat, and other issues relating to the Secretariat, are matters for the Chairman of the Inquiry team, Lord Burns.

  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits have been undertaken by each member of the Burns Inquiry team in the course of the inquiry to events and functions organised by(a) anti-hunting groups and (b) pro-hunting groups. [123514]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I understand from the Secretariat to the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs that the information is as follows:

  Members of the Committee of Inquiry attended 11 events organised by, at the suggestion of, or in conjunction with, anti-hunting organisations. Attendance was as follows: Lord Burns 10; Dr. Victoria Edwards seven; Professor Sir John Marsh six; Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior one; Professor Michael Winter four.

  Members of the Committee attended 23 events organised by, at the suggestion of or in conjunction with, pro-hunting organisations. Attendance was as follows: Lord Burns 16; Dr. Victoria Edwards 12; Professor Sir John Marsh 11; Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior seven; Professor Michael Winter 12.

  Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings he has had with the Law Society over the introduction of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill. [121897]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There have been no meetings on this issue.

  Trustees
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to bring forward legislation regarding the role of trustees. [123499]

  Mr. Lock
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no plans to bring forward such legislation. However, the Trustee Bill, presently awaiting its Committee Stage in another place, would make certain
  410W
  provisions in relation to the powers and duties of trustees and particularly in relation to their powers of investment and related matters.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sexual and Reproductive Health Projects
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the UK aid contributions for sexual and reproductive health projects for the years(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [123284]

  Clare Short
  My Department's bilateral contributions to sexual and reproductive health, including HIV/AIDS, in 1997–99 were:

  1997—£53.4 million

  1998—£58.4 million

  1999—£57.3 million

  In addition, the UK's core contributions to the following multilateral agencies also support action on sexual and reproductive health:

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  United Nations Population Fund

  11.5

  13

  15

  United Nations Children's Fund

  8

  10

  13

  UNAIDS

  2.3

  2.75

  3

  World Health Organisation (Reproductive Health)

  1.4

  1.4

  2

  International Planned Parenthood Federation

  5

  5.5

  5.5

  Gaza Hospital
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the new EU-funded Gaza Hospital will open; and if he will make a statement. [123294]

  Clare Short
  I am informed that Commissioning of the EU funded Gaza Hospital is now likely to start in July 2000 and be completed by the end of the year, when it is expected that the hospital will be fully operational. An interim Management Team has been recruited by EC and will gradually hand over responsibility for day-to-day operations to local counterparts. It is intended that the Management Team will remain in place until July 2001.

  Air Strip (St. Helena)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for what reasons a further study has been commissioned on the feasibility of an air strip on St. Helena. [123328]

  Clare Short
  A desk study undertaken in 1999 considered the regulatory and technical feasibility of operating an air service to St. Helena. It did not consider the engineering, economic, financial, environmental and social feasibility of developing appropriate facilities on the island. These issues will be investigated as part of the comparative study of air and sea access which is now being commissioned. The study will compare air with
  411W
  future options for continuation of sea access and will identify the most cost-efficient permanent solution to St. Helena's international passenger and cargo needs.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development who will have responsibility for paying the cost of the air strip feasibility study on St. Helena. [123470]

  Clare Short
  The cost of the comparative study of air and sea access will be met by my Department from within the £29 million development assistance package agreed for the 2000–01 to 2002–03 Country Policy Plan period.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the study on the feasibility of an air strip on St. Helena will be completed; and if she will ensure it is published. [123413]

  Clare Short
  The comparative study of air and sea access for St. Helena is currently being tendered. Work is expected to commence in August. The study will take about 14 weeks. As the study is being undertaken on behalf of the St. Helena Government it is they who should decide if the final report is published.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Penalty Clauses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the contracts entered into with private sector companies for the provision of goods or services since May 1997 where penalty clauses were triggered for non-performance; and if he will make a statement. [122022]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department has no record of any such contracts in the last three years.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the role of the members of the National Lottery Charities Board and the role played by Ministers in their appointment. [123082]

  Kate Hoey
  Members of the National Lottery Charities Board take decisions on applications for grants from charitable, benevolent and philanthropic organisations. They formulate policies that continually improve and develop the Board's grant-making and contribute to the strategic development of the Board in a changing environment. Members also act as the public face of the Board.

  Board members are appointed for up to five years by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Board's Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland representatives are appointed following consultation with the relevant head of the devolved Administration.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will provide 412W
  support for the Indonesian administration in order to reduce fighting between Muslims and Christians in Indonesia; [122853]

  (2) what representations he has made to the Indonesian Government regarding religiously motivated violence in Indonesia; [122852]

  (3) what recent reports he has received concerning religious violence in the Moluccas Islands. [122850]

  Mr. Battle
  The violence in Ambon and elsewhere in Maluku is a major concern for the Indonesian administration as well as for Britain and the international community. The new Indonesian Government aim to resolve regional conflicts through dialogue and reconciliation. We fully support that process, and have pressed upon them the need for conflict resolution work in particular communities. As part of the international effort through the United Nations Development Programme, we have already funded two conferences promoting reconciliation in Maluku, between 28 March and 3 April. We stand ready to help with further conflict prevention projects.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what UK expertise he will provide for training the Indonesian police force in managing conflict. [122854]

  Mr. Battle
  To explore the scope for the UK to support the Indonesian national police in its transition to a civilian accountable service, a senior British police officer will be attached to our Embassy in Jakarta from 1 June.

  Moluccas Islands
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received concerning the arrival of Jihad warriors in the Moluccas Islands. [122851]

  Mr. Battle
  We have received reports that a number of extremists from outside Maluku have travelled to the province, and are under the close scrutiny of the authorities in Maluku. We are concerned at recent reports that these extremists have threatened further violence in the province. We have urged the Indonesian Government to ensure the security forces maintain law and order and the protection of all citizens.

  Fundamental Rights Charter
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the implications for the British legal systems of the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty of European Union. [121896]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Cologne Conclusions state that the question of whether and if so how the Charter should be integrated into the Treaties
  will be considered only once the drafting body has presented its draft before the European Council in December.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Peter Penfold left his post as High Commissioner in Sierra Leone; and what his last day was in Sierra Leone. [123269]

  Mr. Hain
  Mr. Penfold left his post as High Commissioner, and Sierra Leone, on 29 April 2000, his tour of duty having been the normal length for such postings.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations his Department made to President Kabbah regarding accepting Foday Sankoh into the Sierra Leonean Government; [123313]

  (2) what representations were made to his Department regarding Foday Sankoh's inclusion in the Sierra Leone Government by (a) President Kabbah, (b) the Nigerian Government and (c) the United States Government; [123312]

  (3) what guidance he received on the decision to include Foday Sankoh into the Sierra Leonean Government; [123315]

  (4) what factors underlay the decision to include Foday Sankoh in the Government of Sierra Leone; [123314]

  (5) what representations were made by the Government on Foday Sankoh's inclusion in the Government of Sierra Leone. [123311]

  Mr. Hain
  Foday Sankoh has no formal post in the Sierra Leone Government. Under the Lomé Peace Agreement, he was made Chair of the Commission for the Management of Strategic Resources, National Reconstruction and Development, with the status of Vice-President.

  Representatives of Nigeria, the US and Britain were among those present as observers during the negotiations in Lomé between the Government of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary United Front.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to(a) the US Administration and (b) his European counterparts regarding the freezing of bank accounts of leading members of the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone and their families. [123320]

  Mr. Hain
  UN sanctions are already designed to target the Revolutionary United Front. UN Security Council resolution 1171 (1998) imposes a travel ban on leading members of the former military junta and of the Revolutionary United Front. It also imposes an embargo on the supply of arms and related material to Sierra Leone other than to the Government of Sierra Leone (with certain exemptions). We have not discussed the option of freezing the bank accounts of leading members of the Revolutionary United Front and their families with the US Administration or with European counterparts. However, the UK will ensure that the Security Council keeps the impact and effectiveness of sanctions under review and will make proposals for modification of the sanctions regime as we consider appropriate.
  414W
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of illegal arms shipments going through Burkina Faso to the Sierra Leone rebels. [123317]

  Mr. Hain
  Her Majesty's Government are aware of allegations that arms flown from Ukraine to Burkina Faso in March 1999 were subsequently forwarded via Liberia to the rebels in Sierra Leone. We raised our concerns regarding this matter with the Burkinabe authorities and the UN Sanctions Committee at the time. The Chairman of the UN Sanctions Committee also raised these allegations with the Governments concerned.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role the Commonwealth has played in finding a peaceful solution to the latest crisis in Sierra Leone. [123316]

  Mr. Hain
  The Commonwealth remains an active supporter of the Government of Sierra Leone's efforts to secure lasting peace. Meeting on 2 May, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group condemned the killings and detention of UNAMSIL peacekeepers; expressed its determination to stand by the people of Sierra Leone; and reiterated its readiness to assist the reconstruction of Sierra leone and the consolidation of its democracy.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what recent representations he has received from the US Administration on the situation in Sierra Leone; [123323]

  (2) what recent representations he has made to the US Administration on the situation in Sierra Leone. [123322]

  Mr. Hain
  We remain in close touch with the US Administration over the situation in Sierra Leone, particularly over the need for practical help to enable UNAMSIL to build itself up over the next few weeks. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary most recently discussed this with the US Secretary of State on 20 May. We welcome the US announcement of $20 million to support peacekeeping in Sierra Leone.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors influenced the decision to offer amnesty to all the Sierra Leone Revolutionary United Front's members, as part of the Lomé peace accord. [123319]

  Mr. Hain
  Granting an amnesty for crimes committed before the signature of the Lomé Peace Agreement on 7 July 1999 was one of the many hard decisions taken by the Government of Sierra Leone in their efforts to reach a negotiated settlement.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he was first informed about the worsening situation in Sierra Leone after January. [123318]

  Mr. Hain
  We have kept the situation in Sierra Leone under careful and constant review. The present crisis began when the Revolutionary United Front attacked UN peacekeepers at a Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration camp in Makeni on 1 May. Reports of this attack were received early the following day.

  The security situation deteriorated rapidly thereafter.

  Mr. Roger Crooks
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 April 2000,Official Report, column 284W, concerning officials who met Mr. Roger Crooks, which official they have been unable to contact; and what the reason is for the delay. [123386]

  Mr. Hain
  We had been unable to contact the relevant official, due to his absence on annual leave. He has now confirmed that he has not met Mr. Crooks.

  Lomé Agreement
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part the Government played in negotiating the Lomé agreement of 7 July 1999. [123321]

  Mr. Hain
  The Lomé Peace Agreement was negotiated between the Government of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary United Front, under the auspices of the Economic Community of West African States. Representatives from the international community, including the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the Organisation of African Unity, and the United States, as well as Britain, attended the negotiations.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Lomé peace accord. [123310]

  Mr. Hain
  The Lomé Peace Agreement was signed on 7 July 1999. It provides for a permanent end to hostilities in Sierra Leone; disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of all former combatants; democratic elections; the creation of effective and democratically accountable armed forces; and an international peacekeeping force to supervise the peace process.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Western Sahara. [123648]

  Mr. Hain
  With the support of the UN Security Council, James Baker, the UN Secretary-General's Personal Envoy on the Western Sahara recently visited several north African countries to assess the prospects for resolving the long-standing dispute over the Western Sahara.

  Following these visits, Mr. Baker invited the two main parties—Morocco and the Polisario Front—and the two front-line states—Algeria and Mauritania—to meet in order to consider the options for moving discussions forward. The UN asked the British Government if we could provide a venue for 14 May. We agreed, and the UN accepted our offer of Lancaster House.

  We welcome the willingness of the two parties to engage. We hope they will respect the spirit and aims of Mr. Baker's mission and work with him to secure an early, durable and agreed resolution of this dispute.

  The 14 May talks were private and conducted throughout by Mr. Baker and his United Nations team. The UK's role was limited in this instance to logistical
  416W
  support. But I hope it sends a clear signal of our continuing willingness to support UN efforts to resolve conflicts in the African continent.

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the health of the Serbs held by KFOR in Kosovo who are on hunger strike. [121578]

  Mr. Vaz
  There are around 40 Kosovo Serbs on hunger strike in Mitrovica. We understand that they are being held in UNMIK detention facilities guarded by KFOR troops. Four of the 40 have been hospitalised. In three of the four cases, this was principally due to poor general health rather than the effects of the hunger strike.

  Joannou and Paraskevaides Group
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of his Department's trade promotion initiatives in the last three years have involved the Joannou and Paraskevaides Construction Group. [123140]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: A representative from the Joannou and Paraskevaides Construction Group (J + P) attended and spoke at a promotional event in the UK in November 1998 to publicise export opportunities presented by the 2004 Olympics in Athens. J + P were also present at a follow-up event in Athens a year later.

  There is no other record of the Joannou and Paraskevaides Construction Group having been involved in FCO (and since may 1999 in British Trade International) trade promotion initiatives in the last three years.

TREASURY

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the proportion of(a) recipients of Working Families Tax Credit and (b) partners of the recipients of Working Families Tax Credit who earn within (i) 5 per cent. and (ii) 10 per cent. of the minimum wage; and if he will make a statement. [123069]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 8 March 2000,Official Report, column 771W.

  Green Transport
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the key buildings for which his Department(a) submitted and (b) did not submit green transport plans by March. [122623]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 18 May 2000]: The Treasury submitted green transport plans in March 1999 covering the two buildings it occupies.

  Euro
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the capital contribution which Britain would have to make to the European Central Bank on joining the euro. [123043]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As set out in Article 29 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, each national central bank of participating member states contributes to the ECB's capital according to a weighting, based on their relative population and national income.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total conversion costs for business of switching from the pound to the euro. [123044]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The level of costs would depend on the approach adopted by individual companies.

  Cross-departmental Reviews
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place the terms of reference of the 13 cross-departmental reviews announced on 21 December 1999 in the Library; and if he will make a statement on their progress. [122785]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The terms of reference of the 13 cross-departmental reviews announced on 21 December 1999 have been placed in the Library, along with the terms of reference of the two cross-departmental reviews announced since December. The 15 reviews are making excellent progress. The 2000 Spending Review will report in due course.

  Occupational Review
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce tax relief for pensioners in receipt of low levels of occupational pensions which are subject to tax. [122095]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Only four out of 10 pensioners have any income tax to pay. People aged 65 or more receive a higher level of income tax personal allowance: for example, someone aged between 65 and 74 has a personal allowance of £5,790 in 2000–01, in contrast with the allowance for people under 65 of £4,385. The age-related personal allowances were increased by substantially more than statutory indexation in 1999–2000 and have risen in line with indexation this year. They are gradually withdrawn in cases where income exceeds £17,000 a year.

  Endowment Mis-selling
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to require banks and insurance companies to compensate mortgage borrowers who have been the victims of endowment mis-selling. [123250]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: Where mortgage borrowers have been mis-sold an endowment, the regulators have powers to take disciplinary action which can result in firms being directed to make compensation. Mis-selling may arise from unsuitable advice, ie recommending that a borrower plans to repay a mortgage with a product which is either
  418W
  unsuitable for the purpose or unsuitable for the borrower's circumstances. The Government intend that the FSA will have comparable powers under the Financial Services and Markets Bill when enacted.

  Recently many endowment providers have contacted their customers to tell them that their endowments may not yield enough to repay associated mortgages. This does not necessarily arise from mis-selling and reflects the reduction in inflation in response to the Government's policy to deliver a stable macroeconomic environment conducive to long term economic growth. When inflation falls, investment returns also reduce so that the cash proceeds of an endowment may be lower than initially expected, eg insufficient to repay an associated mortgage.

  Changeover Plan
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department plans to spend on the national changeover plan(a) in total, (b) in Wales and (c) in Ceredigion in this financial year; and if he will make a statement. [123454]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on changeover planning is contained in the second Outline National Changeover Plan, published on 9 March.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the proceeds have been from the landfill tax in each of the last five financial years; how much of this has gone to(a) the Exchequer and (b) community projects; and what figures are estimated for the current year. [123481]

  Mr. Timms
  Total landfill tax receipts net of credits claimed in respect of contributions to environmental bodies, for each financial year since the introduction of the tax on 1 October 1996, are as follows.

  £

  Year

  Total receipts

  1996–97

  112.8

  1997–98

  360.7

  1998–99

  333.1

  1999–20001

  439

  1 Provisional

  The revenue raised from landfill tax is general Government revenue not earmarked for particular purposes. However, funding is available through the Landfill Tax Environmental Bodies Credit Scheme to support projects which achieve lasting community and environmental benefits and advance more sustainable waste management practices. Under the scheme, landfill site operators who are registered for landfill tax may claim tax credits to the value of 90 per cent. of any contribution they make to an approved environmental body, subject to an overall cap of 20 per cent. of their annual tax liability, in each 'contribution year'. Total credits claimed in respect of contributions to the scheme, for each financial year since the introduction of the tax are as follows.
  419W

  £

  Year

  Total credits

  1996–97

  0.1

  1997–98

  67.0

  1998–99

  68.8

  1999–20001

  89

  1 Provisional

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the independent environmental trusts which have benefited the proceeds of the landfill tax in each of the last five years in each local authority area in England and Wales. [123482]

  Mr. Timms
  Information about which environmental bodies have received contributions under the Landfill Tax Environmental Bodies Credit Scheme is a matter for the Regulator for the scheme, ENTRUST. I have therefore asked them to provide such data as they hold and will place a copy of their response in the Library.

  Road Fuel Tax
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue has been raised from(a) tax and (b) VAT on road fuels in each of the last five financial years. [123479]

  Mr. Timms
  The amount of excise duty raised on road fuels for the last five years is published in Table K2 of "HM Customs and Excise Annual Report 1998–1999". The estimated amount of VAT raised on road fuels can be calculated from the amount of household expenditure on petrol and derv. This is shown in Table 6.1 of "Consumer Trends", published by the Office for National Statistics.

  EU Contributions
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of the fall in the value of the euro on the cost of the UK's contributions to the EU; and if he will make a statement. [123272]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In the long term the UK's gross contributions, in sterling and before abatement, remain largely unaffected by exchange rate movements.

  Sub-post Offices
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list documents and publications produced by the Treasury, Bank of England and associated public bodies that are available at sub-post offices. [121629]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to her by the Minister for Competitiveness on 15 May 2000,Official Report, column 23W.

  Premium Bond Prizes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number and value of unclaimed premium bond prizes for the last 12 months for which figures are available. [122328]
  420W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number and value of unclaimed Premium Bond prizes each month form May 1999 to April 2000 is as follows:

  Month

  Number

  Value (£)

  May 1999

  2,476

  157,200

  June 1999

  2,484

  156,600

  July 1999

  2,474

  158,000

  August 1999

  2,571

  167,400

  September 1999

  2,502

  160,850

  October 1999

  2,478

  174,850

  November 1999

  2,495

  171,700

  December 1999

  2,560

  181,270

  January 2000

  2,508

  173,900

  February 2000

  2,608

  181,450

  March 2000

  2,594

  193,900

  April 2000

  2,648

  194,850

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the Northern Ireland Structural Funds Plan 2000–06 will be allocated to nature conservation projects; how much of this will be allocated to(a) projects relating to the Draft Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy and (b) the protection and restoration of Northern Ireland's Natura 2000 network; and if he will make a statement. [122097]

  Mr. Ingram
  Negotiations on the Northern Ireland Structural Funds 2000–06 and the Community Support Framework are ongoing with the European Commission and allocations to specific areas of spend will not be known until Programme Complements have been determined by the yet-to-be-appointed Monitoring Committees. The information requested is therefore not available.

  Consideration is being given to including in the Structural Funds Plan measures for environmental enhancement which could embrace projects to benefit both biodiversity and Northern Ireland's Natura 2000 network.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the total sums spent in each financial year, up to 30 April in the current year, on the Saville Inquiry into the events in Londonderry on 30 January 1972, broken down into(a) salaries of staff, (b) travel and subsistence, (c) accommodation, (d) hearing and witness costs, (e) fees to solicitors representing those killed and others, (f) fees to barristers representing those killed and others, (g) IT and communications and (h) miscellaneous, including general office expenditure. [121359]

  Mr. Ingram
  Expenditure on the Bloody Sunday Inquiry is summarised in the table, broken down into the subheadings requested. Figures are currently available only up to the end of the financial year (31 March 2000) and not the end of April as requested. The figures for moneys paid to solicitors and barristers cannot readily be
  421W
  provided separately, nor can the payments for their professional services be readily separated from other expenses. However, these amounts have been split

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Total

  Salaries

  5,479

  581,605

  900,061

  1,487,145

  Travel and Subsistence

  10,436

  155,892

  182,768

  349,096

  Accommodation

  101,955

  526,568

  851,165

  1,479,688

  Hearing and Witness Costs

  0

  268,532

  613,969

  882,501

  Payments to lawyers representing families of the dead and wounded

  0

  432,319

  2,429,490

  2,861,809

  Payments to other lawyers, including Counsel to the Inquiry

  0

  3,555,268

  5,852,692

  9,407,960

  IT and communications

  0

  1,078,586

  1,511,023

  2,589,609

  Miscellaneous, including general office expenditure

  2,505

  45,238

  239,591

  287,334

  Grand total

  120,375

  6,644,008

  12,580,759

  19,345,142

  Civil Servants
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior Civil Service, in his Department for 1999–2000; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [121655]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The headline pay settlement for 1999–2000 in the Northern Ireland Office was 2.5 per cent. on the pay bill and, with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance-related increases averaging 3.62 per cent. The increases were not staged.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent measures he has taken to support the shipbuilding industry in Belfast. [122772]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following the recent announcement by Harland and Wolff of a conditional order for up to six Roll on/Roll off passenger vessels, the Company and the Government remain in close contact on a number of detailed matters arising from that business. The Government will continue to assist Harland and Wolff in whatever way they can to safeguard employment and skills at the Belfast shipyard and to help it seek out profitable new work there. Ministers and Departments in Northern Ireland have, in recent weeks, had a series of meetings with the company, trades unions and others to discuss current shipbuilding issues and the way ahead for the shipyard. That important work will continue.

  Housing Debt
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total is of housing debt owned by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. [123016]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive's outstanding loan debt at 31 March 2000 is £1,654,277,867 (£1.654 billion).

  DVLNI
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland in 2000–01. [123784]
  422W
  between payments to lawyers representing the families and payments to other lawyers, including Counsel to the Inquiry.

  Mr. George Howarth
  For 2000ߝ01, the following key performance targets have been set for the Agency:Output:
  1. To dispatch 96 per cent. of registration books for new vehicles in 16 working days from receipt.
  2. To dispatch 96 per cent. of refunds of vehicle excise duty in 10 working days from receipt.
  3. To dispatch 96 per cent. of vehicle excise licences in five working days from receipt of postal application.
  4. To dispatch 96 per cent. of duplicate vehicle registration books in six working days from receipt of applications.
  5. To dispatch 93 per cent. of all driving licences in nine working days from receipt of applications.
  6. To dispatch substantive replies to 98 per cent. of written inquiries for information from the drivers and vehicles registers in three working days from receipt.
  Waiting Times at Local Vehicle Licensing Offices:
  7. To limit maximum waiting time at Local Vehicle Licensing Offices so that 96 per cent. of customers are attended to within 22 minutes during peak periods (the first eight and the last two working days of each month) and within 10 minutes at other periods.
  Financial:
  8. To meet an overall efficiency gain of 2.5 per cent.
  9. To reduce the unit cost per vehicle excise enforcement case by 0.5 per cent. in real terms compared to 1999–2000.
  Quality:
  10. To limit the error rate (errors on any item sent out by the Agency) to a maximum of 0.5 per cent. of total Agency output.

HEALTH

  Penalty Clauses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the contracts entered into with private sector companies for the provision of goods or services since May 1997 where penalty clauses were triggered for non-performance; and if he will make a statement. [122016]

  Ms Stuart
  National Health Service bodies with contracts for goods or services with private sector companies where penalty clauses have been triggered for failure to perform to time or to standard were:
  423W

  NHS body

  Nature of contract

  Trent region

  East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Radio control system

  Nottingham Health Authority

  Headquarters building

  Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Catering

  Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham; University Hospital NHS Trust

  Laundry

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  Laundry

  South-West region

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  Patient administration IT system

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  Cleaning

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  Laundry

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  Radiology services

  West Dorset General Hospitals NHS

  Estate maintenance

  Exeter Community Hospitals NHS Trust

  Cleaning

  South Devon Health Care NHS Trust

  Laundry

  East Somerset NHS Trust

  Security

  East Somerset NHS Trust

  Orthotic services

  Poole Hospitals NHS Trust

  Cleaning

  Northern and Yorkshire region

  Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Payroll services

  Wakefield and Pontefract Community Health NHS Trust

  Information services

  South Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  Combined heat and power

  Leeds Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  Community units for the elderly

  Leeds Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  Community and mental health information system

  South-East region

  Oxfordshire Mental Health NHS Trust

  Mental health reprovision

  East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust

  Patient administration IT system

  East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust

  IT finance system

  Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  Energy management

  Sussex Weald and Downs NHS Trust

  IM and T service and support

  Hampshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) agreement for minor works

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  Catering

  Portsmouth Healthcare NHS Trust

  Estates maintenance

  Portsmouth Healthcare NHS Trust

  Cleaning

  Oxfordshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  Ambulance vehicle construction

  Oxfordshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  Specialist computer software

  Kent Ambulance NHS Trust

  IT

  Eastern region

  Norfolk Mental Health Care NHS Trust

  Supplies

  North Essex Mental Health NHS Trust

  Catering

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  Clinical waste incineration; energy maintenance

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  Cleaning

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  Cleaning

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  Cleaning

  East and North Hertfordshire Health Authority

  Nursing homes; therapeutic care

  Basildon and Thurrock NHS Trust

  Laundry

  London region

  Bromley Hospital NHS Trust

  Domestic services

  Camden and Islington Community Health NHS Trust

  Cleaning; laundry; sterile supplies; patient transport; dairy supplies; taxi services

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham Mental Health NHS Trust

  Security

  Forest Healthcare NHS Trust

  Domestic services

  Guys and St. Thomas NHS Trust

  Security

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  Computer maintenance

  Havering Hospitals NHS Trust

  Energy management system

  Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

  Security

  Newham Healthcare NHS Trust

  Patient taxi service

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  Computer maintenance; CCTV services

  Riverside Community Health NHS Trust

  Equipment maintenance

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  Boiler room maintenance; patient transport; fire precautions

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  Agency nursing

  North-West region

  Bay Community NHS Trust

  FM services

  Alder Hey NHS Trust

  Pharmacy

  West Midlands region1

  1No known private sector contracts where penalty clauses have been triggered

  424W

  Neurology Services
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consultations he has had with(a) medical (b) patient and (c) other organisations as part of the review of the funding of specialised neurology services; [122579]

  (2) what representations he has received from (a) medical, (b) patient and (c) other organisations as part of the review into the funding of specialised neurology services. [122580]

  Mr. Denham
  We are currently considering how best to undertake an independent review of the evidence for the use of neurostimulator implants in the treatment of severe Parkinson's Disease and we are not in a position at the moment to undertake consultations. Once we have established the best mechanism for taking this work forward we will then consult with the relevant bodies.

  Since February 2000 we have responded to 35 representations in the form of ministerial correspondence regarding specialised neurology treatments. These representations are categorised as follows:

  (a) Medical: 6

  (b) Patients: 1

  (c) Other organisations: 25 (generally the Parkinson's Disease Society and its local branches)

  (d) Hon. Members' constituents: 3 (whether clinician or patient is unknown)

  In addition, we have responded to three pieces of ministerial correspondence about the use of out of area treatments to fund specialised treatments in general.

  Officials regularly meet with representatives from a range of the relevant voluntary and patient organisations.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in implementing service agreements for neurosurgery and specialist neurology in the Eastern region. [122578]

  Mr. Denham
  The Eastern Region Specialised Services Commissioning Group is reviewing the arrangements for specialised neurosciences in the light of the two recent national reports on standards and models of care.

  In the meantime, health authorities in the Eastern region have no plans to change existing commissioning arrangements.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the commercial companies which have paid staff on secondment to his Department and (b) the projects on which each secondee is working. [122909]

  Ms Stuart
  Interchange is a key component of the reform agenda. The Modernising Government White Paper committed us to increasing interchange, in particular by bringing in more people on secondment and sending more people out. Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. All sectors of the economy are involved: voluntary, education, health, public and private.

  Central records are held on five secondments from the private sector.
  426W

  Company

  Project

  British Airways

  Organisational Development

  Deloitte and Touche

  Private Finance Initiative

  Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd.

  Private Finance Initiative

  Herbert Smith

  Private Finance Initiative

  Macfarlanes

  Private Finance Initiative

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Department of Health employees are on secondment to commercial companies; and if he will list the companies concerned. [122907]

  Ms Stuart
  Interchange is a key component of the reform agenda. The Modernising Government White Paper committed us to increasing interchange, in particular by bringing in more people on secondment and sending more people out. Secondments and attachments are part of the interchange initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the civil service and other organisations. All sectors of the economy are involved: voluntary, education, health, public and private.

  Central records are held on two secondments to the private sector:

  Company: Sema Group

  Company: Federal Mogul.

  Human Vaccines (BSE)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what year the first vaccine was used on humans which may have utilised bovine material from BSE-infected cows in the early stage of manufacture. [122973]

  Yvette Cooper
  This information is not available because the precise date of the emergence of BSE in cattle is not known and it is also not known if bovine material for use in the manufacture of vaccines was taken from BSE-infected cattle.

  Waiting Lists (Mid Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each month from March 1997 until the latest available period the total number of people(a) waiting for hospital treatment and (b) waiting more than 12 months for hospital treatment in the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area. [122797]

  Mr. Denham
  The total number of patients waiting and the number of patients waiting over 12 months for hospital treatment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust for each month from March 1997 until March 2000 (the latest available information) is shown in the table.

  Year/month

  Total number of Patients waiting

  Number of patients waiting over 12 months

  1996–97

  March

  8,391

  104

  1997–98

  June

  8,690

  311

  September

  8,967

  441

  December

  10,542

  601

  March

  11,360

  849

  427W

  Year/month

  Total number of patients waiting

  Number of patients waiting over 12 months

  1998–99

  June

  11,834

  1,176

  July

  11,804

  1,123

  August

  11,791

  1,063

  September

  11,615

  1,155

  October

  11,382

  1,180

  November

  11,347

  1,194

  December

  11,359

  1,184

  January

  11,172

  1,224

  February

  10,475

  1,123

  March

  9,967

  1,093

  1999–2000

  April

  9,961

  1,101

  May

  9,980

  1,058

  June

  9,824

  1,083

  July

  9,488

  1,061

  August

  9,465

  991

  September

  9,395

  963

  October

  9,372

  1,024

  November

  9,483

  1,042

  December

  9,851

  1,060

  January

  10,233

  1,118

  February

  10,416

  1,060

  March

  9,865

  1,062

  Source:

  KH07 quarterly waiting times returns, monthly monitoring returns

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each quarter since March 1997 until the latest available quarter the total number of people waiting(a) 13 weeks or more and (b) over 26 weeks for an outpatient's appointment at the Mid Essex Hospital Trust. [122796]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is as follows:

  Number of patients waiting over 13 weeks and over 26 weeks for a first outpatient appointment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust for each quarter since March 1997

  Year

  Quarter

  Not seen 13 to 25

  Not seen 26 plus

  Total not seen 13 plus

  1996–97

  4

  481

  74

  555

  1997–98

  1

  678

  99

  777

  1997–98

  2

  972

  122

  1,094

  1997–98

  3

  874

  130

  1,004

  1997–98

  4

  1,083

  234

  1,317

  1998–99

  1

  1,348

  256

  1,604

  1998–99

  2

  1,596

  341

  1,937

  1998–99

  3

  1,848

  440

  2,288

  1998–99

  4

  1,847

  575

  2,422

  1999–2000

  1

  2,660

  624

  3,284

  1999–2000

  2

  2,876

  1,299

  4,175

  1999–2000

  3

  2,644

  1,055

  3,699

  1999–2000

  4

  1,979

  945

  2,924

  Source:

  QM08 quarterly waiting times returns

  Income Support and Residential Allowance
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisations were sent copies of the consultation paper of 14 April on preserved rights income support and residential allowance. [123473]
  428W
  Mr. Hutton
  A copy of the consultation paper was sent to each council in England and to the organisations listed. The consultation period closes on 31 May. The Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland are considering their own arrangements for consultation. We shall publish proposals for the future funding of long-term care in a White Paper later this year.
  Organisations consulted:

  Royal National Institute for the Deaf

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  SENSE

  SCOPE

  RADAR

  British Council of Disabled People

  Disablement Income Group

  Leonard Cheshire

  Association for Residential Care

  National Development Team

  British Institute of Learning Disabilities

  The National Autistic Society

  MENCAP

  Change

  People First

  Values Into Action

  Rescare

  Foundation for people with learning disabilities

  Community Care Development Centre

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  Mental Health Foundation

  Richmond Fellowship

  Manic Depression Fellowship

  MIND

  Centre for Mental Health Services Development

  Association for Residential Mental Care

  Turning Point

  Mental After-Care Association

  Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health

  Stonham Housing Group

  Abbeyfield Society

  Anchor Housing Association

  Care Sector Committee

  Independent Healthcare Association

  National Care Homes Association

  Registered Nursing Homes Association

  United Kingdom Home Care Association

  United Kingdom Care Council

  Care Forum

  Voluntary Organisations Disability Group

  Council of Nursing Homes Associations

  Help the Aged

  Age Concern

  Local Government Association

  Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS)

  ADSS—Mental Health Group

  Association of London Government

  Carers National Association

  Princess Royal Trust for Carers

  429W

  Cross Roads

  The King's Fund

  Alzheimers Disease Society

  Disability Rights Commission

  National Centre for Independent Living

  The Independent Living Centre

  Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

  Dioxins
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research has been undertaken or evaluated by his Department to establish the health risks to the public posed by dioxins in the environment; [123510]

  (2) if links have been established between dioxins and cancer in humans; [123511]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the incidence of illnesses in the United Kingdom linked to dioxins (a) currently and (b) in 1995.[123480]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department and the Food Standards Agency seek advice on the health implications of dioxins from the independent expert advisory Committees on the Toxicity and on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. The Committee on Toxicity has evaluated the scientific data on dioxins on a number of occasions, most recently in 1995. The evaluation can be found in the 1995 Annual Report of the Committee which is available in the Library. The Committee on Carcinogenicity concluded in 1998 that it would be prudent to consider one specific dioxin, 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, as a "probable weak human carcinogen". The Committee's statement can be found on the Department's Internet site www.doh.gov.uk/coc.htm, and in the 1998 Annual Report.

  The Food Standards Agency funds research on dioxin in food and staff in the Agency actively contribute to the work of the European Commission Scientific Committee on Food Task Force on Dioxins. The Medical Research Council, which is the main agency through which Government supports research on the causes and treatment of disease, also funds research on dioxin as part of a programme on genetic susceptibility and resistance to xenobiotics.

  No specific assessment has been made of the incidence of illnesses in the United Kingdom linked to dioxins.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applications for renewal of driving licences accompanied by Form D4 medical reports were received by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [122825]
  430W
  Mr. Hill
  The number of applications received by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in 1997, 1998 and 1999 for renewal of driving licences accompanied by a D4 medical report form, was as follows:

  1997: 147,677

  1998: 140,128

  1999: 58,591

  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many days during(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999 has the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency experienced exceptional heavy workloads giving rise to delays in issuing renewal driving licences where applications for renewal were accompanied by Form D4 medical reports. [122824]

  Mr. Hill
  Information about the number of days during 1997, 1998 and 1999 that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency experienced delays in issuing renewal driving licences accompanied by a D4 medical report is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, this type of transaction is given high priority at all times.

  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applications for renewal of driving licences accompanied by Form D4 medical reports were received by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in(a) April, (b) May, (c) June, (d) July , (e) August and (f) September 1999. [122829]

  Mr. Hill
  The number of applications processed by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in April, May June, July, August and September 1999 for renewal of driving licences accompanied by a D4 medical report form was as follows:

  Month

  Applications

  April

  5,865

  May

  4,994

  June

  5,364

  July

  4,763

  August

  4,331

  September

  4,914

  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average period of time that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency took to issue renewal driving licences when the application for renewal was accompanied by a Form D4 medical report in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [122826]

  Mr. Hill
  The average time taken by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in 1997, 1998 and 1999 to renew driving licenses accompanied by a D4 medical report form is published in the Agency's Corporate and Business Plans and was as follows:

  Working days

  Target

  Actual

  1997

  10

  8

  1998

  9

  8

  1999

  9

  8

  Housing
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase housing investment over the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [123009]

  Mr. Mullin
  When this Government came to power they inherited spending plans under which capital investment in housing was set to fall from £1.54 billion in 1997–98 to £1.37 billion by 1999–2000. We took early action to reverse this decline through our Capital Receipts Initiative and the Comprehensive Spending Review. As a result, we are making available nearly £5 billion extra over the life of this Parliament. In 2001–02, capital investment in housing will be over £3 billion—double the level we inherited in 1997–98. Our current Spending Review will determine investment levels in future years and decisions will be announced in the summer.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the link between investment in housing and directly and indirectly related employment creation. [123010]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are a number of important links between housing and employment, many of which are set out in our Housing Green Paper, "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all". Housing investment supports employment in the construction industry, while the provision of decent homes enhances people's educational attainment and employment opportunities. The Government are investing nearly £5 billion extra in housing over the life of this Parliament.

  Policies for housing and employment are being integrated through regional planning guidance which takes account of Regional Development Agencies' economic strategies and regional housing statements.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the priorities for housing in this year's comprehensive spending review. [123008]

  Mr. Mullin
  Our aim is to offer everyone the opportunity of a decent home, so promoting social cohesion, well-being and self-dependence. Our priorities are set out in the Housing Green Paper, "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all"—widely recognised as the most comprehensive review of housing for over 20 years.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to develop action zones in areas where the market has failed to provide sufficient housing in order to promote the development of additional housing. [123011]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government are not aware of any areas where the market is failing to provide a sufficient amount of housing but we are aware of examples where housing is not necessarily of the right quality or design, and where it does not meet the most urgent needs of the community. That is why we have put in place the range of policies set out in revised Planning Policy Guidance for housing—PPG3—and our Housing Green Paper, "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all". Our policies encourage more sustainable patterns of development, improvements in quality and design, better use of existing housing, and the provision of more affordable housing.
  432W
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the number of additional affordable homes required in each of the next five years; and how many are currently provided for under the Housing Corporation Programme and the local authority social housing grant. [123012]

  Mr. Mullin
  We do not make national estimates of housing need, since these are unable to adequately reflect the diversity of needs and priorities at the local level. The Housing Corporation forecast that the Approved Development Programme will provide around 18,000 homes for rent, and 4,000 homes for sale on a low cost basis in 2000–01. The Housing Corporation also forecast around 11,000 completions in 2000–01 through Local Authority Social Housing Grant.

  Marine Surveyors
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his Department will ensure that practising marine surveyors are professionally qualified and covered by professional indemnity insurance. [123006]

  Mr. Hill
  Marine surveyors are required to hold professional qualifications before they can apply to join the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA—an executive Agency of my Department). Their training needs are reviewed on an annual basis as part of the MCA's performance appraisal and development system to ensure they remain up to date and qualified for the jobs they are required to undertake.

  Servants of the Crown are not covered by professional indemnity insurance. The Crown is its own insurer and does not effect insurance.

  Landfill Sites, Devon
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department plans to take concerning the lack of a waste strategy plan for landfill sites in Devon after 2007. [123077]

  Mr. Meacher
  Devon county council is preparing a Waste Local Plan for Devon to cover the period up to 2011 (the Plan will not include the administrative areas of Plymouth City council, Torbay council and Dartmoor National Park Authority as they will be covered by the emerging Local Plans of those authorities).

  In October 1998, the county council consulted interested parties about the draft Waste Local Plan which contained policies for waste disposal by landfill. In their response to the consultation, the Government Office for the South-West commented that:
  The Plan does not convey a clear sense of the spatial strategy, or of the preferred mix of waste management methods, and there are no specific development proposals or land allocations, or clear locational guidance. Government policy advises that local plans need both to set out the authority's policies for the control of development and to make proposals for the development of land and to allocate land for specific purposes. It is important to confront these issues, because the Plan indicates that important choices will need to be implemented well within the plan period to 2011. The Plan should therefore make those choices and propose the key developments necessary to implement them.
  433W
  The Plan will be deposited for public consultation in the autumn; if a public local inquiry is necessary it is likely to take place in the autumn of 2001, and the Plan is expected to be adopted in the summer of 2003. The county council will review the Plan every five years in order to take account of evolving technology, any revised planning policies and new legislation.

  Gas Safety
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average time taken to report on incidents involving(a) gas explosions and (b) fires in the last 12 months for which statistics are available. [123042]

  Mr. Meacher
  On the assumption that the question refers to the average time taken by HSE inspectors to report on such incidents following investigation, the answer is that data are not maintained that would provide an average time for the completion of a report. The time taken depends on the nature of the incident and the complexity of the investigation; one recent example has taken five months while another was completed in 48 hours.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has commissioned into ways of improving gas safety. [123040]

  Mr. Meacher
  HSE is making a contribution towards the costs of the following research projects carried out by British Gas Technology (BGT) under the auspices of the Joint Industry Programme:

  (i) compartment ventilation

  (ii) vitiation modelling

  (iii) open flue interaction

  (iv) reliability of CO alarms

  (v) information dissemination

  (vi) emergency response

  (vii) incident data.

  Research has been commissioned separately by HSE on:

  (i) the reliability of CO detectors (BGT)

  (ii) incident data (BGT)

  (iii) test methods for room-sealed appliance seals (BGT)

  (iv) flue performance (at BRE).

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what procedures exist to ensure that lessons learnt from inquiries into gas explosions are circulated to local authorities, housing associations, and those involved in gas installations. [123038]

  Mr. Meacher
  It is normal practice to publish public inquiry reports, for example those which covered gas explosions at Ronan Point and Putney. These and other serious accident investigations inform the development of regulatory controls governing gas installation and use, and related guidance for duty holders.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funding his Department has allocated in the current year for research into gas safety. [123041]
  434W
  Mr. Meacher
  For the financial year 2000–01, £307,000 has been allocated by HSE for gas safety research.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when was the last time his Department issued guidelines to local authorities, housing associations and house builders on safety relating to gas installations. [123039]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Commission approved on 12 October 1998 a Code of Practice giving practical guidance on complying with the provisions of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998. Guidelines were issued to local authority enforcement officers on the enforcement of the Regulations in assigned premises in November 1999.

  In addition, the Building Regulations make requirements for the safe accommodation of combustion installations in buildings. Approved Document J, which supports the legal requirements, gives technical guidance on some ways of achieving compliance when installing gas combustion systems; this would include following the recommendations in certain British Standards. Approved Document J was last amended in 1989, and the current edition came into effect on 1 April 1990.

  Common Land
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reasons underlay the decision not to include the New Forest in the reports commissioned by his Department entitled "Greater Protection and Better Management of Common Land and Good Practice Guide on Managing the use of Common Land". [123256]

  Mr. Mullin
  These two reports were not aimed at any specific commons, but were intended to cover issues and problems arising on the majority of common land throughout England and Wales.

  The publications will be less relevant to those commons which benefit from their own legislation, and particularly those such as the New Forest which are exempted from registration under the Commons Registration Act 1965. It will be a matter for consideration how far, if at all, any new legislation should apply to those commons, and we will naturally listen to views in this respect. The advice contained in the Good Practice Guide may be applied in the New Forest, provided it is consistent with local legislation. Similarly, those who administer that legislation may pursue legislative changes consistent with those proposed in the consultation paper Greater Protection and Better Management of Common Land in England and Wales.

  Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the recommended limit is of methyl tertiary butyl ether (ug/L) in drinking water, and what monitoring the Drinking Water Inspectorate has made of drinking water supplies to detect methyl tertiary butyl ether. [123445]

  Mr. Mullin
  There is no standard for methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in drinking water. MTBE is detected in drinking water by its odour/taste at concentrations
  435W
  much lower than concentrations that would be a risk to health. Because MTBE has the potential to contaminate groundwater sources used for drinking water supply, the Drinking Water Inspectorate has checked the monitoring for MTBE carried out by water companies. Apart from one site specific incident in 1990 which resulted in the water company treating water to remove MTBE, this monitoring has not revealed a problem. The water companies are aware of the potential problems and remain vigilant. The Inspectorate is liaising with the Environment Agency on MTBE.

  Chinese Herbal Medicines
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he takes to ensure Chinese herbal medicines on sale do not contain ingredients derived from endangered species. [122921]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which regulates and sometimes bans trade in endangered species including plants, is strictly implemented in the UK under both European and National legislation. Medicines derived from species listed on Appendix II or III of the Convention need an import permit issued by my Department before they can enter the country. Permits will not normally be issued for products containing the most endangered species listed on the Convention's Appendix I. Any products that are derived from, or even claim to be derived from, wild taken Appendix I specimens will not normally be allowed on sale in the UK.

  The CITES Convention is actively enforced by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the Police who work together with my Department, other government departments and certain non-governmental organisations on the Government's Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime. My Department produces general guidance on the Convention and has recently launched a dedicated website on CITES. We have also worked with the enforcement agencies to produce specialist material including leaflets, posters and videos aimed directly at Britain's Chinese speaking community. We are currently working on new guidance, to be produced in English and Chinese, for practitioners and retailers of traditional Chinese medicines and have signalled our intention to work with Middlesex University on new scientific research into the use of alternatives to replace endangered species contained in traditional medicines.

  Plywood Timber
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of the Government's plywood timber procurement originated in(a) Indonesia and (b) the Brazilian Amazon in the last three years. [123160]

  Mr. Mullin
  The information requested is not held centrally and cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  St. John's Wood Station
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he was consulted or informed in advance by London 436W
  Underground about its plans to place restrictions for several hours per day on use of St. John's Wood Underground Station during the test match at Lords and on 10 June; if he will call for a report from London Underground on the cost of (a) additional staff at that station during this period and (b) buses used to provide alternative transport; what action has been taken in respect of the London Underground employees responsible for this situation; and if he will ensure that closures of this nature are not repeated. [123455]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State was informed in advance about the proposed restrictions at St. John's Wood. These are operational matters for London Underground and the Secretary of State does not propose to call for any further report. While we regret the inconvenience caused by the restrictions we recognise that London Underground must make decisions about station closures which give the highest regard to passenger safety.

  Incinerators
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the Government's criteria are for the siting of new incinerators. [123500]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The building of new incinerators will normally require the grant of planning permission from the waste planning authority under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and an authorisation from the Environment Agency under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Government guidance on the planning considerations which should be taken into account in the siting of new incinerators is contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 10 "Planning and Waste Management".

  Longbridge Rover Plant
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has held with the West Midlands Development Agency on the future of the Longbridge Rover plant. [123477]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Discussions on the future of the Longbridge Rover plant have been undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. My right hon. Friend established a Task Force to assess the impact of Rover restructuring on the West Midlands economy. He appointed Alex Stephenson, the Chairman of Advantage West Midlands, as Chairman of the Task Force, and received an interim report in April. My right hon. Friend met with the Task Force on two occasions, and is due to meet with them before they submit their final report in June. The Government Office for the West Midlands is involved in working with the Task Force, and helping to co-ordinate effort across a number of Government Departments.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what part was played by West Midlands RDA in connection with the recent negotiations over the Longbridge Rover plant. [123478]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Negotiations for the sale of the Rover Group were a matter for the owners, BMW, and prospective bidders. The West Midlands RDA, Advantage West Midlands, was not involved in those negotiations.
  437W
  However, Advantage West Midlands supported the Rover Task Force established by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Representatives of AWM, on behalf of the Task Force, were involved in discussions with BMW and the bidders about their proposals, in order to understand the likely impact on the regional economy.

  "Environmental Snapshot for the East of England"
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) for what reason figure 19 on page 13 of the Environment Agency's document, "Environmental Snapshot for the East of England", does not include landfill sites in Basildon and Thurrock; and if he will make a statement; [123385]

  (2) what the cost was of the production of the Environment Agency's document, "Environmental Snapshot for the East of England"; and who its author was; [123271]

  (3) for what reason figure 1 on page 2 of the Environment Agency's document, "Environmental Snapshot for the East of England", does not include the Unitary Borough of Thurrock. [123270]

  Mr. Mullin
  The omission of the Unitary Borough of Thurrock and the landfill sites in Basildon and Thurrock was an oversight, due to an editorial error. This has already been brought to the attention of the Environment Agency by local government and the Agency will amend the snapshot when it publishes the second edition in September 2000.

  The cost of production of the "Environmental Snapshot for the East of England" was £4,470. The report was produced by Robert Runcie, Regional Director of the Environment Agency (Anglian Region).

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions this year a mixture of landings and take-offs on the same runway has been allowed at Heathrow Airport because of congestion. [123259]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Tactically Enhanced Arrival Measures (TEAM) procedure at Heathrow involves the use of the departure runway to increase arrival rates and reduce holding delays. The procedure is approved only when it can be accommodated within the Heathrow Departure air traffic controllers' workload.

  For environmental reasons, controllers are required to record the occasions on which the TEAM procedure is implemented. During the period 1 January to 18 May the TEAM procedure was implemented on the westerly runways at Heathrow on 53 occasions.

  In accordance with local environmental restrictions, when the easterly runways are in use, arriving aircraft are permitted to use either of the parallel runways, Runway 09 Right or Runway 09 Left, at any time without restriction during the majority of the operating day. For environmental reasons, Runway 09R is normally used for all departures.
  438W
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed Terminal 5 on the number of air traffic movements at Heathrow Airport. [123260]

  Mr. Mullin
  This matter was explored fully at the public inquiry into BAA's planning application for a fifth terminal at Heathrow Airport and because of the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role in the planning system, it would not be appropriate to comment on the application or its implications until the inspector's report has been received and carefully considered.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, dated 16 March 2000, regarding Mr. D. Williams of Kirk Ireton. [123306]

  Mr. Mullin
  This letter was sent for advice in March. Due to a clerical error the advice was delayed. However, I have now sent the hon. Member a full reply.

  North Wales Main Line
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will verify the accuracy of Virgin Trains' commercial study of the electrification of the North Wales mainline by using external consultants. [123458]

  Mr. Hill
  The Franchising Director did use external consultants to satisfy himself of the validity of the Virgin study.

  Local Authority Housing
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress towards the introduction of the new financial framework for local authority housing. [123709]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced on 22 June 1999,Official Report, column 337W, that the Government intended to proceed with their proposals for the introduction of a new financial framework for local authority housing. Our Housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All" repeated that commitment. The new financial framework will place authorities' accounts on a more businesslike footing and encourage more efficient investment in the stock. Together with Best Value, it will help ensure that local authority housing assets are managed in a way which will ensure that the resources which have been and will continue to be invested in them provide good-quality homes which reflect tenants' wishes and needs.

  Our intention remains to introduce the new financial framework from 1 April 2001 with the exception of removing rent rebates from the HRA where primary legislation is needed. We are providing resources through HRA subsidy to help authorities with initial costs. Over recent months we have undertaken consultation on a number of detailed aspects of the new system and my officials have continued to work closely with local government and others. Significant progress has been

  439W
  made and my officials are today writing to local authorities with detailed material on various aspects of the change. The material is also being made available in the Library of the House and will shortly be available on the Department's website.

  We have consulted on four particular topics since my right hon. Friend's announcement of 22 June. On stock valuation, we are today publishing the final version of the guidance. There was general support for the approach proposed based on the identification and valuation of beacon properties. The final version of the guidance reflects a number of detailed comments made in response to consultation. It will help authorities in preparing the valuations which will be necessary for the new-style accounts.

  On business planning, there has been a general welcome for the concept. We will be publishing final guidance taking account of comments made in response to consultation in June; authorities will be expected to produce initial business plans by 31 October.

  On the methodology for calculating the Major Repairs Allowance, we have carefully considered the comments made and are sending authorities a detailed list of our responses. We have made some adjustments to the assumptions underpinning the calculations as a result of the consultation process. The Major Repairs Allowance will be part of HRA subsidy from April 2001, and will form part of our normal consultation on subsidy later this year. All this material, and the guidance on shadow accounts which the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy expect to be issuing in June, will help authorities prepare for the new regime.

  On removal of rent rebates from the HRA, there was general support for the principle involved. The majority of respondents agreed that it was right to regard local authority housing as a national programme and that assumed surpluses in authorities' housing accounts should be retained within housing and redistributed through a pooling mechanism. Some authorities in negative subsidy have expressed particular concerns about the impact of the new system, and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), announced on 4 April 2000, Official Report, column 810, that we would introduce transitional arrangements for authorities in negative subsidy from 2001. We will be consulting on the details of the transitional measures.

  I am grateful for the positive and helpful contribution that local authorities have made to the development of these important proposals. I hope that they will approach their implementation in the same way.

  Councils (Beacon Status)
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will invite councils to apply for beacon status. [123785]

  Ms Armstrong
  We will publish tomorrow an Application Brochure, inviting councils to apply for beacon status by 25 July. Copies of the brochure will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Security
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the total amount spent by schools on security measures in 1999(a) by constituency and (b) by local education authority; [123134]

  (2) how much the Government have awarded to local education authorities in each year since 1995 for schools to (a) implement security reviews and (b) undertake measures to make their premises more secure. [123167]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not collect information in the level of detail requested. Expenditure by each local education authority in England supported by the Government's Standards Fund grant for school security, which is allocated directly to authorities, is shown in Table 1 for 1998–99, the latest year for which outturn information is available, along with the total sums available to authorities for 1999–2000.

  Specific grants for school security measures have been made available since 1997–98, following a recommendation from the Government's Working Group on School Security. To date, £94 million has been made available to support a variety of security measures in schools in England, to help make a safer environment for pupils and staff. A breakdown, by year, of this total funding is given in Table 2.

  Table 1: Local education authority (LEA) expenditure on school security measures from Standards Fund 1998–99 (Grant 18): School Security

  £

  LEA

  Expenditure

  Barking

  57,343

  Barnet

  98,917

  Barnsley

  93,812

  Bath and NE Somerset

  71,095

  Bedfordshire

  165,727

  Bexley

  83,066

  Birmingham

  435,551

  Blackburn with Darwen

  72,095

  Blackpool

  46,787

  Bolton

  117,263

  Bournemouth

  37,421

  Bracknell Forest

  38,056

  Bradford

  229,894

  Brent

  62,517

  Brighton and Hove

  78,242

  Bromley

  61,553

  Buckinghamshire

  202,143

  Bury

  80,342

  Calderdale

  66,480

  Cambridgeshire

  177,651

  Camden

  56,116

  Cheshire

  307,766

  City of Bristol

  156,075

  City of London

  744

  Cornwall

  228,506

  Coventry

  128,675

  Croydon

  106,039

  Cumbria

  227,760

  Darlington

  46,026

  441W

  Table 1: Local education authority (LEA) expenditure on school security measures from Standards Fund 1998–99 (Grant 18): School Security

  £

  LEA

  Expenditure

  Derby

  88,046

  Derbyshire

  323,655

  Devon

  279,442

  Doncaster

  139,240

  Dorset

  148,057

  Dudley

  112,803

  Durham

  258,120

  Ealing

  82,388

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  140,287

  East Sussex

  177,407

  Enfield

  92,180

  Essex

  355,976

  Gateshead

  88,131

  Gloucestershire

  195,656

  Greenwich

  85,883

  Hackney

  70,910

  Halton

  63,538

  Hammersmith

  47,113

  Hampshire

  461,947

  Haringey

  82,116

  Harrow

  71,166

  Hartlepool

  41,836

  Havering

  86,857

  Herefordshire

  80,697

  Hertfordshire

  431,656

  Hillingdon

  58,193

  Hounslow

  84,224

  Isle of Wight

  56,920

  Isles of Scilly

  2,591

  Islington

  69,775

  Kensington and Chelsea

  28,176

  Kent

  440,642

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  110,399

  Kingston upon Thames

  43,291

  Kirklees

  178,478

  Knowsley

  77,815

  Lambeth

  66,129

  Lancashire

  542,965

  Leeds

  287,359

  Leicester

  118,430

  Leicestershire

  245,821

  Lewisham

  88,982

  Lincolnshire

  239,202

  Liverpool

  211,743

  Luton

  73,582

  Manchester

  197,201

  Medway Towns

  97,664

  Merton

  55,860

  Middlesbrough

  66,065

  Milton Keynes

  79,153

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  109,499

  Newham

  92,374

  Norfolk

  322,723

  North East Lincolnshire

  78,961

  North Lincolnshire

  76,228

  North Somerset

  75,587

  North Tyneside

  85,842

  North Yorkshire

  294,636

  Northamptonshire

  273,550

  Northumberland

  168,630

  Nottingham City

  119,138

  Nottinghamshire

  325,454

  442W

  Table 1: Local education authority (LEA) expenditure on school security measures from Standards Fund 1998–99 (Grant 18): School Security

  £

  LEA

  Expenditure

  Oldham

  116,562

  Oxfordshire

  260,896

  Peterborough

  62,385

  Plymouth

  105,454

  Poole

  38,216

  Portsmouth

  64,781

  Reading

  34,941

  Redbridge

  85,193

  Redcar and Cleveland

  69,194

  Richmond upon Thames

  50,854

  Rochdale

  90,501

  Rotherham

  129,465

  Rutland

  11,529

  Salford

  111,851

  Sandwell

  132,632

  Sefton

  126,222

  Sheffield

  184,912

  Shropshire

  128,600

  Slough

  36,063

  Solihull

  91,229

  Somerset

  217,409

  South Gloucestershire

  109,027

  South Tyneside

  74,491

  Southampton

  81,228

  Southend-on-Sea

  37,734

  Southwark

  79,363

  St. Helens

  79,938

  Staffordshire

  371,280

  Stockport

  124,564

  Stockton-on-Tees

  78,558

  Stoke-on-Trent

  112,479

  Suffolk

  297,308

  Sunderland

  132,781

  Surrey

  328,518

  Sutton

  48,845

  Swindon

  60,578

  Tameside

  98,379

  Telford and Wrekin

  65,972

  Thurrock

  45,912

  Torbay

  43,939

  Tower Hamlets

  98,230

  Trafford

  81,304

  Wakefield

  149,619

  Walsall

  114,389

  Waltham Forest

  82,633

  Wandsworth

  57,346

  Warrington

  88,164

  Warwickshire

  207,700

  West Berkshire

  62,404

  West Sussex

  283,477

  Westminster

  49,379

  Wigan

  128,984

  Wiltshire

  163,458

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  53,829

  Wirral

  137,247

  Wokingham

  33,422

  Wolverhampton

  113,821

  Worcestershire

  229,936

  York

  71,192

  Total

  19,708,368

  443W

  Table 2: Total amount made available by Government to local education authorities (LEAs) each year since 1995 to undertake school security measures

  £ million

  Government grant

  LEA contribution

  Total amount

  1997–98

  New Deal for Schools

  6

  —

  6

  1997–98

  Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST)—Grant rate 60 per cent.

  12

  8

  20

  1998–99

  Standards Fund (Grant 18)—Grant rate 75 per cent.

  15

  5

  20

  1999–2000

  Standards Fund (Grant 23)—Grant rate 75 per cent.

  16.5

  5.5

  22

  2000–01

  Standards Fund (Grant 26)—Grant rate 75 per cent.

  16.5

  5.5

  22

  Notes:

  1. GEST and the Standards Fund grants for school security had grant rates. This means Government provide the set grant rate and local education authorities are required to contribute the remainder in order to take up the grant.

  2. In 1997–98 and 1998–99, an additional £2 million per year was available to schools in the grant-maintained sector via the Funding Agency for Schools.

  3. The Standards Fund school security grant is allocated to local education authorities by formula and can be used on a variety of physical measures and on security related training for staff and governors. Local education authorities are required to devolve at least 70 per cent. of their grant allocation to schools, while being allowed to retain a maximum of 30 per cent. of their allocation to co-ordinate a training programme for staff and governors.

  Pre-school Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many early childhood education places are provided for four-year-olds by maintained sector providers in each local education authority as part of their agreed Early Years Childcare and Education Development Partnerships. [122505]

  Number of pupils1 aged 42 in maintained nursery and primary schools by local education authority area in England January 2000 (provisional)

  Nursery schools

  Nursery classes in primary schools

  All pupils in nursery provision

  Other pupils aged 4 in Infant classes in primary schools

  All pupils aged 4 in nursery and primary schools

  England

  15,979

  118,396

  134,375

  349,422

  483,797

  North East

  Darlington

  184

  152

  336

  810

  1,146

  Durham

  376

  1,226

  1,602

  3,683

  5,285

  Gateshead

  15

  514

  529

  1,495

  2,024

  Hartlepool

  12

  384

  396

  838

  1,234

  Middlesbrough

  0

  613

  613

  1,244

  1,857

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  165

  694

  859

  1,914

  2,773

  North Tyneside

  50

  664

  714

  1,530

  2,244

  Northumberland

  20

  788

  808

  2,527

  3,335

  Redcar and Cleveland

  0

  537

  537

  1,118

  1,655

  South Tyneside

  117

  547

  664

  1,179

  1,843

  Stockton-on-Tees

  0

  658

  658

  1,460

  2,118

  Sunderland

  249

  778

  1,027

  2,271

  3,298

  North West and Merseyside

  3,017

  18,681

  21,698

  64,687

  86,385

  North West

  2,660

  14,942

  17,602

  53,757

  71,359

  Blackburn with Darwen

  244

  201

  445

  1,448

  1,893

  Blackpool

  0

  131

  131

  1,069

  1,200

  Bolton

  127

  680

  807

  2,169

  2,976

  Bury

  18

  457

  475

  1,393

  1,868

  Cheshire

  56

  863

  919

  5,040

  5,959

  Cumbria

  178

  922

  1,100

  3,573

  4,673

  Halton

  104

  112

  216

  1,016

  1,232

  Lancashire

  805

  1,057

  1,862

  8,743

  10,605

  Manchester

  16

  1,759

  1,775

  3,363

  5,138

  Oldham

  0

  817

  817

  2,025

  2,842

  Rochdale

  292

  376

  668

  1,779

  2,447

  444W
  Ms Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. The latest estimates of the number of four-year-olds educated in maintained nursery and primary schools by local education authority area is shown in the following table.
  445W

  Number of pupils1 aged 42 in maintained nursery and primary schools by local education authority area in England January 2000 (provisional)

  Nursery schools

  Nursery classes in primary schools

  All pupils in nursery provision

  Other pupils aged 4 in Infant classes in primary schools

  All pupils aged 4 in nursery and primary schools

  Salford

  64

  1,057

  1,121

  1,514

  2,635

  Stockport

  229

  514

  743

  2,223

  2,966

  Tameside

  66

  671

  737

  1,828

  2,565

  Trafford

  0

  651

  651

  1,589

  2,240

  Warrington

  44

  315

  359

  1,623

  1,982

  Wigan

  60

  620

  680

  2,432

  3,112

  Merseyside

  357

  3,739

  4,096

  10,930

  15,026

  Knowsley

  0

  750

  750

  1,417

  2,167

  Liverpool

  123

  1,257

  1,380

  3,562

  4,942

  Sefton

  97

  682

  779

  2,056

  2,835

  St. Helens

  56

  450

  506

  1,440

  1,946

  Wirral

  81

  600

  681

  2,455

  3,136

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  1,692

  19,097

  20,789

  34,126

  54,915

  Barnsley

  64

  1,672

  1,736

  804

  2,540

  Bradford

  148

  1,599

  1,747

  4,342

  6,089

  Calderdale

  0

  651

  651

  1,681

  2,332

  Doncaster

  0

  1,159

  1,159

  2,422

  3,581

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  295

  641

  936

  1,828

  2,764

  Kingston-upon-Hull, City of

  153

  1,552

  1,705

  1,384

  3,089

  Kirklees

  119

  1,129

  1,248

  3,445

  4,693

  Leeds

  0

  2,277

  2,277

  5,538

  7,815

  North East Lincolnshire

  160

  747

  907

  909

  1,816

  North Lincolnshire

  0

  654

  654

  1,052

  1,706

  North Yorkshire

  100

  846

  946

  4,228

  5,174

  Rotherham

  197

  1,694

  1,891

  1,036

  2,927

  Sheffield

  281

  2,234

  2,515

  2,496

  5,011

  Wakefield

  137

  1,809

  1,946

  1,777

  3,723

  York

  38

  433

  471

  1,184

  1,655

  East Midlands

  1,133

  12,383

  13,516

  26,376

  39,892

  Derby

  235

  753

  988

  1,582

  2,570

  Derbyshire

  257

  1,727

  1,984

  5,459

  7,443

  Leicester

  21

  2,057

  2,078

  1,440

  3,518

  Leicestershire

  27

  67

  94

  3,978

  4,072

  Lincolnshire

  151

  539

  690

  5,072

  5,762

  Northamptonshire

  214

  866

  1,080

  5,193

  6,273

  Nottingham

  138

  2,308

  2,446

  739

  3,185

  Nottinghamshire

  90

  4,028

  4,118

  2,680

  6,798

  Rutland

  0

  38

  38

  233

  271

  West Midlands

  1,869

  13,062

  14,931

  42,212

  57,143

  Birmingham

  658

  2,921

  3,579

  8,930

  12,509

  Coventry

  20

  892

  912

  2,398

  3,310

  Dudley

  28

  867

  895

  2,539

  3,434

  Herefordshire

  0

  203

  203

  1,160

  1,363

  Sandwell

  0

  1,350

  1,350

  2,440

  3,790

  Shropshire

  0

  828

  828

  1,003

  1,831

  Solihull

  0

  716

  716

  1,812

  2,528

  Staffordshire

  290

  892

  1,182

  7,486

  8,668

  Stoke-on-Trent

  196

  686

  882

  1,798

  2,680

  Telford and Wrekin

  96

  801

  897

  677

  1,574

  Walsall

  182

  877

  1,059

  2,239

  3,298

  Warwickshire

  229

  512

  741

  3,810

  4,551

  Wolverhampton

  155

  807

  962

  1,944

  2,906

  Worcestershire

  15

  710

  725

  3,976

  4,701

  East of England

  1,844

  13,480

  15,324

  35,456

  50,780

  Bedfordshire

  339

  1,098

  1,437

  2,568

  4,005

  Cambridgeshire

  186

  421

  607

  4,103

  4,710

  Essex

  98

  1,848

  1,946

  8,404

  10,350

  Hertfordshire

  749

  4,201

  4,950

  6,749

  11,699

  Luton

  213

  1,292

  1,505

  983

  2,488

  Norfolk

  121

  938

  1,059

  5,737

  6,796

  Peterborough

  58

  96

  154

  1,459

  1,613

  Southend-on-Sea

  0

  317

  317

  1,164

  1,481

  Suffolk

  80

  2,806

  2,886

  3,396

  6,282

  Thurrock

  0

  463

  463

  893

  1,356

  446W 447W

  Number of pupils1 aged 42 in maintained nursery and primary schools by local education authority area in England January 2000 (provisional)

  Nursery schools

  Nursery classes in primary schools

  All pupils in nursery provision

  Other pupils aged 4 in Infant classes in primary schools

  All pupils aged 4 in nursery and primary schools

  Greater London

  2,387

  23,938

  26,325

  49,963

  76,288

  Inner London

  1,352

  8,161

  9,513

  19,646

  29,159

  Camden

  27

  350

  377

  972

  1,349

  City of London

  0

  11

  11

  12

  23

  Hackney

  43

  638

  681

  1,575

  2,256

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  179

  493

  672

  552

  1,224

  Haringey

  74

  814

  888

  1,933

  2,821

  Islington

  70

  474

  544

  1,393

  1,937

  Kensington and Chelsea

  72

  222

  294

  595

  889

  Lambeth

  117

  606

  723

  1,682

  2,405

  Lewisham

  66

  783

  849

  1,893

  2,742

  Newham

  281

  1,097

  1,378

  2,681

  4,059

  Southwark

  153

  767

  920

  2,163

  3,083

  Tower Hamlets

  163

  834

  997

  1,903

  2,900

  Wandsworth

  49

  586

  635

  1,622

  2,257

  Westminster

  58

  486

  544

  670

  1,214

  Outer London

  1,035

  15,777

  16,812

  30,317

  47,129

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  705

  705

  1,516

  2,221

  Barnet

  130

  606

  736

  2,210

  2,946

  Bexley

  0

  690

  690

  1,909

  2,599

  Brent

  53

  820

  873

  1,920

  2,793

  Bromley

  0

  117

  117

  2,362

  2,479

  Croydon

  185

  771

  956

  2,783

  3,739

  Ealing

  101

  1,052

  1,153

  2,341

  3,494

  Enfield

  0

  656

  656

  2,422

  3,078

  Greenwich

  216

  1,307

  1,523

  956

  2,479

  Harrow

  0

  495

  495

  1,567

  2,062

  Havering

  0

  286

  286

  1,809

  2,095

  Hillingdon

  31

  1,990

  2,021

  937

  2,958

  Hounslow

  0

  767

  767

  1,668

  2,435

  Kingston upon Thames

  37

  329

  366

  962

  1,328

  Merton

  0

  1,071

  1,071

  796

  1,867

  Redbridge

  0

  815

  815

  2,008

  2,823

  Richmond upon Thames

  15

  235

  250

  1,136

  1,386

  Sutton

  106

  1,523

  1,629

  62

  1,691

  Waltham Forest

  161

  1,542

  1,703

  953

  2,656

  South East

  2,646

  10,223

  12,869

  51,787

  64,656

  Bracknell Forest

  0

  680

  680

  146

  826

  Brighton and Hove

  55

  307

  362

  1,620

  1,982

  Buckinghamshire

  149

  721

  870

  3,476

  4,346

  East Sussex

  0

  270

  270

  3,413

  3,683

  Hampshire

  68

  205

  273

  9,624

  9,897

  Isle of Wight

  0

  45

  45

  838

  883

  Kent

  10

  582

  592

  10,424

  11,016

  Medway

  0

  190

  190

  2,170

  2,360

  Milton Keynes

  74

  454

  528

  1,446

  1,974

  Oxfordshire

  713

  1,909

  2,622

  1,578

  4,200

  Portsmouth

  19

  191

  210

  1,452

  1,662

  Reading

  323

  788

  1,111

  114

  1,225

  Slough

  354

  639

  993

  389

  1,382

  Southampton

  28

  143

  171

  1,644

  1,815

  Surrey

  166

  1,020

  1,186

  7,596

  8,782

  West Berkshire

  139

  753

  892

  253

  1,145

  West Sussex

  142

  301

  443

  5,176

  5,619

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  270

  482

  752

  102

  854

  Wokingham

  136

  543

  679

  326

  1,005

  South West

  560

  3,716

  4,276

  35,676

  39,952

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0

  126

  126

  1,152

  1,278

  Bournemouth

  0

  122

  122

  976

  1,098

  Bristol, City of

  451

  640

  1,091

  2,801

  3,892

  Cornwall

  47

  639

  686

  3,502

  4,188

  Devon

  47

  715

  738

  4,454

  5,192

  Dorset

  23

  83

  83

  2,524

  2,607

  Gloucestershire

  0

  39

  39

  4,269

  4,308

  448W 449W

  Number of pupils1 aged 42 in maintained nursery and primary schools by local education authority area in England January 2000 (provisional)

  Nursery schools

  Nursery classes in primary schools

  All pupils in nursery provision

  Other pupils aged 4 in Infant classes in primary schools

  All pupils aged 4 in nursery and primary schools

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  13

  13

  North Somerset

  0

  85

  85

  1,380

  1,465

  Plymouth

  39

  273

  312

  1,803

  2,115

  Poole

  0

  48

  48

  961

  1,009

  Somerset

  0

  228

  228

  3,675

  3,903

  South Gloucestershire

  0

  157

  157

  2,274

  2,431

  Swindon

  0

  209

  209

  1,623

  1,832

  Torbay

  0

  198

  198

  898

  1,096

  Wiltshire

  0

  154

  154

  3,371

  3,525

  1Includes headcount of full-time and part-time pupils

  2Ages at 31 December 1999

  Age Diversity
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the code of practice on age diversity in employment on reducing discrimination in the workplace. [122524]

  Ms Hodge
  The Government have been encouraged by the high level of interest shown by employers, the media, other organisations and individuals in age diversity since the publication of the Code and we have made it clear that the effectiveness of the Code on reducing age discrimination in the workplace will be fully evaluated, with comprehensive findings published early next year.

  To this effect an independent organisation, NOP (National Opinion Polls) has been commissioned to carry out a large scale research project in three stages, to help evaluate the effectiveness the Code is having on reducing discrimination. We will be publishing the first and second stage findings of the evaluation in June.

  Lone Parents
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent in each year on the New Deal for Lone Parents; and how many lone parents have benefited from this scheme in each year. [122602]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 18 May 2000]: The full national New Deal for Lone Parents (Phase 3) was implemented on 26 October 1998. It had already been operating in eight prototype areas from July 1997 (Phase 1), and nationally for new and repeat claimants from 6 April 1998 (Phase 2).

  The cost of implementing the New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) prototype phase 1 areas was £7.9 million. The cost of implementing the national programme has been £58.6 million—broken down as £0.311 million in 1997–98, £22.3 million in 1998–99 and £36 million in 1999–2000. The figure for 1999–2000 is provisional.

  Both sums include the cost of project management, the development and provision of IT support, publicity, the cost of evaluation and the costs of NDLP Innovative Pilots.

  The numbers of lone parents who have benefited from the scheme are set out in the following table.
  450W

  Prototype phase 11

  Phase 22

  National programme3

  Initial interviews attended

  8,107

  15,193

  132,880

  Number agreeing to participate

  7,302

  12,889

  118,420

  Number entering education/training

  375

  2,569

  12,160

  Jobs obtained

  3,393

  2,878

  40,270

  1July 1997 to October 1998

  2April 1998 to October 1998

  3October 1998 to February 2000

  Dissection
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his policy is in respect of the practice of dissecting animals for educational purposes in(a) maintained and (b) independent schools. [122941]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is no requirement in the National Curriculum for dissection to be carried out although individual teachers may choose to use dissection to illustrate various aspects of the science curriculum. In the key stage 3 schemes of work which have been published recently by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, organ dissection is suggested as one of a range of possible teaching activities in some contexts. Where dissection is used, teachers in both state and private schools must always take account of potential threats to the well-being of pupils, particularly in relation to health and safety, religious or ethnic background and individual sensitivities. GCSE and A level exam boards no longer require pupils to undertake dissection for assessment and there should therefore be no pressure on pupils to dissect or watch a dissection. Dissection of living vertebrates and bovine eyeballs is banned in all schools and further directives or advice may be given to teachers by their employers. In maintained schools this is provided by the local education authority, in foundation and voluntary aided schools by the governing body and in private schools by the head teacher or governing body.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Human Rights
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the President of the Council what consultations she has held about terms of reference for the Joint Committee on Human Rights. [121917]
  451W
  Mr. Tipping
  Preliminary consultations on principle have taken place between the usual channels. The House will, of course, have the opportunity to debate the proposed Standing Orders in due course, and I will ensure the motions appear well before the debate. The Government expect to propose very broad terms of reference for the Committee.

  Trade Unions
  Angela Smith
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, when the Commission last met representatives of the recognised trade unions in the House. [121918]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  It is not the practice of the Commission to engage in direct negotiations with the trade unions. This function has been delegated to the Board of Management; senior staff are in frequent touch with trade union representatives.

  Westminster Hall
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the President of the Council what recent representations she has received on proceedings in Westminster Hall. [121919]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have received no recent direct representations.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the(a) capital and (b) running costs of the Westminster Hall experiment to date. [121922]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The capital costs of refurbishment of the Grand Committee Room, brought forward to allow Westminster Hall to function, were given by the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee as £882,000,Official Report, 23 November 1999, column 57W. It is not possible to state precisely how much of this sum is directly attributable to Westminster Hall; some £30,000 was spent on furniture, and a proportion of the professional fees of £71,000 went towards design services. For running costs, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 20 March 2000, Official Report, column 456W.

  Voting Methods
  Jean Corston
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on proposals for reform of the voting methods of the House. [121920]

  Mr. Tipping
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson),Official Report, column 860.

  Oral Questions
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the President of the Council if she will recommend to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons that it examines the benefits of reducing the period between tabling oral questions to Ministers and the date for answer. [121921]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have no plans to do so.

  Modernisation Committee
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the progress made to date on reforms proposed by the Modernisation Committee. [121923]

  Mrs. Beckett
  A full analysis of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and their implementation is set out in that Committee's First Special Report of Session 1998–99, HC 865. Since that report was published, the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill has been debated in Standing Committee so 48 of the 56 recommendations of the Committee have now been implemented in whole or in part.

  Voicemail
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee, pursuant to his answer of 4 May 2000,Official Report, column 215W, on voicemail, for what reason he was not able to provide the installation cost; and on what basis the service cost of £92,000 was calculated. [122536]

  Mr. Allan:
  I am advised by the Head of Telecommunications that the voicemail facility currently used by Parliament is purchased as a service from the Central Computing and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA). Since it is a service, and since it is provided globally via Parliament's voice network, there are no site specific installation costs.

  The sum of £92,000 can be broken down as follows: megastream rental £8,225 (this provides the connection between Parliament's voice network and the external CCTA managed voicemail system); mailbox rental £37,900 (annual cost—the last quarter has been estimated); applications development and manual £800; and training £45,330.

  I am advised that training costs are expected to fall in the current financial year, since the first and major tranche of roll-out to new users is now completed. Mailbox rental costs are expected to increase as the majority of mailboxes will now incur full-year rental costs.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what account his Committee takes of animal welfare issues in determining purchasing policy. [122917]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  Purchasing policy is essentially a matter for the Refreshment Department. However, I am advised by the Director of Catering Services that the Department's purchasing guidelines include the following provisions related to animal welfare:

  1. fresh meats must be sourced from livestock raised under an accredited "farm assurance scheme". Such schemes ensure that all stock is reared according to good animal husbandry and welfare practices. The Department periodically tests the claims of suppliers by requiring them to provide documentary evidence tracing the cut of meat delivered back to source and, where possible, to the animal;

  2. fresh meat suppliers must meet standards set by the Meat and Livestock Commission, who provide both detailed and general advice to the Department about animal welfare issues in the meat industry;

  3. veal must be from calves raised in group housing systems, not crate systems;

  453W

  4. pigmeat supplied to the Department must be from pigs raised in loose-housed systems, not stall and tether systems; and

  5. eggs must be from free-range flocks. The supplier is licensed under the RSPCA's Freedom Food Scheme.

  The Refreshment Department consults widely with other organisations to ensure that its purchasing guidelines are regularly and authoritatively reviewed. In addition to working closely with the Meat and Livestock Commission, the Department is a member of the Soil Association, and periodically seeks advice from bodies such as the Freedom Food Association, Compassion in World Farming and the NFU.

  Voting Procedures
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council if she will propose to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons that it examine changes to the House's voting procedures which would allow abstentions to be recorded. [121915]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Modernisation Committee may examine this as part of its work on electronic voting.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proportion of cars bought by the Government car service since May 1997 have been Rovers. [120862]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Since May 1997 the Government Car and Despatch Agency has purchased 16 Rovers. Six were purchased in the financial year 1996–97.

  Civil Service Code
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when it is intended to introduce a Bill to give statutory basis to the Civil Service Code. [123281]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on 8 May 2000,Official Report, column 215W.

  People's Panel
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the report of the first evaluation of the People's Panel will be published; and if she will make a statement. [123708]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have today placed copies of the first report on the evaluation of the People's Panel in the Libraries of the House. The report is also available on the People's Panel website at www.servicefirst.gov.uk.

  Business Regulation Costs
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make it her policy to undertake an annual audit of the cost to business of regulations and to publish the result. [123305]

  Mr. Stringer
  All regulatory proposals likely to have a significant cost or benefit to business are subject to Regulatory Impact Assessment. These assessments are 454W
  published by Departments and placed in the Libraries of the House. In addition, a series of twice yearly Command Papers, entitled Regulatory Impact Assessments, list the assessments for each six month period.

SCOTLAND

  Honours System
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the honours system in Scotland. [121876]

  Dr. Reid
  I have received only one letter making representations about the honours system in Scotland.

  New Deal
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the most recent figures on the take-up of the new deal in Scotland. [121877]

  Dr. Reid
  Take-up of the New Deal in Scotland is good. 1,700 people joined the New Deal for Young People in February, bringing the number of starts to 48,400 since the introduction of the programme.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the impact of the new deal on employment in Clydebank and Milngavie. [121878]

  Dr. Reid
  The New Deal is making a significant impact, with employment in Scotland at its highest level since 1966.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had about the application of New Deal programmes in Scottish football clubs. [121880]

  Dr. Reid
  I have regular discussions about the New Deal. The New Deal is good news for all jobseekers including those who want to work within football clubs. Hearts, Hibernian, Kilmarnock, Dunfermline, Raith Rovers, Dundee, Livingston, Ross County and Dumbarton Football Clubs participate in the New Deal as employers.

  Ferry Services
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has made to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions regarding ferry services between Scotland and Northern Ireland. [121879]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend has frequent contact with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on a number of issues including ferry services between Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on the tender of Caledonian MacBrayne's ferry services under article 87.1 of the EC treaty and the 1992 European Regulations on Maritime Transport (Council Regulation 3577/92); and if he will make a statement. [121884]
  455W
  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend has discussions with the Scottish Executive on a number of issues including issues relating to ferry services.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to assist the unemployed in Scotland to take up available jobs. [121881]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Secretary of State and I take a close interest in assisting unemployed people in Scotland find work and in the New Deal. We frequently carry out New Deal engagements and take every opportunity to publicise its success and to encourage employers to participate. The Secretary of State wrote on 4 May encouraging all Scottish Members to work closely with the Employment Service to help bring together jobseekers and employers with vacancies within their constituencies. The New Deal has helped nearly 23,000 young people into work since its introduction in April 1998.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on fuel poverty issues in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [121883]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend and I have frequent discussions with Scottish Ministers on a wide variety of issues, including poverty. There will be a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Poverty, which brings together UK Ministers and ministers from the devolved administrations, on 26 May, in Edinburgh. UK Ministers and ministers from the devolved administrations also meet in a ministerial group on fuel poverty.

  The UK Government are taking a number of practical steps to alleviate fuel poverty. This past winter around £70 million was paid in Winter Fuel Payments to over 900,000 Scottish pensioners: £944,000 was paid out in my hon. Friend's constituency to 10,964 people. The payment will be increased next winter to £150 per eligible household. In addition, the Government made almost 20,000 Cold Weather Payments in Scotland this past winter. The Scottish Executive are responsible for the Warm Deal in Scotland, which provides a package of energy efficiency measures of up to £500 for those on low incomes. The Warm Deal is a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Minimum Wage
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many enforcement actions have been taken in Scotland to ensure that employers meet their obligation to pay the national minimum wage. [121885]

  Dr. Reid
  As at the end of April this year, minimum wage inspectors in Scotland have received 356 complaints and served 14 enforcement notices. £13 million is being spent over three years in the United Kingdom on enforcement. The Low Pay Commission reported on 15 February that the Inland Revenue has made a successful start to enforcement and was working proactively to ensure compliance with the legislation.

  Shipbuilding Industry
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with bodies in the shipbuilding industry on raising the competitiveness of the industry. [121886]

  Dr. Reid
  This Government are firmly committed to improving the competitive position of the shipbuilding industry across the UK. Both the Department for Trade and Industry and the Scottish Executive chair industry forums which aim to address the issues involved. My regular contact with the Department for Trade and Industry and the Scottish Executive includes matters relating to the shipbuilding industry.

  Freight Trains
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he has held with EWS Railway Freight Company to discuss the shortage of freight trains to meet the contracts with the Scottish coal companies over the last year. [121887]

  Mr. Wilson
  I had a very useful meeting with EWS on 13 April, together with representatives of coal producers and generators, to discuss issues relating to the transport of coal by rail.

  I and my colleagues wish to ensure that the arrangements for transporting coal make the best use of the railway system, and provide a more secure future for all concerned.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with representatives of manufacturing interests on the areas in Scotland to be covered by Regional Selective Assistance; and if he will make a statement. [121888]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department and I have received a wide range of representations since the 10 April announcement of revised proposals for the Assisted Areas map which determines the potential coverage of the Regional Selective Assistance scheme.

  Forth Railway Bridge
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 18 April 2000,Official Report, column 475W, what representations he has made to the Rail Regulator to ensure that Railtrack complies with its obligations under the Railways (Safety Cover) Regulations 1994, with particular reference to the Forth railway bridge. [121874]

  Dr. Reid
  Monitoring of Railtrack PLC's compliance with its railway safety case is carried out by the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate who also considered Railtrack's safety case and any subsequent revisions. The safety case includes a strategy for the maintenance of structures on Railtrack's infrastructure. The Railway Inspectorate hold regular meetings with Railtrack to establish that they are maintaining this strategy robustly for the Forth Rail Bridge and other structures.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Advocate-General how many meetings she has held with hon. Members in order to give guidance about the exercise by her of her powers. [121893]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  As I indicated in my response on 18 April 2000 to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman),Official Report, column 816, I am delighted to meet hon. Members to discuss the Advocate-General's powers. To date, no such meeting has yet taken place, but I look forward to arranging meetings in the near future.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Advocate-General for Scotland, pursuant to her answer of 18 April 2000 to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge),Official Report, column 476W, if she has visited the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to discuss Scottish experience in applying the European Convention on Human Rights since devolution. [121889]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I and my officials are regularly in contact with the UK Government Departments, including the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to discuss matters of common interest, which would include human rights issues.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Trust Office
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on progress on reform of the Public Trust Office. [121898]

  Jane Kennedy
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor made a statement on the reform of the Public Trust Office on 11 April. We are presently consulting all interested parties on the programme of reform set out in the document "Making Changes: The Future of the Public Trust Office".

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Public Trust Office executive agency has met its key performance targets for 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [121900]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Public Trust Office had seven key performance indicators for the 1999–2000 financial year, and it met five of them. These figures are provisional pending National Audit Office audit of the Public Trust Office's accounts.

  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will be able to provide the detailed estimated costs to the Lord Chancellor's Department of implementing the recommendations of the Quinquennial Review of the Public Trust Office. [122805]

  Jane Kennedy
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor announced his plans for the future of the Public Trust Office on 11 April in a consultative 458W
  document called "Making Changes: The Future of the Public Trust Office". I expect to have detailed estimated costs of implementing the planned changes by the autumn.

  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the estimated additional cost to those individuals who have their financial affairs managed by the Receivership Division of the Public Trust Office of having their financial affairs managed by accredited panel solicitors. [122802]

  Jane Kennedy
  The provision of Receivership Division services by solicitors is just one of the options we are considering. There are other potential service providers who have the requisite skills to undertake this work. As the work will be put out to tender the estimated cost is, at present, commercially sensitive information. We will, however, be entering into detailed negotiations with potential service providers to ensure that we secure the best value for money for our clients that we possibly can.

  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the estimated cost to his Department of implementing the recommendations of the Quinquennial Review in developing supporting information and communications technology for the Public Trust Office, including the additional costs of training and monitoring external providers. [122804]

  Jane Kennedy
  This is a very early stage of a complex change programme. My officials are currently assessing the various computer and technology options available to us, prior to developing detailed design and implementation plans. As a result, specific costings are not available for the individual elements of the programme. I would anticipate that these will be available by the autumn.

  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the estimated cost to his Department of administering the Public Trust Office for the financial years(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [122803]

  Jane Kennedy
  The total, unaudited, cost of running the Public Trust Office in 1999–2000 was £22.2 million. The budgeted cost for 2000–01 is also £22.2 million.

  Courthouse, Colchester
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on progress towards building a new courthouse at Colchester. [121903]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are no plans to build a new Crown court or county court in Colchester. I cannot say when a new magistrates court will be built there as the accommodation requirements for Essex is a matter for the Magistrate's Courts Committee. The need to improve magistrates courts accommodation in Essex has been accepted by the Lord Chancellor's Department and is in the Private Finance Initiative building programme.

  County Court Actions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps are being taken to reduce the time taken in bringing action for enforcement of payment to the county courts. [121907]
  459W
  Mr. Lock
  Since March 1998, we have been engaged in a comprehensive review of the enforcement of all civil court judgments. As part of that review, we will be looking at how to reduce delay in the enforcement process. I anticipate being able to report the conclusions of the review in June.

  Rural Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the future of rural magistrates courts in Buckinghamshire. [121908]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government's policy is that magistrates courts in Buckinghamshire are best managed locally by Thames Valley Magistrates Courts Committee under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Decisions concerning the future of magistrates courts in their area, whether rural or urban, are for that magistrates courts committee to determine.

  Bailiffs
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the Citizen's Advice Bureaux report "Undue Distress"; if he will review the powers and role of bailiffs; and if he will make a statement. [122820]

  Mr. Lock
  I am considering the CAB report, which was published on 15 May, and will respond to it in due course. Professor Beatson, of Cambridge University, is currently conducting a review of bailiff law on behalf of the Department and is due to report to us by the end of June 2000. We will look closely at the powers and role of bailiffs in the light of both these reports.

  Commissioner for Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to appoint the Commissioner for Judicial Appointments; and if he will make a statement. [122808]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor intends to appoint the First Commissioner for Judicial Appointments this year.

  Human Rights Act 1998
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much of the legal aid budget has been earmarked to support cases(a) with a Human Rights Act 1998 element and (b) based on the Human Rights Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [122809]

  Mr. Lock
  In the Comprehensive Spending Review in 1998 we estimated that the cost to legal aid of implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 would be of the order of £40 million per annum. However, no separate estimates were made to distinguish costs in cases involving a Human Rights Act element from those exclusively brought under the Act.

  High Court Vacancies
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many vacant posts 460W
  there are for the High Court Bench; when he proposes to fill the vacancies; by what procedure he will fill the vacancies; and if he will make a statement. [122807]

  Mr. Lock
  There are currently no vacancies on the High Court Bench. The assessment of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is that the current demands on the High Court are fully met by the number of judges in post.

  In November 1999 the statutory ceiling on the number of High Court judges was increased by eight, from 98 to 106. Since then, four additional High Court judges have been appointed in preparation for the implementation of the Human Rights Act in October 2000. This has taken the number of judges from 98 to 102 (excluding Mr. Justice Bratza, who is serving full-time on the European Court of Human Rights).

  There remains capacity within the statutory ceiling to appoint a further four judges. The Lord Chancellor will continue to monitor the demands on the High Court, and he will recommend the appointment of further judges, within the statutory ceiling, when he considers it is necessary.

  In February 2000, as part of his regular search for potential candidates, the Lord Chancellor again invited applications for consideration for appointment to the High Court Bench. When vacancies arise, appointment will be made on merit from those who have applied, either in 1998 or this year, or from others whom the Lord Chancellor regards as meeting the criteria to the required degree of distinction. Of the 19 High Court judges appointed since February 1998, eight had applied for appointment, and 11 were invited to accept appointment.

  Careless Driving Charges
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many careless driving charges authorised by the Crown Prosecution Service in Essex were heard by magistrates in the 12 months from May 1999 to the end of April 2000; and how many were still to be determined by the courts on 1 May 2000. [122902]

  Jane Kennedy
  Magistrates in Essex heard 942 careless driving charges in the period from January 2000 to the end of April 2000. Records before January are not readily available. There remain 644 charges to be determined.

  Damages Act 1996
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he proposes to set a rate of return under section 1 of the Damages Act 1996; and if he will make a statement. [121902]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor published a consultation paper in March seeking views on the exercise of his powers under the Damages Act and raising alternatives to lump sum payments. The deadline for responses is 31 May and he will announce decisions following an analysis of the responses to that consultation paper.

  Criminal and Civil Cases
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason a non-molestation order is treated as a criminal case and an access order is treated as a civil case. [121499]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Family Homes and Domestic Violence (NI) Order 1998 creates a new unified and coherent legal regime for dealing with domestic violence. The old personal protection orders have been replaced by non-molestation orders. The non-molestation orders are civil orders made by the court for the protection of the applicant and any children who may be at risk of family violence. The breach of a non-molestation order, involving as it does the threat of violence to the protected person(s), is appropriately a criminal offence and police officers are empowered to arrest for breach of such an order.

  An access order, since the introduction of the Children (NI) Order 1996 known as a contact order, is an order by the court to provide for contact between a parent and a child in circumstances where that parent is not living with the child. Breach of contact orders may be treated as contempt of court. However, difficulties in ensuring contact between children and parents may involve many complicated relationship factors and require to be dealt with sensitively within the family civil law system.

DEFENCE

  Army Training Ranges
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the competition to find a strategic partner for the management of the Army's training areas and ranges. [123710]

  Dr. Moonie
  As my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence, now Minister for the Armed Forces, said in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) on 25 November 1998,Official Report, column 10W, we have been conducting a competition to seek a long-term strategic partner from the private sector to help introduce best commercial practice in supporting and managing the Army Training Estate. As a result of the work conducted thus far, it has been decided to include all non-core training support activities and services because there is scope for better value for money if the boundaries of the study were to be extended in this way. In addition, a site utility review is going to be conducted to establish the usage of sites and this may lead to rationalisation of some sites. It is too early to say what the impact of this work is going to be, both on jobs and individual sites, but the MOD Trades Unions will be consulted at every stage. Should any redundancies result from this study, these will be handled in accordance with MOD procedures agreed by the Trades Unions.

  Logistic Information Systems Agency
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Logistic Information Systems Agency for 2000–01. [123715]
  462W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of the Logistic Information Systems Agency has been set the following Key Targets for 2000–01.
  Key Target 1
  To deliver all Customer-agreed outputs to budget.Key Target 2
  To maintain or improve the cost ratio of Information Systems Delivery staff to Administrative staff of 1:0.58.Key Target 3
  To improve delivery performance to customer requirements such that:
  The average time for Requests For Change assessment is reduced by 4 per cent. to five days.
  The average period required for Requests For Change Authorisation is reduced by 5 per cent. to 64 days.Key Target 4
  To be graded as three or better for overall delivery, on a scale of one (exceptional) to five (ineffective), based on 100 per cent. of customer reports.

  Merchant Navy Reserve
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Merchant Navy Reserve. [123786]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have recently decided, as part of my Department's continuous attempts to improve the effectiveness and operability of the naval reserve forces, to disband the Merchant Navy Reserve (MNR).

  The MNR was formed in 1989 to provide a modest pool of experienced British Merchant Seamen to augment the crews of UK registered merchant ships in times of tension and war. The MNR's membership has never been called-out since its inception and there are no foreseen circumstances where the Government may be required to do so. The Cold War environment that generated the requirement for the Merchant Navy Reserve has changed fundamentally, resulting in the necessity for the Government to review all elements of the armed forces. Such reviews have demonstrated there is no longer a requirement to maintain the Merchant Navy Reserve in circumstances where there is no foreseeable need for its services.

  My Department has therefore made arrangements for letters to be sent to individual members of the MNR thanking them for their past service and informing them of this decision and the reasons behind it. The letters encourage MNR personnel to consider joining the Royal Naval Reserve, an organisation which offers valuable training and personal development opportunities to all those with an interest in acquiring or maintaining the Nation's much-needed maritime skills.

  The measure in no way effects the Government's wholehearted and continuing support for the Merchant Navy, a matter demonstrated amply in the 1998 White Paper "British Shipping: Charting A New Course". Industry, the unions and Government continue to work together to regenerate the UK merchant navy and seafaring skills base to meet the Nation's future needs.

  Service Personnel (Marriage Statistics)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy

  463W
  and (c) the RAF of age group (i) 16 to 24, (ii) 25 to 29, (iii) 30 to 34, (iv) 35 to 44, (v) 45 to 49 and (vi) 50 years and over have changed from Maristat One in each year between and including 1989 and the current financial year, stating in each age category the (1) proportional change from strength, (2) proportional change from married strength, (3) proportional change from married to divorced from the national population as a whole and (4) proportional change from married to divorced from the national married population; and if he will make a statement. [123242]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally by my Department and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the married strength of the(a) Army, (b) RAF, (c) Royal Navy and (d) all services, are married to a serving member of the Armed Forces not including Reserve Forces; and if he will make a statement. [123159]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is as follows:

  Total married strength

  Married to serving person

  Proportion (Percentage)

  (a) Army

  48,614

  2,868

  5.9

  (b) Royal Navy

  20,014

  844

  4.2

  (c) Royal Air Force

  34,219

  2,400

  7.0

  (d) All services

  102,847

  6,112

  5.9

  The table may contain some inaccuracies as some personnel may not have amended their records following the discharge of their spouse from the Armed Forces.

  Labour Committee on Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date permission was granted to conduct surveillance of the Labour Committee on Ireland; and for what period this surveillance was conducted. [122763]

  Mr. Spellar
  It has been the long-standing practice of successive Governments not to comment on alleged intelligence activities, which are covered by exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) documents and (b) photographs are held relating to the activities of the Labour Committee on Ireland; and how many files on the Labour Committee on Ireland are currently being maintained. [122764]

  Mr. Spellar
  It has been the long-standing practice of successive Governments not to comment on alleged intelligence activities, which are covered by exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Bloody Sunday
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 February 2000,Official Report, column 648W, on Bloody Sunday, if he will make a further statement about the destruction of self-loading rifles. [122765]
  464W
  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence/West Mercia police investigation, which is urgently investigating the whereabouts and possible recovery of the surviving so-called 'Bloody Sunday rifles' and the destruction of two rifles that had been previously identified, is still under way. It would be inappropriate to comment further until this investigation is complete.

  Mr. Liam Clarke
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has asked the Metropolitan police Special Branch to conduct an investigation into Mr. Liam Clarke. [122757]

  Mr. Spellar
  No.

  Sunday Times (Injunction)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whom he consulted before seeking an injunction against The Sunday Times and others preventing publication of information obtained from the person known as Martin Ingram. [122758]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence obtained advice on this matter from a number of sources within Government. The Secretary to the independent Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee was also consulted.

  Mr. Tony Geraghty
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the 1998 Ministry of Defence police search of the home of journalist Tony Geraghty; how many hours this search lasted; how many personnel and of what rank were present; what items were removed from the premises; what items have been retained by the Ministry of Defence police; what items have been passed on to other agencies; what items have been returned to the owner; what charges were brought against Mr. Geraghty; what considerations led to charges being dropped; and what compensation has been offered to Mr. Geraghty. [122760]

  Mr. Spellar
  The additional cost of the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) search of the home of Tony Geraghty was £606.00. The search lasted just under seven hours and was conducted by two detective sergeants and four detective constables. A computer, associated equipment and documentation was taken by the MDP. Items for use in a forthcoming court case involving one of Mr. Geraghty's associates have been retained by the MDP. Items relevant to a West Mercia police investigation, concerning Mr. Geraghty, were passed to that Force. All items not required for the forthcoming court case and not passed to West Mercia police have been returned to Mr. Geraghty. Mr. Geraghty was charged under section 5 of the Official Secrets Act 1989 on 13 May 1999. The decision not to proceed against Mr. Geraghty is a matter for the Attorney General. My Department has not made an offer of compensation to Mr. Geraghty.

  Armoured Support Vehicles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will ensure that the requirement for armoured battle group support vehicles will be met by UK companies and that the vehicles will be built in the UK; and if he will make a statement; [122387]

  (2) what is the cost of meeting the requirement for armoured battlegroup support vehicles; when this requirement will be met; and if he will make a statement. [122385]

  Dr. Moonie
  We require in total about 1,000 vehicles to provide armoured support to the front line, the majority of which will be Armoured Battlegroup Support Vehicle. Deliveries are planned to begin by the end of the decade. The programme is currently at the concept stage and initial estimates indicate an acquisition cost of around £1.5 billion including early years of in-service support.

  The procurement strategy has yet to be finalised, but will be based on achieving best value for money for the tax payer. The MOD has a policy of open international competition whenever this is possible. However, all procurement options will be investigated taking account of security of supply, UK technological capabilities and the benefits to the MOD of potential exports.

  Departmental Housing Stock
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the regulations he intends to implement on the disposal of MOD housing stock; and what discussions he has held with relevant local councils and housing associations to reach an early conclusion. [122110]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 17 May 2000]: The guidelines to which all Departments work when disposing of surplus property assets are contained in Chapter 32 of Government Accounting.

  Houses in England and Wales which were included in the sale of service families accommodation to Annington Homes Ltd., are passed to the company for disposal in accordance with the terms of the sale.

  When disposing of surplus housing owned by the Ministry of Defence my Department seeks to achieve the maximum return for the taxpayer generally. In most instances this is through sale on the open market.

  Local authorities and Housing Associations formally become aware of our surplus housing through the planning and marketing process, and have the opportunity to take part in the purchase process should they wish to do so. There is of course extensive contact between officials in Defence Estates and local authorities on the range of estate planning and disposal issues.

  It is our policy to dispose of surplus properties as soon as possible to enable their early and productive re-use.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Defence Housing Executive has reached a conclusion as to the method and timing of surplus MOD housing stock being released to council and housing association stock. [122109]
  466W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 17 May 2000]: There has been no change in the Defence Housing Executive's (DHE's) policy on the method and timing of the release of surplus Ministry of Defence housing stock to local authorities and housing associations.

  The bulk of Service Families Accommodation (SFA) in England and Wales are held by the Ministry of Defence on an underlease from Annington Homes Ltd. (AHL). Properties which become surplus to military requirements are handed back to AHL for disposal. Where appropriate, the DHE does release properties to housing associations and local authorities for short term let, but the properties which are available are often not attractive to them.

  Surplus SFA in Scotland is passed to Defence Estates (DE) who determine the appropriate disposal strategy. All relevant factors are taken into consideration and DE will normally liaise with the local authority housing division to ensure that they are made aware of the intention to offer housing for sale. This is intended to allow the council time to plan accordingly and to consider whether they may wish to bid for the properties when they are offered for sale.

  Where appropriate, consideration can be given to a sale to a local authority or housing association by private treaty at open market value, in line with existing Treasury guidelines.

  Armed Forces Personnel Costs
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the average annual cost of paying and accommodating 20,000 armed forces personnel and their families. [121804]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 16 May 2000]: The average annual cost of paying and accommodating 20,000 armed forces personnel and their families is £562 million. In calculating this figure, it has only been possible to take account of Pay, Employer's-Related National Insurance Contributions and Pensions contributions. Any calculation of overheads such as rents, rates, utilities costs, food, office equipment and services could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Joint NBC Regiment
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will place in the Library(a) the study and (b) the investment appraisal led by the Directorate of Joint Warfare on the final location of the Joint Nuclear Biological and Chemical Regiment; [123119]

  (2) if transport costs of (a) personnel and (b) vehicles were included in the investment appraisal which informed the decision to locate the Joint NBC Regiment at RAF Honington; and if he will make a statement. [123116]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: A copy of the investment appraisal will be placed in the Library of the House. I am withholding a copy of the study in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to defence, security and international relations.

  Joannou and Paraskevaides Group
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what construction contracts his Department has awarded to the Joannou and Paraskevaides Group in the last three years. [123145]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: The Ministry of Defence has not awarded any construction contracts to Joannou and Paraskevaides within the last three years.

  Mr. Mullineux
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1)(a) if he will make a statement on the reasons which underlay the decision (i) to remove the body of the son of Margaret Maurex from an NHS hospital to a Ministry of Defence site, where a post-mortem examination was performed and (ii) not to ask the permission of Margaret Maurex, (b) what tests were performed on the body, (c) what were the results of the post-mortem examination and (d) for what reasons such exercises were performed in secret; and if he will make a statement; [115926]

  (2) what notification was given to Mrs. Margaret Maurex of the post-mortem conducted at a Ministry of Defence site on her son. [116283]

  Dr. Moonie
  Mr. A. I. Mullineux was discharged from the Regular Army on 10 August 1992 under Queen's Regulations 9.374—"At the Soldier's request on payment—transfer to the Regular Reserve". He was not employed in support of any UK sponsored military operations at the time of his death in Bosnia in February 1993. A careful examination of Mr. Mullineux's contemporary Service records indicates that the Ministry of Defence did not play any role in the repatriation of Mr. Mullineux's body to the UK, nor any post-mortem, which would properly have been the responsibility of the civil authorities.

  Imported Meat
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the prescribed welfare standards included in the legislative requirements governing the supply of imported meat to Her Majesty's forces. [115639]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: There are no prescribed welfare standards included in the legislative requirements governing the import of meat for consumption by HM Forces. However the hygiene standards to which meat imported into the EU most comply are regulated by EU legislation. Welfare standards applying to the rearing, transportation and slaughter of livestock within the EU is subject to regulation by EU Directives.

  Gulf Veterans
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons his Department has performed post mortem examinations on Gulf veterans; how many 468W
  post mortems have taken place and where they were conducted; what types of specimen have been taken and where they were tested; what tests were performed on cadavers and with what results; and if he will make a statement. [116284]

  Mr. Spellar
  The MOD has no specific arrangements to request post mortem examinations on Gulf veterans, nor is it routinely informed of the results of such examinations. While the MOD is aware that post mortems have been performed on some Gulf veterans, data on numbers, locations, types of specimen taken, tests and results could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Press Officers
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many press officers were employed by his Department in(a) March 1997 and (b) March 2000. [123304]

  Mr. Byers
  On 1 March 1997 there were 17 Press Officers employed in the DTI Newsroom. On 1 March 2000 there were 21 Press Officers.

  Regulations
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the total cost to(a) business and (b) the public sector of regulations introduced by his Department since May 1997. [123303]

  Mr. Byers
  Details are contained in the Regulatory Impact Assessments that have been carried out for all regulations introduced by my Department that impose or reduce costs. Copies of all such assessments are available in the Library of the House.

  Recruitment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish summary information on his Department's recruitment for the calendar year 1999 and the use of permitted exceptions to the principles of fair and open competition and selection on merit, as required by the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code. [123767]

  Dr. Howells
  It is DTI policy that recruitment is carried out on the basis of fair and open competition and selection on merit, subject to the exceptions permitted by the Civil Service Commissioners. My Department has systems in place, which ensure that the principles of fair and open competition are understood and followed in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Commissioners' recruitment Code. These Systems are subject to internal check and to external check by the Commissioner's approved auditors.

  The following table and narratives describe DTI recruitment other than for the DTI's Executive Agencies and the Government Office network who make separate arrangements for publishing recruitment data.
  469W

  Recruitment information Number of staff recruited 1 January 1999–31 December 1999

  Gender

  Ethnic background2

  Range

  Permanent

  FTA

  Recurring temp

  Standby

  Short notice

  Other1

  M

  F

  White

  Ethnic minority

  Not stated

  Disability

  Range 11

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Range 10

  13

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  4

  13

  9

  1

  7

  —

  Range 9

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  2

  3

  1

  3

  —

  Range 8

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  5

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Range 7

  10

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  2

  9

  1

  1

  2

  Range 6

  8

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  8

  4

  11

  1

  —

  2

  Range 5

  29

  3

  —

  —

  —

  7

  20

  19

  13

  23

  3

  —

  Range 4

  31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  17

  24

  32

  8

  1

  8

  Range 3

  53

  7

  —

  —

  —

  32

  47

  45

  52

  36

  4

  9

  Range 2

  72

  10

  —

  —

  —

  17

  38

  61

  49

  42

  8

  9

  Range 1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  2

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Fast Stream

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  7

  12

  1

  —

  2

  Total

  239

  29

  —

  1

  —

  72

  157

  184

  196

  116

  28

  32

  1Includes numbers of casuals, sandwich course students, legal trainees

  2Note that ethnic data have been suppressed for those ranges where numbers recruited are five or less to avoid the possibility of identifying individuals.

  The number of occasions on which the permitted exceptions to fair and open competition and selection on merit have been used at each level (except for appointments of up to 12 months) are categorised as follows. Details of the exceptions are underneath the relevant category.
  Extensions of appointments of up to 12 months up to a maximum of 24 months—none Short term appointment where highly specialised skills are required—One Range 10 on standby contract to set-up Joint Cambridge University/MIT Institute project. One Range 11 stayed beyond retirement to continue work on Omissions and trading group secretariat for the Environment group before the Budget.Recurrent short term appointments—Two Range 3s, one Range 5, five Range 10s, all employed in the Queens Award office where the work is seasonal.Extensions of short term appointments beyond the initial publicised period, including conversions to permanency—One Range 5 Statistical Officer whose appointment was extended for a further six months to oversee the completion of a project; one Range 7 Research Officer converted to permanency due to difficulty of recruiting a Research Officer.Secondments—56 Re-appointment of former civil servants—Two Range 4s recruited by Employment relations resigned and asked for re-instatement.Transfers of staff with their work (not under TUPE)—none Transfer of staff from other public services without work (unless from a public body staffed exclusively by civil servants)—none Appointments of surplus acceptable candidates to shortage posts—none No disabled candidates were appointed under modified selection arrangements.Any use of the exceptions reserved for the Commissioners (i.e. appointments on the basis of the proven distinction of the individual and appointments not in order of merit)—none.

  Miners Strike
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement regarding dismissals by British Coal during the 1984–85 miners strike. [123768]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In their report, the Coalfield Task Force established by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister recommended that the DTI review the pension 470W
  entitlements of men who were not reinstated following their dismissal during that dispute. True to our commitment to investigate this matter, I have today distributed to interested parties a consultative document.

  The document endeavours to present a broadly factual account of British Coal's dismissal and re-employment policy around the time of the strike and in its aftermath. It focuses in particular on those individuals who were not re-employed in the aftermath of the strike and whose cases were not considered by Industrial Tribunals at the time. It also addresses concerns which have been expressed over the pension rights of individuals who were found by Industrial Tribunals to have been unfairly dismissed.

  The document also proposes a twin approach aimed at achieving a resolution which I hope will be seen as just in the eyes of all those who continue to live with the effects of this tragic period in the industry's history.

  I am placing copies of the document in the Libraries of the House.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to allow adoptive parents entitlement to parental leave. [123230]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: The Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999, which came into effect on 15 December 1999, entitle adoptive parents to 13 weeks unpaid parental leave.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry made an announcement on 9 May setting out the details of a review looking at the issues surrounding maternity pay and parental leave. The review will look at increasing adoption and whether rights to adoption leave are being taken up.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the subject of entitlement to(a) statutory maternity and (b) parental leave for parents adopting a child. [123229]
  471W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: The Department received 107 responses to the 1998 "Fairness at Work" White Paper proposal to provide adoptive parents with three months parental leave. Of these, 104 respondents agreed with Government's proposal.

  The Maternity and Parental Leave consultation in summer 1999 invited views on the Government's detailed proposals for framing parental leave for adoptive parents. Over 200 responses were received on this subject, over three-quarters of which supported the proposals.

  The Department has also received about 20 letters on adoption leave since 1999.

  In addition to these representations we have discussed this issue with representatives of key adoption organisations.

  Paternity Leave
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what improvements he plans for statutory entitlement to paternity leave; and when he intends to propose them. [121580]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made an announcement on 9 May setting out the details of a review on maternity pay and parental leave. The review will look at ways of providing further support and choice for working parents with young children. We will consider how best to build on statutory parental leave entitlement in the context of the review.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of post office closures, with particular reference to the effect on the number and length of additional car journeys which result. [123279]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  No such assessment has been made by my Department. But the Government remain fully committed to the maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices and fully recognise the valuable social and environmental role played by post offices in their local communities.

  Indonesian Plywood
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much plywood from Indonesia was imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [123157]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: The information is given in the table:

  £ million

  Thousand tonnes

  1995

  56.5

  105.9

  1996

  64.5

  118.0

  1997

  76.1

  139.5

  1998

  49.9

  130.7

  1999

  60.2

  147.9

  Note:

  Plywood is defined by headings 634.31 to 634.49 of the Standard International Trade Classification (Revision 3)

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise

  Export Licences
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many open export licences for the export of aircraft spares to Kenya remained in force between January and April; what items have been supplied under these licences during this period; and what end-use assurances have been given by the Kenyan authorities in relation to the re-export of equipment supplied under these licences. [122554]

  Dr. Howells
  The export of military aircraft spares is controlled under entries ML5, ML10, ML11, ML15, ML16 and ML21 in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List. The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated. Between 1 January and 30 April 2000, 30 Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) gave licence coverage to export to consignees or end-users in Kenya, goods with the relevant ratings.

  Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings. Where this is so, the licence is included in the table in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  Open Individual Export Licences valid for the export to Kenya of goods with the relevant ratings

  Rating

  Number of valid OIELs covering goods with this rating and including Kenya as a permitted destination (OIELs may cover a range of countries)

  ML5

  5

  ML10

  19

  ML11

  9

  ML15

  2

  ML21

  2

  In the period, there were no valid OIELs for Kenya covering goods with the rating ML16.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on 27 July 1999, Official Report, columns 307–08W.

  An Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) is specific to an individual exporter and covers multiple shipments of specified goods to specified destinations and/or, in some cases, specified consignees. The exporter must obtain from each consignee an appropriate written undertaking for each export before the export takes place, or not later than one month after the date of exportation. Where the exporter intends to make more than one exportation to the same consignee in any period of one year, an annual written undertaking may be obtained in fulfilment of this requirement. As with SIELs, where goods are being consigned direct to a Government body, the DTI will normally accept a copy of the Government purchase contract order, or the relevant extracts from the contract.

  In addition, Kenya is a permitted destination on certain Open General Export Licences covering the export of goods on the Military List. An Open General Export

  473W
  Licence (OGEL) allows the export from the UK of goods specified in the goods coverage of the OGEL to specified destinations. In such circumstances, end-user undertakings are not required. Copies of OGELs are routinely placed in the Library of the House.

  As regards the additional information requested, inquiries are being made under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Where confidential information is involved, the parties concerned will be asked if they object to its disclosure, and this can take some time. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry since December 1998 how many(a) single and (b) open export licences have been issued for the export of aircraft spares to Kenya. [122555]

  Dr. Howells
  The export of military aircraft spares is controlled under entries ML5, ML10, ML11, ML15, ML16 and ML21 in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List. The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated. Between 1 December 1998 and 8 May 2000, one Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) and 12 Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Kenya of goods with the relevant ratings. Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings. Where this is so, the licence is included in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Research Council budgets

  BBSRC

  177.996

  184.531

  183.980

  188.042

  190.818

  198.276

  202.420

  EPSRC

  332.338

  354.389

  377.983

  386.276

  389.444

  404.796

  412.026

  ESRC

  59.215

  61.508

  64.070

  65.227

  67.506

  70.782

  71.300

  MRC

  270.576

  271.599

  282.083

  289.078

  293.998

  305.566

  319.151

  NERC

  167.939

  169.281

  159.341

  168.150

  174.967

  178.715

  181.450

  PPARC

  204.629

  202.806

  213.536

  197.869

  193.105

  186.680

  205.774

  Total

  1,212.693

  1,244.114

  1,280.993

  1,294.642

  1,309.838

  1,344.815

  1,392.121

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  UK population (million)1

  58.401

  58.612

  58,807

  59,014

  59.237

  2—

  2—

  Amount per member of the UK population (£)

  BBSRC

  3.05

  3.15

  3.13

  3.19

  3.22

  —

  —

  EPSRC

  5.69

  6.05

  6.43

  6.55

  6.57

  —

  —

  ESRC

  1.01

  1.05

  1.09

  1.11

  1.14

  —

  —

  MRC

  4.63

  4.63

  4.80

  4.90

  4.96

  —

  —

  NERC

  2.88

  2.89

  2.71

  2.85

  2.95

  —

  —

  PPARC

  3.50

  3.46

  3.63

  3.35

  3.26

  —

  —

  Total

  20.76

  21.23

  21.78

  21.94

  22.11

  —

  —

  1 Calendar year figures—mid-year estimate from Population Trends, Spring 2000

  2Not available

  474W

  Open Individual Export Licences valid for the export to Kenya of goods with the relevant ratings

  Rating

  Number of OIELs issued covering goods with this rating and including Kenya as a permitted destination (OIELs may cover a range of countries)

  ML5

  3

  ML10

  8

  ML11

  3

  ML15

  1

  ML21

  2

  The one SIEL issued covered goods with the rating ML10. There were no SIELs or OIELs issued covering goods with the rating ML16.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on 27 July 1999, Official Report, columns 307–08W.

  In addition, Kenya is a permitted destination on certain Open General Export Licences covering the export of goods on the Military List; copies of all Open General Export Licences are routinely placed in the Library of the House.

  Research Councils
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) total budget and (b) budget per head of the United Kingdom population was for each of the six research councils in each year since 1994. [122131]

  Ms Hewitt
  Details of the grant in aid paid to the Research Councils, the population figures and the budget per head of the UK population are set out in the tables.

  Synchrotron
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what detailed assessment was made of the cost associated with building the new synchrotron at(a) Daresbury and (b) Oxford. [122447]

  Ms Hewitt
  In May 1999 the OST commissioned ADD Consultants to consider the comparative advantages, benefits and costs of the site location and its effect on the New Synchrotron project. Their report (completed in June 1999 and made public in January 2000) considered both the Daresbury Laboratory in Cheshire and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire. This report indicated some saving in running costs if the facility were located at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry commissioned a further survey into the same two sites in November 1999 and this was carried out by Allott and Lomax. Their report (completed and made public in January 2000) concluded that there were no differences in cost between constructing the facility at the Daresbury Laboratory and at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory site, within their estimation errors.

  The issue of cost was not a significant factor in choosing to locate at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the decision to place the synchrotron in Oxfordshire was based on a best value or similar review. [122452]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on the 21 March 2000,Official Report, column 480W.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason ADD was chosen as the consultant to report on the suitability of the sites for the new synchrotron. [122448]

  Ms Hewitt
  ADD Consultants were originally commissioned by CCLRC (the Council for the Central Laboratories of the Research Councils) to write a business case for the New Synchrotron in January 1999. Because of ADD' s existing involvement in the project, and the time constraints, they were a natural choice to carry out the additional study on the suitability of the sites for the new synchrotron.

  SMEs (East Devon)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance he plans to give to small and medium-sized businesses in East Devon. [123075]

  Mr. Caborn
  The range of assistance available to new and existing small and medium-sized businesses in East Devon, and other parts of the UK, is included in this Department's "A Guide to Help for Small Business", a copy of which I am sending to the right hon. Member. In addition, the new Small Business Service will, from April 2001, provide an enhanced service to business in England. There is also new assistance under the £180 million Enterprise Fund which will provide risk capital to the UK's small companies with growth potential.

  Wellcome Foundation
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the basis of his policy for co-operating with the Wellcome Foundation and its board of trustees in funding scientific research. [121759]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Office of Science and Technology is committed to working with all organisations that make a contribution to the science base and where there are clear benefits to be realised from working together. The Wellcome Trust is one of the largest biomedical research charities in the world. OST therefore co-operates with the Wellcome Trust on a number of funding initiatives aimed at ensuring the UK remains at the forefront of scientific research. In addition, the individual Research Councils work with the Trust on projects of mutual interest.

  Such initiatives have been, and will continue to be, of great benefit to the Government, the Trust and the UK.

  Shareholder Remedies
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to take action on shareholder remedies(a) within the wider review of company law and (b) as a separate issue. [122822]

  Dr. Howells
  The independent Company Law Review is carrying out a fundamental review of all aspects of core company law, including shareholder remedies. The Company Law Review Steering Group is due to present its final report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the spring of next year. The Government will then set out their response and the proposed way forward in the light of the Steering Group's recommendations.

  Spin-out Companies
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many spin-off companies have been established in each year since 1994 by each university in the United Kingdom; how many such companies failed in each year since 1994, broken down by university; and what basic research and science underpinned each such company. [122162]

  Ms Hewitt
  To date, this information has not been routinely collected by Government.

  There have however been several surveys, two conducted on behalf of the Innovation Unit in the Department of Trade and Industry and one on behalf of the Higher Education Funding Council for England. These were, respectively, the University-Industry co-operation surveys of 1995 and 1996 and the Industry-academic links in the UK report (December 98/70 Hefce).

  Further measures are being introduced to monitor the spin-out activities of universities more routinely, including through the Higher Education Reach-Out to Business and the Community fund, University Challenge Fund and Science Enterprise Challenge initiatives.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what basis he monitors the performance of spin-out companies; and what makes a company eligible to be classified as a university spin-off. [122163]
  477W
  Ms Hewitt
  The performance of spin-out companies created by universities are not monitored routinely by Government.

  The Government have been using the definition of a university spin-out from the Industry-Academic links in the UK report by PREST, the Policy Research in Engineering and Science & Technology Unit in the University of Manchester (December 98/70 produced by the Higher Education Funding Council for England). The definition is encapsulated on page 35 in the sentence
  …spin-out companies from the HEI, which are established to exploit the commercialisation of results arising from a specific stream of research.

  In addition, under the pilot data collection exercise which was part of the University Challenge Fund competition in 1998–99 the AUTM (Association of University Technology Managers in the USA) definition was used this states:
  Start-up (read spin-out) companies are companies that were dependent upon licensing the institution's technology for initiation.

  The Government are currently refining their definition of a spin-out in order to improve future data collection initiatives.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fur Farming Bill
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from members of the House of Lords on the proposals contained in the Fur Farming Bill. [122697]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 May 2000]: To date, we have received no representations from Members of the House of Lords.

  Over-30-Months Scheme
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the average yearly price of Over-30-Months scheme compensation; and what plans he has to raise it. [120339]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 2 May 2000]: The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Compensation Paid (£)

  Number of animals

  Average amount/animal (£)

  1996–97

  669,709,000

  1,346,195

  497.48

  1997–98

  287,800,000

  847,520

  339.58

  1998–99

  253,031,000

  922,401

  274.32

  1999–2000

  262,754,000

  977,749

  268.73

  Following the removal of the weight limit on payments for all cattle entering the OTMS higher payments will apply from 5 June.

  Pig Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a scheme to 478W
  compensate pig farmers in the United Kingdom for the disposal of specified material on the same basis as that which applies in the Netherlands. [121770]

  Ms Quin
  The Dutch authorities have confirmed that there is not a specific compensation scheme for the disposal of specified material in the Netherlands. Like the UK, however, the Netherlands is planning to introduce a restructuring scheme for its pig industry.

  Sea Defences
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those coastal areas of the UK in respect of which decisions have been taken since 1995 to abandon sea defences; and if he will make a statement. [122329]

  Mr. Morley
  I am replying in respect of England only because policy responsibility for sea defences elsewhere in the United Kingdom is devolved.

  The responsibility for taking decisions on the abandonment of individual sea defences rests with the relevant operating authority (primarily the Environment Agency and local authorities) or private owners of defences. Information on local authorities and private owners is not readily available. The Environment Agency advise that they have taken no such decisions in this period.

  Following the preparation of Shoreline Management Plans, operating authorities are undertaking detailed investigations into the continuing justification and sustainability of some sea defences. This may involve decisions about the abandonment of defences, but more likely decisions to establish a new line of defence.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure, in relation to hearings to be held in respect of the proposed decision to add the genetically modified maize variety Chardon LL to the UK National List, that(a) original trial data are made available in a full and timely manner to those requesting such a hearing and (b) officials will appear at the hearings, give evidence and be available for cross-examination. [121442]

  Ms Quin
  The data on which proposed National List decisions are based are made available on request. The consolidated data on which the Chardon LL proposed decision was based have already been made available to a number of individuals and organisations.

  The Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982 (as amended) provide for written representations to be made to Ministers by persons affected by a proposed decision to add a plant variety to the National List and for oral evidence to be given by them to a person appointed by the Ministers. There is no provision for the giving of evidence to the appointed person by Ministry officials, and the appointed person's role is to marshall the views put rather than to make recommendations. Were there to be an appeal to the Plant Variety and Seeds Tribunal after this hearing, the legislation provides both for officials to give evidence and to be available for cross examination.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the savings which would result if testing for tuberculosis in cattle by the veterinary profession were put out to general tender. [R] [122690]

  Ms Quin
  The Ministry is carrying out a pilot project in North West England to assess whether competitive tendering for the provision of TB testing and brucellosis work carried out by local veterinary inspectors would improve the value for money and the quality of the services provided. Contracts under the pilot project will be awarded shortly and will run for one year from 1 July. The service provided under contract in the pilot area will be compared with that provided under present arrangements before decisions are made on whether to extend competitive tendering for local veterinary inspection work. At this stage no estimate can be made of the savings which might result from the introduction of competitive tendering.

  Open Government
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for information he received under the Open Government: Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in the last parliamentary session; and how many were granted. [121863]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 May 2000]: I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 18 May 2000, Official Report, column 190W.

  British Potato Council
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the first statutory review of the British Potato Council. [123769]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The first statutory review of the British Potato Council (BPC) has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. I have considered the report of the review and the outcome of the BPC poll, together with the Minister for Rural Affairs at the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales Secretary for Agriculture and Rural Development. We agreed that the Council carries out a necessary function that could not be so efficiently carried out by other means. We have therefore decided that the BPC should continue for a further term while taking forward the recommendations of the report, in particular about ways of improving the Council's service to levy payers.

  Flood Relief
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on flood relief, and how this will be funded in future. [123390]
  480W
  Mr. Morley
  The Government's policy is to reduce the risks to people and the developed and natural environment from flooding and coastal erosion by encouraging the provision of technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable defence measures. The flood and coastal defence operating authorities (the internal drainage boards Environmental Agency, and local authorities) undertake these measures. In April 2000 the Government put in place a series of High Level Targets to help achieve a more certain delivery of its policies by the operating authorities. The Government have also set out a priority for the Environment Agency to work with other bodies, including local authorities and the emergency services, in achieving a seamless and integrated service of flood forecasting, warning and response.

  The two main sources of funding for flood and coastal defence are (a) Ministry contributions towards approved capital schemes undertaken by the operating authorities and (b) that delivered to local authorities through the local government finance mechanisms. The latter is used to fund the levies that local authorities pay to the Environment Agency and internal drainage boards, as well as their own spend on flood and coastal defence. A review of the current funding mechanisms is currently being conducted.

  Following the Comprehensive Spending Review, the Government increased the funding available from the Ministry by £23 million over three years from 1999–2000, to a total of £230 million. The Government have also increased flood defence Standard Spending Assessments beyond inflation. Future funding levels depend on decisions to be taken in the Spending Review later this year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mortgages
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate his Department has made of the average difference between bank and building society mortgage interest rates over the past 12 months. [123236]

  Mr. Bayley
  A review of interest rates provided in the Office for National Statistics' financial table 7.1L over the period January to December 1999 shows that a combined building society/bank rate is on average just under 0.28 per cent. higher than the weighted average of the main building societies interest rates. Building Societies continue to provide a comprehensive range of products in a very competitive market. Recent figures show that they continue to outlend the mortgage banks.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment his Department has made of the arrears that have accrued in mortgages taken out by income support and income-based jobseekers allowance recipients in the most recent year for which information is available. [123233]
  481W
  Mr. Bayley
  No information is collected by my Department about the accrual of arrears in mortgages taken out by income support and income based jobseekers allowance recipients. Benefit help for homeowners with housing costs is intended to provide reasonable protection to help secure the home. The mortgage lenders have agreed, under The Mortgage Code, to consider all cases of financial difficulty and mortgage arrears sympathetically and positively.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were in receipt of ISMI in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [123239]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Income Support and income-based Jobseeker's Allowance claimants with mortgage interest, Great Britain: February 1995 to November 1999

  Thousand

  Quarter

  Income Support

  Income Support for the unemployed/income-based JSA

  All Income Support/income-based JSA

  November 1999

  254

  37

  292

  August 1999

  259

  40

  300

  May 1999

  263

  144

  1307

  February 1999

  269

  148

  1317

  November 1998

  272

  48

  320

  August 1998

  278

  51

  329

  May 1998

  281

  154

  1334

  February 1998

  288

  156

  1344

  November 1997

  292

  60

  351

  August 1997

  298

  69

  367

  May 1997

  301

  77

  379

  February 1997

  308

  90

  398

  November 1996

  313

  98

  411

  August 1996

  319

  112

  431

  May 1996

  322

  123

  445

  February 1996

  326

  134

  460

  November 1995

  330

  138

  469

  August 1995

  340

  161

  501

  May 1995

  329

  162

  491

  February 1995

  327

  175

  502

  1Provisional figures

  Notes:

  1. Customers who are in receipt of Income Support and income-based Jobseeker's Allowance are entitled to assistance with mortgage interest payments.

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample; as such they are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4. Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance replaced Income Support for the unemployed from Novrmber 1996.

  Sources:

  1. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, February 1995–November 1999.

  2. Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, November 1996–November 1999.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to revise the index for calculating the ISMI rate to make it more representative of the mortgage lending market. [123234]
  482W
  Mr. Bayley
  We have no plans to revise the index. The standard interest rate used to calculate ISMI entitlement is based on the weighted average of the main building society rates. The building societies continue to provide a broad range of products in a very competitive market. Recent figures produced by the Building Societies Association show that building societies continue to outlend the mortgage banks.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to make the ISMI mechanism more quickly responsive to changes in interest rates. [123235]

  Mr. Bayley
  There is no delay in the ISMI mechanism. As soon as the Department is informed by the Office for National Statistics of a change in interest rates, procedures are set in motion to amend regulations. Regulations are required to be laid 21 days before coming into force to allow for proper parliamentary scrutiny.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate his Department has made of the average time between changes in the ISMI rate being triggered and higher payments being made to those in receipt of ISMI, in the most recent year for which figures are available. [123237]

  Mr. Bayley
  It normally takes five to six weeks from receipt of the official notification from the Office for National Statistics to implementation of a change in interest rates. This allows for the Department to reprogramme its computer systems and for new regulations to be laid and made available for proper parliamentary scrutiny.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proportion of those entitled to ISMI have had their homes repossessed within nine months of starting to receive(a) income support and (b) income-based jobseeker's allowance in each of the last five years for which figures are available; [123238]

  (2) how many repossessions of homes of those in receipt of ISMI there were in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [123240]

  Mr. Bayley
  This Department does not keep any figures relating to home repossessions. The benefit system is designed to provide homeowners with reasonable protection and we encourage everyone, particularly those taking out new loans, to consider how they would meet their mortgage repayments if they lost their income. The Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Association of British Insurers have recently announced a new minimum standard for mortgage protection insurance. Most repossessions are caused by wider, more serious difficulties than any shortfall in benefit. Recent figures produced by the Lord Chancellors Department show that in England and Wales repossession activity is declining.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations his Department has received on the current ISMI mechanisms. [123244]
  483W
  Mr. Bayley
  We have received a number of letters and Parliamentary Questions about the ISMI scheme. In addition, the Department is in close contact with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and are active members of a lending industry/Government partnership group. The remit of this partnership group includes ISMI and at various times discussions have taken place as to its current design and how it will operate in the future.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on inclusion of reform of ISMI in the Urban White Paper. [123241]

  Mr. Bayley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on inclusion of reform of ISMI in the Urban White Paper. Options for reform of ISMI are included in the recently published Housing Green Paper.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for each of the past five years for which figures are available, how many applications for

  Claims, awards and disallowances

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Claims for IB

  772,726

  1,066,399

  1,046,743

  929,500

  910,829

  Disallowed due to failing the contribution conditions

  267,910

  438,476

  446,583

  395,665

  400,471

  IB spells commencing in the period

  320,900

  508,900

  463,940

  417,420

  386,380

  Disallowed following OOT test

  880

  3,268

  4,346

  4,948

  6,505

  Disallowed following AWT

  54,080

  189,571

  208,545

  219,007

  196,928

  Notes:

  1. All figures are for calendar years except for the "spells commencing" which are for the period 1 December to 30 November each year. In 1995 all figures are from April 1995 when Incapacity Benefit replaced Sickness Benefit and Invalidity Benefit.

  2. The sum of IB spells commencing and disallowances due to failing the contribution conditions does not equal the number of IB claims, as the figure for claims includes some that are subsequently withdrawn and accident declarations (which are made in case a claim to benefit becomes necessary at a later date as a result of an industrial accident).

  Sources:

  1. Claims received—100 per cent. clerical count.

  2. IB spells commencing—5 per cent. sample of claimants.

  3. Disallowance figures—100 per cent. of the computer system.

  Appeals and decisions

  Incapacity Benefit Appeals

  19951

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Number of appeals lodged

  22,487

  62,303

  95,119

  92,117

  61,221

  Number cleared at hearing

  8,092

  41,593

  57,286

  90,987

  73,154

  Found in favour of the appellant

  4,285

  19,059

  23,859

  33,468

  28,992

  Original decision upheld

  3—

  3—

  3—

  36,618

  32,906

  Number of Commissioner's rehearing appeals lodged2

  3—

  3—

  154

  456

  1,066

  Number cleared at hearing

  3—

  3—

  3—

  280

  973

  Found in favour of the appellant

  3—

  3—

  3—

  188

  643

  1Figures for 1995 include Invalidity Benefit.

  2Information on Commissioner's appeals is only available from autumn 1997 when the GAPS system was introduced.

  3Not available.

  Note:

  The number of appeals in favour of the appellant plus the number of decisions upheld does not equal the total number of appeals cleared at hearing. Appeals cleared at hearing also include cases withdrawn or struck out at hearing.

  Sources:

  1. Figures prior to autumn 1997, 100 per cent. extract from ITS computerised records.

  2. Figures after autumn 1997, 100 per cent. download from the Appeals Service Generic Appeals.

  3. Processing System (GAPS) computer system.
  484W
  Incapacity Benefit were refused and what proportion of total applications this represents; what proportion of applicants refused Incapacity Benefit appealed to the Appeals Service and how many were successful; and what proportion of applicants whose appeals were rejected by the Appeals Service appealed to the social security commissioners and how many were successful. [122152]

  Mr. Bayley
  Information on numbers of claims for Incapacity Benefit (IB), awards and disallowances are in table 1. The available information on appeals is in table 2. It should be noted that the time lags between stages of the process (e.g. between claim and disallowance, or between disallowance and the hearing of an appeal) means that there is no direct relationship between the numbers in the various categories in each. This in turn means that the figures cannot be used to derive proportions. However, it is estimated that around 22 per cent. of those referred are disallowed following a medical test, that of those disallowed around 30 per cent. appeal, and that around 3 per cent. of those who are not successful at tribunal appeal to the Social Security Commissioners. Claimants who are disallowed IB because they fail the contribution conditions may be awarded National Insurance credits ("credits only" cases): and disallowances following the All Work Test and appeals include IB recipients and credits only cases: it is not possible to disaggregate the figures.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instruct the Benefits Agency to ensure that Disability Living Allowance is not withdrawn from a person to whom it had previously been awarded for life, without there first being a detailed personal letter explaining the reasons for the withdrawal being given to the beneficiary, and an immediate opportunity being made available to that person for a review of the decision which can consider further evidence from or on behalf of that person. [122684]

  Mr. Bayley
  As with any benefit, any person whose award of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is changed, in any way and for whatever reason, is offered, and may demand, a reconsideration of that decision and a right of appeal. Any representations they make will be considered as part of these processes.

  It has always been the intention that "life awards" of DLA should only run as long as a person is entitled to that rate of benefit, and the law has always allowed for awards to be altered when there are ground for doing so. People receiving the benefit have always been informed that changes in their circumstances needed to be reported to the Department, and that benefit entitlement could change, even where an award had been given for life.

  Nonetheless, we recognise that the "life award" terminology in DLA caused problems; in particular, that the words used suggested that entitlement could continue even when the conditions for receiving the benefit were no longer met. We therefore took powers in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 to remove references to "life awards". Accordingly, from 12 January this year the terminology was altered to replace "life award" with "indefinite award" to help clarify the situation. The rules that apply to altering awards, whether made for life, or for an indefinite period, have remained unchanged.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who have been awarded Disability Living Allowance for life have had that benefit withdrawn during the past 12 months. [122683]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated May 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked Alexis Cleveland to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about how many people who have been awarded disability living allowance (DLA) for life have had that benefit withdrawn during the past twelve months. As she is on annual leave I am replying on her behalf.
  The number of people awarded DLA for life whose award was terminated in the twelve months ending November 1999 was 80,200. This is the most recent figure available and it represents termination of benefit due to death; residence and presence conditions no longer satisfied; voluntary cancellation and cancellation by the Department.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Pensions (Part-time Workers)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on the solvency of the UK's pension funds of the EC ruling of 16 May on part-time workers' access to pensions; and if he will make a statement. [122779]

  Mr. Rooker
  This is a complex ruling which needs careful consideration. It also has to be referred back to the House of Lords for their judgment.

  Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer on 18 April 2000,Official Report, column 439W, on pensions, 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 (a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02, (c) 2002–03 and (d) 2003–04, if the basic pension and linked benefit rates remained at their present level in 2000–01 and were uprated in line with prices thereafter. [121195]

  Mr. Rooker
  Precise long-term forecasts of any excess to the Fund reserves would be misleading, given the sensitivity of the differences between forecasts of receipts and expenditure to the variables involved. The Government Actuary's report1 shows a projected Fund balance of £16.6 billion at the end of the 2000–01 financial year, which is £8.8 billion in excess of the minimum recommended.
  1Report by the Government Actuary on the drafts of the Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 2000 and the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2000. Cm 4587, January 2000.

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide illustrative examples of cases where taxes and benefits interact to produce a marginal income deduction rate of(a) 50 per cent. and above, (b) 60 per cent. and above, (c) 70 per cent. and above, (d) 80 per cent. and above, (e) 90 per cent. and above and (f) 100 per cent. and above on the same basis as Figure 37 in the departmental report, Cm 4614, p.81. [120382]

  Mr. Rooker
  Marginal net income deduction rates in Figure 37 of the latest departmental report were calculated by micro simulation modelling, using a sample of households from the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey. The following examples are drawn from the survey results underpinning the latest estimates, for 1999–2000. They are shown by 10 per cent. bands. As in Figure 37, the examples are restricted to households where at least one person is working for 16 hours or more per week.

  50 to 59 per cent. rate: None of the cases in the 1996–97 survey are modelled to have a marginal net income deduction rate of between 50 and 59 per cent.
  487W
  60 to 69 per cent. rate: a single person with no children, on the Housing Benefit taper and with earnings below the income tax and National Insurance thresholds.

  70 to 79 per cent. rate: an earner in a couple with two children and on the Family Credit (which has now been replaced by the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC)) taper, with earnings below the income tax and National Insurance thresholds.

  80 to 89 per cent. rate: a lone parent with two children, with earnings below the income tax and National Insurance thresholds, receiving the maximum level of Family Credit (which has now been replaced by the WFTC) and on the Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit taper.
  488W
  90 to 99 per cent. rate: a main earner in a couple with two children and on the Family Credit and Housing Benefit tapers, with both partners working but only the main earner earning enough to pay tax, at 23 per cent. (which has now been reduced to 22 per cent.), and National Insurance contributions, at 10 per cent.

  100 per cent. + rate: a sole earner in a couple with one child, on both the Housing Benefit and Council Tax benefit tapers, working more than 30 hours per week and paying income tax at 23 per cent. (now reduced to 22 per cent.) and National Insurance at 10 per cent., receiving Family Credit (now replaced by WFTC) less than the value of the 30 hour credit at £11.05, which is not taken into account in assessments of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit entitlement.

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

Lord Parekh
Bhikhu Chhotalal Parekh, Esquire, having been created Baron Parekh, of Kingston upon Hull in the East Riding of Yorkshire, for life Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Blackstone and the Lord Plant of Highfield, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Baroness Walmsley
Joan Margaret Walmsley, having been created Baroness Walmsley, of West Derby in the County of Merseyside, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord McNally and the Lord Rennard.

Higher Education: Recruitment and Retention
2.47 p.m.
Lord McCarthyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to deal with problems of recruitment and retention in higher education institutions following independent reports by Industrial Relations Services and the Office of Manpower Economics.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, higher education institutions are independent bodies which appoint and retain the staff they need to run their academic programmes. For their part, the Government plan to increase funding for the higher education sector by over £1 billion over the four years up to 2001–02—a real terms increase of 11 per cent. The Government have begun to consider the level of public expenditure on higher education and other areas in 2002 and beyond. The pay of higher education staff will clearly be a factor, but we cannot prejudge the outcome.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her helpful Answer and in particular for the announcement that increased sums of money will be made available. However, the Minister has not denied the fact that, since 1997, three independent reports have been published about the growing crisis in retention and recruitment in the higher education sector. Overall levels of turnover are rising. The situation is worse in the prestige universities and is worse in certain critical subjects. Furthermore, the situation will deteriorate even further because 30 per cent of dons are now over 50
632
years old. Does the Minister agree that unless something is done immediately, we shall face the kind of crisis that we have seen in nursing, with doctors in medicine, and in the police service? Will the Government act quickly to alleviate this situation, given that they seem to realise that there is a problem?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I readily accept that the pay of university teachers has not grown as much as that of many other professional groups in the public sector over the past 10 to 15 years. As I said in my earlier reply, this is something that is featuring in discussions about public expenditure after the year 2002. My noble friend describes the position at the moment as a crisis. I do not accept that we are in a crisis position. I do accept that there are some problems with recruitment, particularly in certain subject areas. However, on the whole, retention has held up quite well right across the system.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, none the less, given that it is to the universities that we look to supply our schoolteachers, is it not a matter for special concern that some areas in which it is found most difficult to recruit teachers for universities, notably maths and the sciences, ominously coincide with areas in which it is very difficult to recruit teachers for secondary schools? How will the Government address what appears to be a vicious spiral?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is not the case that maths and science are the areas where it is most difficult to recruit academic staff. The most difficult areas are those where there is big competition with the private sector. Computer science is one of the most difficult; there are some problems in management, and in engineering. There are small difficulties in some scientific areas, but it is not so hard to recruit in those areas as in the three that I have cited. The noble Lord looks puzzled, but I have just looked at the statistics in the document concerned.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the quality of a university depends very much on the quality of its professors? Does she accept the indication in the report referred to by the noble Lord that many gifted young academics are not applying for chairs in universities because of he low pay? Are the Government satisfied that that is not happening; and if it is happening, will not their strategy for higher education be considerably damaged?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that the quality not only of professors but of all academic staff is vital to our universities if we are to retain our world-class position. I am not clear why the noble Baroness thinks that young academics are not applying for positions as professors. After all, that is a route not only to greater responsibility and the rewards that go with it, but also

633
to higher pay. My experience is that most young academics are only too keen to attain senior positions in our universities.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, pending an overall pay review, will the Minister consider the possibility in the shortage subjects of advanced fellowships being offered which are much more competitive with private industry and offer the chance of a competitive salary?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is for the universities to decide how they want to spend their resources. There is nothing to prevent universities offering advanced fellowships in any subject, particularly in shortage subjects. The pay range for professors is wide. It is perfectly possible for a university to offer a substantial salary to someone whom it particularly wants to recruit, possibly from overseas, in a subject area where it is hard to recruit in the UK.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I acknowledge that all institutions are experiencing recruitment problems in specific specialisms, but will my noble friend agree that there are particular problems in attracting junior staff in subject areas where academic starting salaries lag behind those for new graduates in the private sector? Anecdotally, many such examples come to my attention. I declare an interest as chief executive of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I welcome what my noble friend has said about the approach in the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review. However, given the Government's target of 50 per cent of young people entering higher education by age 30 within the next decade, will she ensure that the Treasury acknowledges that recruitment and retention of quality staff is vital to the sector?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot ensure that the Treasury does anything. However, I shall personally do my best to pass on to my colleagues in the Treasury the importance of having academic staff of the highest possible quality in our universities. Pay is a factor, although by no means the only one. Many other issues arise when young people decide what kind of career they want to pursue. There are, I am glad to say, numbers of highly intelligent young people who believe that this is a worthwhile career.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, every time the noble Baroness answers a question on this subject, she says that the response to the Bett report is a matter for the universities themselves. In the light of her original Answer, is the Minister saying that the pay factor and the response to the Bett report will be specifically taken into account in the Comprehensive Spending Review?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there is nothing in conflict with what I have said. Decisions regarding university teachers' pay are not made nationally. There is no pay review for academic staff; decisions are made
634
in negotiation between university management and the trade unions representing those staff. But, of course, there is nothing to stop me and my colleagues in the department pointing out to the Treasury in a spending review that this factor needs to be taken into account when deciding the allocation of public spending.

Parliament Square
2.56 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmondasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage the Royal Parks Agency to ensure that Parliament Square does not become a site for permanent displays.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the policy of the Royal Parks Agency is not to allow grassed areas of Parliament Square, for which it has responsibility, to be used as a site for displays. Later this year, the Royal Parks Agency responsibility for Parliament Square will transfer to the Mayor of London.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he accept that the Question stems from a fear that, if displays become virtually permanent in Parliament Square—albeit that the cause may be virtuous, and those in favour of pigs will think it extremely virtuous—it will place the idea in the minds of people whose purpose is not benign and who, as we saw on 1st May, may be vicious, that in Parliament Square anything goes? The Minister has referred to the powers that will be transferred to the new Mayor of London. In that context, is he aware that, under the GLA Act, the powers that pass to the Mayor in this regard come from the 1949 Parliament Square improvement legislation, which includes the obligation to,
"lay out the new central garden in Parliament Square".
While noble Lords will be aware of the deep reservations felt by Ministers in some regards about the new Mayor of London, perhaps in this regard at least they will offer him all power to his elbow.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must be very careful what I say about pigs in the presence of my noble friend the Chief Whip—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must be very careful what I say about pig farmers! It is true, and we agree with the noble Lord, that the lengthy demonstration in favour of pig farmers and "Buy a Pig" in Parliament Square is not a good example to leave to the Mayor of London. It was a chapter of accidents. The Metropolitan Police gave temporary permission without informing the Royal Parks Agency. The Royal Parks Agency decided not to evict the farmers and the pig, for reasons which will readily be sympathised with. When they left temporarily for

635
the demonstrations on 1st May for their own safety, the Royal Parks Agency attempted to get a swine removal order from the Corporation of the City of London, which was denied. When it failed, the farmers and the pig came back again onto Westminster City Council land, which is not the responsibility of the Royal Parks Agency but of the Metropolitan Police. I do not believe that any of this is very serious, but the policy of successive governments that there should not be demonstrations in Parliament Square must be maintained in the future.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the Minister say why this matter falls within the responsibility of the Royal Parks? Why cannot an order be made by the Commons that Parliament Square, which is after all a prime tourist site, should not be defaced? Is the Minister also aware that I find it objectionable to see large political notices hung from the railings at the rear of St Margaret's and Westminster Abbey?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the question of responsibility for Parliament Square and Trafalgar Square goes back to the previous century, and the transfer of responsibility to the Mayor of London is simply in line with precedent. If the noble Baroness refers to the railings that I have in mind, they exist because at that point the tunnel which serves the District Line comes very close to the surface. Although Parliament Square was strengthened to provide for crowds in that area, it is not sufficiently reinforced to take the weight of vehicles. For that reason railings are required.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can my noble friend say what happened to the pig in Parliament Square? Some of us have become quite attached to the pig and are anxious that its wellbeing should be properly safeguarded. Will my noble friend give an undertaking that he will pass on to the new Mayor of London the concerns of this House about the welfare of this noble animal?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is being slightly anthropomorphic. Parliament Square had a succession of pigs rather than a single animal. I do not believe that we can become sentimental about them. I understand that the last pig went off to be adopted.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, when the Government transferred to the Mayor of London power over demonstrations in Parliament Square they hardly expected that they would hand it on a plate to Ken Livingstone. However, as that is the case, if the Mayor ignores the Government's guidelines about what should and should not happen in the square, what kind of sanctions could they impose upon him?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Mayor of London is subject to the London Government Act 1999. That Act provides that the Secretary of State issues guidance to the Mayor about Trafalgar Square
636
and Parliament Square. That guidance is a statement of policy, including, self-evidently, that there should not be demonstrations in Parliament Square. The Mayor must have regard to that guidance; if not, he, or she breaks the provisions of the London Government Act.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although there was a succession of pigs, nevertheless they have done a useful job in bringing rural and farming issues into the heart of the urban community so that people know from where their bacon comes? Do the Government have any proposals to tie together more closely rural and urban concerns—for example, the urban White Paper? What support are the Government giving to city farms?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness strays very far from the original Question. I do not believe that it is appropriate for me, with 15 minutes to go, to venture into a disquisition on urban and rural policy.

"Mixer Companies": Tax Changes
3.3 p.m.
Lord Northbrookasked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received concerning the Budget proposals for changes to the taxation of "mixer companies".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have received representations about the likely impact of the proposed changes and held a number of meetings with companies, tax advisers and representative bodies such as the Confederation of British Industry.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Can he explain, and justify, why the Treasury's estimate of the additional cost to companies of this measure is so different from that of the companies themselves and their advisers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the boot is on the other foot. The estimate of the Treasury, which is well documented and explicit, is based on a re-analysis of real claims and the Red Book. By contrast, the claims made apparently on behalf of those in industry who say that they will be affected vary enormously. PricewaterhouseCoopers said initially that it had a single client who would lose £1 billion. It then said that it had 24 clients who would in total lose £1.9 billion. The CBI did a survey and came up with the figure of £740 million. The Treasury estimate has remained constant at between £150 and £175 million. Unless those who seek to attack the Treasury get their act together I do not believe that we should take them too seriously.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, can the Minister say why the Government rejected the initial sensible proposal of the Inland Revenue to the effect that pooling—sometimes referred to as onshore pooling—should continue to be allowed so that companies can get the benefit of double tax relief? They do not need to go the whole way and abolish pooling altogether.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall certainly not open up any claimed disagreement between the Government and the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue is part of government. These proposals have been in the public domain for about a year. The first discussion paper appeared 12 months ago. It is astonishing that those who object to this very modest removal of subsidy from the United Kingdom to high level tax regimes and the restoration of a level playing field cannot get their act together and decide on what basis they oppose the Government's proposals.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if this proposal is implemented it will be another tax by stealth, proving that the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that during his stewardship taxation has not increased is false?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I could not disagree more with the noble Lord. This must be looked at in the light of all corporate tax changes. Among the major industrialised countries we have the lowest rate of corporation tax, and we have abolished advance corporation tax and stamp duty on intellectual property. We have provided tax relief for the purchase of goodwill and also abolished withholding tax on international bonds. In those circumstances, nothing that the noble Lord says about corporate taxation can be dignified by the term "stealth taxes".
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if this matter has been under discussion for over 12 months it cannot be a stealth tax?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend has a very good point.
Lord Newby: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Treasury has not finally closed the door to discussions on this matter and there is still scope for a compromise whereby additional tax may be raised but without hitting companies to the extent now claimed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Treasury has never had a closed mind to these matters; otherwise, we would not have announced at the beginning of this month a deferral of nine months in the implementation of this long overdue measure.
638
That shows that we listen to representations. As to whether we shall listen to representations of the kind made by the noble Lord, that is another matter.

Prostate Cancer
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What research into prostate cancer they are supporting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government give high priority to cancer research and already support a wide range of research into prostate cancer. We actively seek to support further studies.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will the noble Lord consider the comparison between prostate cancer and breast cancer, which is a condition that largely affects females? I hear someone say that breast cancer affects only women, which is not correct. The campaign in the case of breast cancer has been so successful that whereas in the 30 years up to 1987 there was a 26 per cent rise in the death rate, in the past 10 years there has been a one-third reduction. Does the noble Lord agree that it is not only a question of finding the right cure, which is very important, but of obtaining an early diagnosis? Further, does the Minister agree that, as a result of public policy, women are more aware than men of the need for examination and screening? Finally, can the Minister tell the House of research which will increase the awareness of the male population into the possibilities of early diagnosis of prostate cancer?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point: more generally, the issue of men's interest in their own health. There is no doubt that we need to do everything we can to encourage men to take an active interest. That is why the Government announced a series of measures on 1st March. We need to do as much as we can to encourage men to use our health services and to look closely at matters that affect their own health.
One problem is that the current test which can help to identify prostate cancer is not totally accurate. That is an inhibition in relation to detecting the disease at an early stage.
Lord Acton: My Lords, at what age should men start taking these inaccurate tests?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, men can take the test at whatever age they choose. The disease affects men mainly over the age of 65.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, as regards the Minister's last statement in answer to the noble

639
Baroness, does he accept that while many urologists in this country and abroad believe that estimation of the prostate-specific antigen in blood is a mechanism useful in screening, others are very concerned that the test produces a good many false positives which give rise to needless anxiety? Is the noble Lord aware of recent research strongly suggesting that lycopene, an important constituent of tomatoes, has a powerful, protective effect against prostate cancer?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that information. He is absolutely right: PSA levels in blood can be raised by several other conditions which affect the prostate gland. I understand that of every three healthy men who have a high PSA level, only one has prostate cancer. We also have to bear in mind the side effects of treatment: for instance, of 1,000 men having surgical treatment, between three and 20 will die of that treatment; between 200 and 850 will experience impotence; and between 10 and 70 will develop urinary incontinence. That puts into perspective the issue over detection.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, despite the Minister's remarks about the PSA test, does he agree that the procedure is widely recommended by medical practitioners and widely practised by a large number of men including to my certain knowledge Members of your Lordships' House, including myself? Is that advice wrong? If so, it is a very serious matter. Prostate cancer is one of the most serious diseases from which men suffer. When will the Government be in a position to make clear where the PSA test stands? If they feel that it is deficient, what alternative is recommended?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the heart of the issue is that individual men have the relevant information on which they can decide whether to take the test and, subsequently, treatment. I recommend the information leaflet produced by York University in an effectiveness bulletin of two years ago which sets out clearly the choices, options and effects of the test and treatment. In addition, we are committed to spending considerable resources in relation to research and encouraging more research projects to come forward. At present we have a programme of research amounting to £1.5 million. Recently the Government announced another £1 million for further research.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, on 3rd May the Minister told this House that an action plan was to be developed. He has not mentioned it although he promised the House that the action plan would be available. Can he give us further news?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am happy to provide information. The action plan is not complete. It is currently being prepared. As soon as it is prepared, we shall wish to publish it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, apart from eating tomatoes, can men take any other action to help to prevent prostate cancer?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not aware of any specific preventive "tips", along the lines
640
of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Walton. It is clear that we need to undertake further research in order to have an effective test for early detection. We are funding in this country a number of research programmes to help to achieve that. At present we do not know enough about the impact of testing and detection. We do know that treatment programmes can have many adverse side effects. We also know that although prostate cancer is an extremely serious disease and can be a killer, many men who have it do not die from it and are not affected by it. That is what makes the treatment position so difficult.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, will the Minister make it clear that although the PSA test has its problems, the medical profession would never dream of treating somebody for cancer of the prostate unless there had been a biopsy? The PSA test may be unreliable, but not the biopsies.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand that point. If a man had a high PSA test, he would probably be offered further investigations including a biopsy. The question then is whether or not treatment should take place. As the noble Lord will know, there are various options ranging from what one might describe as careful watching to surgical or radiation therapy. But at the stage when the disease is diagnosed it is important that the individual concerned is fully aware of the side effects of some of the treatments on offer.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister will have noted the disquiet over his statements on the PSA, test. Will the noble Lord undertake that the National Screening Committee will publish a full report on the PSA test and its reasons for not recommending that it should be introduced into a national screening programme? Furthermore, will he undertake that the new urine test being developed in Philadelphia will be reviewed by the National Screening Committee?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I can give the assurance that any new tests which are being developed anywhere in the world will be kept under close review. The noble Lord is right to remind the House, as I did in our debate three weeks ago, that the National Screening Committee (which advises the health department) has said that, on existing evidence, a national screening programme for prostate cancer would not be justified. I am happy to place in the Library as much information as we can about the reasons for that advice.

Business
3.17 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Burlison will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Sierra Leone.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the European Parliamentary Elections Acts 1978, 1993 and 1999. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Royal Parks (Trading) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and to be printed.
Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Insolvency Bill [H.L.]
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order of commitment of 4th April be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Terrorism Bill
3.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
642
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Fund-raising]:
Lord Cope of Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 39:
Page 8, line 26, at end insert (", including a service rendered or to be rendered").
The noble Lord said: I have tabled a query in the form of an amendment. Clause 15 provides for the offence of fund-raising for terrorism or for terrorist groups, which is an extremely serious offence. Subsection (4) provides that it is an offence to provide money to terrorists even in exchange for consideration.
Members of the Committee will be well aware that terrorist organisations all over the world and on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland provide all kinds of services in apparent exchange for money. Sometimes protection is described as insurance and it is a form of service. In that case, the service may be a lack of beatings. The question is whether such a lack of action is covered by the word "consideration". Is it valid that consideration includes the giving of a service?
There are many other rackets in Northern Ireland. Black taxis, drinking clubs and so forth come to mind. They are valuable sources of money for the terrorist organisations concerned and I believe that such financial considerations there and in other parts of the world are part of the momentum of terrorism.
The amendment is brief and seeks to ensure that all types of consideration, including the lack of action, are covered by the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his query and I am sure that I can help him. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary. Clause 15 sets out offences of inviting another to provide money or other property, receiving money or other property, and providing money or other property, for the purposes of terrorism. Subsection (4) clarifies that the provision of money or other property includes it being given, lent or otherwise made available, whether or not for consideration.
The expression "whether or not for consideration" is taken from the corresponding provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. It means that if someone is accused of, for example, lending money for the purposes of terrorism, it does not matter whether the supposed terrorist was expected to pay interest on the loan.
Of course, "consideration" could be in the conventional form of interest payable on a loan or it could be in the form of services rendered. If I were to lend the noble Lord, Lord Cope, an umbrella or a coat on condition that he carry my bag, I am sure that would count as a consideration. I do not see any need

643
to set that principle out on the face of the Bill. Of course, the whole point of the provision is that the offences apply whether or not "consideration" is involved.
I trust that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The next time I am caught in the rain I shall look out for the Minister in the hope of being able to borrow an umbrella! In the light of his explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may comment on Clause 16 and refer to the parallel position in Clause 15. In both clauses an offence is created by the mere intention to do something. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has written to us stating that that constitutes a form of thought crime. One is saying that if a person at any moment intends to do something, he is committing an offence at that moment notwithstanding the fact that the intention is never carried into effect. The offence resembles a class of offences known as inchoate offences, all of which were repealed in the late 1970s. I refer in particular to the offence of sus, where someone was suspected of being about to commit an offence and could be prosecuted and sent to prison. After a substantial public opinion campaign, the Government agreed to withdraw it on the ground that what was in a person's mind could not constitute an offence unless it were carried into effect.
In this Bill, we are reintroducing a form of sus—a form of inchoate offence—which is never carried into effect. The intention may long have disappeared, long before the case gets to court. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is right to have drawn our attention to the provision and I hope that the Minister will consider it before the Report stage. I have not had time to formulate an amendment, but I am giving the Minister notice that if he does not do something about it before the Report stage, we certainly shall.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may make a brief comment in support of my noble friend. Some of us probably remember the old fashioned telephone boxes with button A and button B. I once heard of a case in a juvenile court where people were prosecuted for loitering with intent to press button B. The magistrates threw it out. Perhaps we should follow their example.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I remember pressing buttons A and B. I think that the last time was when I was trying to contact a girlfriend—and that must have been a very long time ago!
As regards Clause 16, terrorism and terrorism offences are often about intent. The discovery of intent is very important and is the reason why in extreme and
644
exceptional circumstances we need to have exceptional powers to tackle the problems with which we are grappling.
I understand the anxieties of those who, like us in government, are properly concerned about human rights issues. But terrorism is about serious offences and for that reason the term "intended" appears in Clause 16. The offences in that clause are based on those in Sections 9(1)(c) and 10(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act and we believe—and other governments have believed—that they are essential to our aim of depriving terrorists of their funds, property and means to carry out their trade.
Lord Avebury: As the Minister has mentioned a similar provision in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, can he say how many prosecutions have been successfully brought under that provision?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I should like to be able to give the noble Lord that information this afternoon but am unable to do so. I believe that it is worth repeating what I said earlier with regard to this particular subsection being relied upon only in extreme situations. Terrorism is an extreme activity and, of course, the power would be used only when appropriate.
I believe that the way in which the legislation has been monitored and reported upon in the past has, by and large, satisfied Members of your Lordships' House. We intend to continue fully to satisfy inspections and to monitor the legislation closely. I understand the noble Lord's concern about intention. However, we rely on the argument that these types of power and provision are essential for the effective operation of the legislation.
I have now been passed a useful paper concerning the offence to which I believe the noble Lord draws our attention; that is, making available money or property for use in connection with terrorism. A total of seven charges have been raised under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1984 and 1989. Four cases were not proceeded with and in three the defendants were found guilty. One of the sentences was suspended and in two cases imprisonment was effected for over one year and up to five years. Therefore, the legislation has played a significant and important part, thankfully in very few and restricted circumstances, in much the same way as I have described to the noble Lord in the past few minutes.
Lord Avebury: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving those figures. I believe that they help the Committee in its consideration of these particular provisions. What he has just told the Committee is that people have been convicted under the Prevention of Terrorism Act not for the intention of transferring money to terrorists but for actually transferring money to terrorists. I have no quarrel with that. If one gives money to terrorist organisations, one must be liable to prosecution. However, this Bill states that it is a crime

645
to intend to give the money when one has not passed cash over. I believe that that is thought crime. I ask the Minister again whether he can tell me of a single case where a person has been convicted of the intention of, as opposed to actually, handing money over.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I well understand the point that the noble Lord makes. However, if we simply wait until an act has been carried out and then seek to prevent it, we shall be in a rather ludicrous situation. Therefore, intention is important, as is a reasonable cause for suspicion, also referred to in Clause 16(2)(b). We believe that those matters are and have been essential in preventing the very acts of terrorism. In order to prevent things, one must understand people's intention. We consider that to be extremely important. Therefore, the clause has, and will continue to have, a value.
With regard to the legislation and the way in which it has worked, the cases that I have described in which a person has been caught making money available are, thankfully, narrow and limited in number. However, we believe that it is essential that the powers are in place so that we can prevent terrorism. After all, it is much better to prevent terrorism than to try to chase after terrorists after they have committed some awful act.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Money laundering]:
Lord Cope of Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 39A:
Page 8, line 40, after ("control") insert ("by himself or ").
The noble Lord said: Clause 18 deals with money laundering and makes it an offence for someone—for example, a banker—to help terrorists to retain or control money. However, it was suggested to me that the wording of the clause does not make it an offence for the terrorist who launders the money, only for the banker or other person who handles it. Of course, I realise that the terrorist treasurer may well be guilty and presumably will be guilty under Clauses 16 or 17. However, it struck me as odd that only the banker would be charged, for example, in respect of an agreement to smuggle money out of the jurisdiction for a terrorist purpose. Is that a correct reading and is that what is intended? I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We well appreciate the spirit in which the amendment is moved. It appears to emphasise that a person should not enter into an arrangement to facilitate the retention or control "by himself" of terrorist property. I agree that that should not be permitted. However, as we see it, we do not believe that the amendment is required because that matter is already covered by the offence as it stands.
Clause 18 deals with arrangements by which the retention or control of terrorist property by one person is facilitated by another. The clause provides that a person commits an offence if he enters into or becomes concerned in such an arrangement. It does not specify
646
on which side of the arrangement the person has to be in order to commit the offence. Therefore, it is fairly flexible.
Therefore, both the person who facilitates retention or control and the person whose retention or control is facilitated commit the same offence. That is because both have entered into, or have become involved in, the arrangement. I trust that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Clearly the Minister wishes the same things as I do, which does not surprise me for a moment. However, I am still not entirely satisfied that the wording is adequate. I shall not pursue the matter today, but my point is that the clause states that:
"A person commits an offence if he enters into … an arrangement which facilitates the retention … of another person".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: If the noble Lord looks closely at the clause, he will see that it states,
"enters into or becomes concerned in".
Therefore, if one is involved in the arrangement, one is caught up in the committing of the offence. I believe that that is the important point. I shall be happy to try to clarify the matter between Committee and Report stages, if the noble Lord wishes. However, I believe that the intention of the clause is quite clear and that it covers both situations.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I believe that it is the use of the words "another person" which caused the interest in this issue. However, I do not wish to pursue the matter at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Disclosure of information: duty]:
Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 39B:
Page 9, line 8, at end insert (", or is likely to commit an offence,").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 39B extends Clause 19(1)(a) to include,
"or is likely to commit an offence".
It seems sensible to me that if one suspects that a person has committed an offence, one should report it. However, if one also suspects, or even knows, that a person is about to commit an offence by knowing that he or she is going to a certain place to do a certain thing, that also should be included in that part of the clause. Therefore, I beg to move that that should be considered.
Lord Bach: The Government do not accept the need for the amendment and I shall try to explain why in a few words. I believe that there are three other amendments in this group and perhaps the noble Lord will want to speak to them in due course. Therefore, perhaps I may deal, first, with the amendment that he has moved.

647
Clause 19 requires the reporting of belief or suspicion that someone has committed one of the terrorist property offences set out in Clauses 15 to 18. As the noble Lord said, Amendment No. 39B would require the reporting of suspicion that someone is likely to commit such an offence. That would broaden quite considerably the scope of the requirement—too far, in our view. The equivalent provisions in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989, the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988 already produce a steady flow of information on suspicious transactions, some of which produce useful leads. The amendment is presumably intended to produce more. But we do not believe it is necessary to extend the scope of the offence in this way.
In many cases a suspicion that someone will commit a funding offence will lead inevitably to a suspicion that he has committed one. For example, if I suspect that someone is going to "provide money or other property" for the purposes of terrorism—that is, Clause 15(3)—I presumably already suspect that he possesses money or other property for the purposes of terrorism. So I am not sure, in effect, how much difference the amendment would make in practice.
To the extent that there is any difference, however, there is of course nothing stopping someone who wants to report suspicion of a potential funding offence, as opposed to suspicion of an actual offence. The "permission to disclose" provision in Clause 20 adequately covers this.
But a statutory requirement to disclose is a serious measure and we would not seek to extend it lightly. We think it right that the requirement should apply to more substantive suspicions that someone has committed an offence rather than that he is likely to commit such an offence.
I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to speak to his other amendments at this stage so I can answer him in due course.
Lord Glentoran: I wish now to speak to Amendments Nos. 41A, 41B and 41C. It seems that it was a reasonable defence if the person concerned believed that his employer would ensure that a disclosure was made in this situation. I do not think that needs very much explanation. If he has told his employer what he believes and he assumes that his employer is going to tell the necessary authorities, that seems to us fair and reasonable.
Amendments Nos. 41B and 41C seek to take out "thing" and insert "money or other property". "Thing." is a very undescriptive word. Really what is being spoken of in this Bill is money or property, and I ask the noble Lord to consider that.
Lord Bach: I shall deal first with Amendment No. 41A. Clause 19(4) makes provision for persons in employment by allowing them to make the disclosure to their employer rather than directly to the police. Amendment No. 41A proposes that someone seeking to rely on this option should also have to prove that he reasonably believed his employer would pass the suspicion on to the police.
648
There is no need for such provision on the face of the Bill because the defence set out in subsection (4) only applies where the employer has established a procedure for the making of disclosures. So in order to rely on the defence, the employee would have to prove that he had followed the established procedure. The procedure could only reasonably be regarded as an "established" procedure if it indeed had the effect that employees reasonably believed it would ensure eventual disclosure to the police. So we think that that point is covered in the Bill as currently drafted.
I deal with the two remaining amendments in the following way. Clause 19(7) is an extra-territorial gloss on subsection (1) and ensures that disclosure is to be made even if the suspected offence involves a "thing" and takes place overseas. I am advised that, as a matter of statutory drafting, it would not produce the right result to refer instead, as the noble Lord proposes, to "money or other property". That is principally because the extra-territorial question arises only in relation to "things". With money, for example, it is possible to take possession without any physical thing changing hands.
With those explanations, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that explanation. Certainly with regard to the last two amendments, I accept the advice on statutory drafting in relation to matters overseas. I hope that we are secure in relation to the employer/employee relationship but for the moment I accept the noble Lord's advice and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 40:
Page 9, line 13, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A),").
The noble Lord said: This is, I believe, an amendment of some importance because it concerns the freedom of the press. Let us assume that a journalist wants to interview someone who is alleged to be a major donor to a proscribed terrorist organisation. That organisation could be one that operates in the United Kingdom; it could be one whose operations are entirely outside the United Kingdom but which has been proscribed.
The journalist wishes to establish whether those allegations are true or not. During the course of the interview, again let us assume that the alleged donor makes statements which make the journalist believe that the allegations are true. He may make them on the record or off the record but the alleged donor admits that he is indeed a donor. Under Clause 19 as it stands that journalist will commit an offence if he does not tell a police constable about the interview as soon as reasonably possible. I should have thought that in that context "as soon as reasonably possible" must mean no later than the point at which the journalist gets back to the office or gets home, has access to a telephone and can pick up that telephone up and contact the police.

649
The effect of Clause 19 on a journalist in those circumstances is obvious. No journalist will interview someone on the basis that he will report anything that he has learned at the interview to the police. No one will speak to a journalist if he knows that anything said to a journalist must be reported by law immediately to the police. The effect is to restrict freedom of speech.
The Government may well take the view that it would be better if an interview of that kind did not take place. But that, of course, is not the test. It is not whether the Government think it better or not. The true question is whether the obligation to report the interview to the police is something which is necessary in a democratic society. I believe that in the great majority of cases the answer to that question will be no.
I accept that there could possibly be cases where the danger from a terrorist organisation is so acute that the ordinary rules do not apply. That, indeed, is why we included in Amendment No. 141 subsections (3B) and (3C). Subsection (3C) is modelled on the power to derogate from convention rights under the Human Rights Act, which itself is modelled on the provisions as to derogation in the European Convention on Human Rights. That would make it possible in extreme circumstances to suspend the exemption for journalists.
In general, however, it is very difficult to see what damage is likely to be caused if journalists are exempted from Clause 19. Indeed, investigative journalism may even be helpful to the Government. This is an entirely different category from the case where banks may suspect money laundering on behalf of terrorists where, clearly, it is in the public interest that the banks should be required to disclose their suspicions to the Government. In practice, Clause 19 will not lead to journalists providing any useful information whatever to the police. It will simply reduce the flow of information to the journalists.
Clause 19 imposes an unjustifiable restriction on the freedom of the press, which is an essential element in freedom of speech and is recognised by the Human Rights Act as a matter of particular importance.
I recognise that Clause 19 is based on an existing section in the Prevention of Terrorism Act that does not include a special defence for journalists. In replacing the Prevention of Terrorism Act there is no presumption that Clause 19 should be identical to the corresponding section in the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Therefore, I suggest that it is proper and desirable that Clause 19 should be amended in this way. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: I support my noble friend and I draw attention to the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in his inquiry into legislation against terrorism concluded that an offence prescribing failure to disclose information about acts of terrorism should not be enacted in permanent legislation. I would be inclined to go even further than my noble friend and say that the whole of Clause 19 is objectionable,
650
bringing back into our law something that used to be called "misprision of felony". Noble Lords may remember that several years ago that was cleared out of obsolete statutes, many of which dated from the Napoleonic wars.
Again, the Human Rights Commission of Northern Ireland has objected to Clause 19 and suggested, in relation to Northern Ireland, that an extremely wide offence exists in the prevailing ordinary criminal law, prescribing the kind of behaviour that this clause seeks to address. That is to be found in Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1967.
In this Bill we seem to be modelling United Kingdom legislation on a measure that has been in force, on a temporary basis, in relation to Northern Ireland alone where the position may be totally different. There is no particular reason why a measure that was appropriate in the conditions prevailing in Northern Ireland should now be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom.
Can the Minister give the Committee any figures for prosecutions and convictions under the corresponding provision in the Northern Ireland Act to which my noble friend has referred? I refer to Section 18A of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Have any prosecutions been brought against journalists under that section and, if so, what was the result? As my noble friend has said, these provisions appear to fall foul of the Human Rights Act and there is case law in relation to this matter. Cases have been taken before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg where this provision appears to be in contravention.
I believe it would be unwise for us to endanger journalists in the way suggested. If we do so, we shall fall foul of Clause 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is difficult to imagine how Ministers have certified that this legislation conforms with the Human Rights Act when we have the case of Goodwin in front of us. The noble Lord may want to refer to that in his reply.
I am sure that the objections are not limited solely to journalism because many other people may inadvertently have matters disclosed to them in the course of their professional lives and have the same obligation of confidentiality as a journalist owes to the person he interviews. I believe that my noble friend is right to focus on the matter of journalism because this clause can do the greatest harm to that profession. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter seriously before Report stage.
Lord Marlesford: I too want to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I do not do so because of any great principles such as the European Convention on Human Rights or any other legislation. I support the amendment on the simple basis that the clause seems to show an astonishing lack of understanding of how journalism works in practice by a government who include, in their inner sanctum, so many distinguished journalists who do understand such matters.

651
It is inconceivable that a journalist should ever be put under the restriction of carrying out an interview of any sort on the basis that he may hear or learn something that he would be required to report to the authorities afterwards. It would not work. Journalists would not feel bound by it. One would not be able to administer such a restriction. It is a thoroughly foolish and pernicious proposal. I say that as someone who will yield to no one in the desire to support the overall intentions of the Bill.
Lord Desai: I support the amendment. I have been disturbed by the case taking place against some journalists, in whose support I have signed a petition. I am worried not only that if confidentiality is broken, people will not talk to journalists; but, as an academic, I am also concerned that a lot of information used by my colleagues in international relations or politics comes from good journalistic reporting. Such reporting is a valuable source, not just for academics, but also for governments. If journalists do not find out things, we shall all be in ignorance. This matter impinges on the freedom of the press and on academic freedom. Some so-called "journalists" may be colleagues of mine; for example, I have a distinguished colleague, Professor Fred Halliday, who knows many Arab terrorists. He knows lots of terrorist groups and has spoken to them. Is he supposed to divulge all his information? In doing so, he would lose his career.
Another concern is that while surfing the Internet I may come across a terrorist website. Am I obliged to do something about that immediately or can I click past that and go somewhere else? Will I have committed an offence? The definition of what offence may be committed is so broad that I believe that we should carefully consider whether it should be prescribed more carefully.
Lord Monson: I have a more technical point to make. I refer to the last line of Amendment No. 41, which contains the rather melodramatic words,
"threatening the life of the United Kingdom".
I believe that is open to all sorts of interpretations. Is there any precedent for using that exact form of words? I do not believe that it is the most desirable form that could be devised to achieve the purposes of the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This has been a useful short debate. I understand and appreciate that journalists, among all the professions that may be affected by the clause, feel particular concern about this matter. I well understand some of the misgivings that have been expressed in Committee, not least because of the several and various representations that the Government have received from the Society of Editors, the Newspaper Society and members of the broadcast media who have made direct representations to my honourable Friend Charles Clarke.
The Government would be the first to concede the vital importance of ensuring a free press and that the press must be able to go about their lawful business in
652
an entirely proper and unfettered manner and without undue constraints. We fully accept the integrity and the professionalism both of the journalistic profession as a whole and of individual journalists, particularly those who may be interested the area of public policy.
However, I would argue that wh that integrity and professionalism must go a degree of responsibility to the wider society. As my honourable friend Mr Clarke said when this matter was debate n another place, a journalist may, during the course of his business, become aware that, say, Canary Wf is to be blown up. I am sure that Members of the Committee agree that it would be unacceptable for him not to tell anyone in order to protect his sources. That journalist would have had knowledge and information, something of value to the wider society, clearly indicating that people were to be placed at risk. To withhold that information on the grounds that he was protecting his sources would be neither right nor proper.
4 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: Does the Minister really believe that that is a realistic example? As a journalist—I do not have an interest to declare now but I was a journalist for 16 years—protecting one's sources and revealing a real threat to human life are totally different things. I cannot think of any journalist, if he or she were to hear of something like that, who would not immediately take whatever action was necessary prevent it happening. That is not the same as revealing a source. It is an extreme example which does not support the case.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It may well be an example in extremis, but it is something which could take place. We must acknowledge that point. The battle against terrorism is extremely important.
Lord Goodhart: I thank the Minister for giving way. Is it not the fact that the offence under Clause 19 has nothing to do with disclosure of information about the potential bombing of Canary Wharf? The offence under Clause 19 is limited to disclosure of information relating to the commission of an offence under Clauses 15 to 18, which deal with fundraising and property.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I accept the point the noble Lord makes. But knowing about and having knowledge of the means of support for terrorist activity is an important element of this debate. Having knowledge of the obtaining of funds for committing acts of terrorism and supporting terrorism has a bearing on this whole debate.
It is a matter of striking the right balance. In drafting the legislation we have shifted the balance somewhat from the position under the existing legislation by repealing the old Section 18 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that that legislation was put in place in 1984 and again in 1989. The Bill removes the statutory requirement to disclose information which could lead

653
to the prevention or detection of specific acts of terrorism. We agreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that this was of limited usefulness and served mainly to criminalise the families of terrorists.
But we believe it is important to retain the old Section 18A of the PTA. That is the provision now replicated in Clause 19 of the Bill. We regard that as an essential position of permanent counter-terrorist legislation. It is more limited than the old Section 18 in that it applies only to belief or suspicion that another person is committing a terrorist property offence under Clauses 15 to 18. It also applies only where a person bases his belief or suspicion on information which comes to his attention in the course of a trade, profession, business or employment. So it is not just about journalists.
This provision is especially relevant—this must be underlined—to the financial services industry as it generates a flow of information from banks and building societies. But that does not mean that it should only apply to that industry, or that any other industry should be exempt. Of course the Government recognise that the journalistic profession takes its responsibilities extremely seriously; we do. But the Committee will understand that to provide a specific exemption for journalists, even one which could be switched off as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, argued his was at certain times, would leave a potential loophole in what we consider to be an essential provision. It would also carry the risk of making it much easier to launder terrorist finance through press and media companies, a result which I am sure the Committee would not intend.
If I may be a little more reassuring to those journalists who feel that the clause may restrain their legitimate activities, I must emphasise that the Government see the "reasonable excuse" defence in subsection (3) as an important safeguard in this area. I cannot, of course, give a cast-iron assurance that protecting sources will always be a reasonable excuse; it would be wrong for me to do so. That would be for the courts to determine in any individual case. But protecting sources is clearly an important principle for journalists, particularly those working in this difficult area. However, money and other resources are the lifeblood of terrorist organisations. The offences in Part III are extremely important in deterring and disrupting the planning and execution of any act of terrorism, the more so where concerted terrorist campaigns are concerned.
I know Members of the Committee will agree that every effort needs to be made to co-operate with the police in enforcing these offences. Nevertheless, the "reasonable excuse" approach is the best way to arrive at the right balance. By allowing each case to be considered individually, on its merits, we avoid the risks which would go with a blanket exemption while recognising that there could be cases in which a journalist—or anyone else—might have a reasonable excuse for keeping a belief or suspicion to himself.
654
In the debate in another place Mr David Lidington referred to the view that,
"it would not be in the people's interest for police time to be wasted by journalists reporting all the many rumours that they pick up when going about their normal occupation"—
an argument with which many of us would find it hard to disagree. But it is surely for the police alone to assess the information which is reported to them and, above all, it is against the public interest for terrorists and their supporters to generate with impunity the funds and other resources which enable them to carry out their deadly crimes.
The Government believe that the importance of tackling terrorist finance is an overriding factor in this area. We do not support a specific exemption for journalists. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the number of prosecutions. I can advise him that there have been no prosecutions under the current provisions. In a sense, that underlines their important deterrent effect and the point I made earlier about the value of the clause bringing forward important information which will enable the prevention of terrorism. After all, that is what this legislation seeks to do.
We understand and have considerable sympathy with the problems Members of the Committee have highlighted in this short debate. We do not wish unreasonably to fetter the journalistic profession or, for that matter, other professions in the lawful exercise of their duties and responsibilities and their professionalism. But we have the balance right. We have narrowed the legislation as it was previously set out in the PTA. We have taken careful note of the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in this matter and feel that the balance is about as right as we can get it. Given the seriousness and sensitivity of this issue, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful for the support that I received in this matter, not only from my noble friend Lord Avebury and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, but also and perhaps more importantly from the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. On issues relating to the Terrorism Bill, support for these Benches from speakers on the Conservative Benches is relatively rare and therefore more valuable, but much more so in view of the long professional experience of the noble Lord as a journalist.
It seems to me, from the response made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that the Government—as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said—do not understand the way in which journalism works, nor the importance of the freedom of the press. Saying that journalists may be able to rely on the defence of "reasonable excuse" is nothing like an adequate answer here. The real problem is that, if journalists are threatened with being taken to court, they will simply not seek the information which may render them liable to prosecution, even if at the end of the day they may find themselves able to raise the defence of "reasonable excuse".

655
What is needed is an amendment making clear that journalists who act in good faith are not in danger of prosecution. This is an important matter. I have to say that I do not find the Government's answer satisfactory. Therefore, it is a matter to which we shall very probably wish to return at future stages of the Bill. Having said that, it is not my intention to press the issue to a vote today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 41A to 41C not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 23 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Forfeiture Orders]:
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 43:
Page 73, line 9, after ("also") insert (", on such an application.").
The noble Lord said: in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 to 52. These are really minor technical amendments. Amendment No. 43 makes it clear that the Court of Session has power to make a restraint order under paragraph 18 where the Lord Advocate applies for a restraint order in the circumstances set out in sub-paragraph (2). Amendments Nos. 44 to 50 are all minor drafting amendments. As Members of the Committee will no doubt have seen, the changes reflect the drafting approach taken in Part I of Schedule 4 for England and Wales.
Amendment No. 51 ensures that all the appropriate sub-paragraphs of paragraph 27 can be applied to the enforcement in Scotland of external forfeiture and restraint orders. Amendment No. 52 ensures that the Bill correctly replicates the position in the PTA. Part IV of Schedule 4 allows for cases where a person subject to a forfeiture order is declared bankrupt. Under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 47 the forfeiture order is set aside, but under paragraph 48 the Secretary of State is taken to be a creditor and has to be paid after the debts of all other creditors have been paid in full, with interest, under the relevant provision. Paragraph 48(3) defines "relevant provision", and the amendment to paragraph 48(3)(a)—Amendment No. 52—corrects the unintended omission of the application of this definition in relation to the winding-up of a company to Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 44 to 52:
Page 73, line 32, leave out ("Where") and insert ("When").
Page 74, line 35, leave out ("his").
Page 74, line 36, leave out ("his").
Page 74, line 37, leave out ("he is") and insert ("the person convicted is subsequently").
Page 74, line 38, leave out ("his").
Page 74, line 40, leave out ("has") and insert ("had").
Page 74, line 44, leave out ("is some") and insert ("was a").
Page 77, line 49, leave out ("(7)") and insert ("(8)").
Page 86, line 31, after ("Wales") insert ("or Scotland").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Seizure and detention]:
4.15 p.m.
Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 52A:
Page 12, line 26, leave out ("to which this section applies").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 52B, which seeks to remove subsection (3). The latter is a very convoluted provision regarding the potential movements of money, which seems to be completely unnecessary. We do not see why the movements of money that can result in arrest should be confined to movements to and from Northern Ireland, those in preparation to be moved to Northern Ireland, those in preparation to arrive here from Northern Ireland, or whatever.
If money is ill-gotten and "terrorist money", if I can use that phrase, and it happens to be on the move from A to B anywhere within this kingdom, it is reasonable for it to be apprehended and the necessary proceedings followed. That is the basis of our argument. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I recognise the attractiveness of permitting cash to be seized anywhere, not just at borders. However, the seizure of cash is a significant interference with human rights. The Government need to ensure that they get the right balance—an expression I often use, but one which I believe describes the situation well. This has to be the case in the issue of civil forfeiture, such as provided for in Clauses 24 to 31. It is called "civil forfeiture" because forfeiture allows civil as opposed to criminal proceedings to take place. There is no need for someone to be convicted of a criminal offence. We are, therefore, proceeding in this area with some care and caution.
The cash-at-borders powers in Clauses 24 to 31 are modelled closely on those used in the Drug Trafficking Act 1994—legislation with which, no doubt, the noble Lord will be familiar. The main difference is in which borders are included. In the Drug Trafficking Act the powers apply only where cash is being imported into and exported out of the United Kingdom. In this Bill, the powers can also apply where cash is being transferred, say, from Northern Ireland to Great Britain or vice versa. We are not prepared in this Bill to go as far as permitting the seizure of terrorist cash other than at borders. That is because we are dealing with that issue, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, in another context.
The third report of the Home Office working group on confiscation, published in November 1998, proposed a wide range of improvements to current law and practice. The working group recommended an in-depth study into the feasibility of a national

657
confiscation agency to oversee civil forfeiture and, perhaps, take on other confiscation functions. The report also discussed a range of options, including extending civil forfeiture to all crime and all property and establishing a national agency to conduct all civil forfeiture of non-cash property, with operational oversight of cash forfeitures and criminal confiscations.
In collaboration with Her Majesty's Treasury and the Performance and Innovation Unit of the Cabinet Office, we have been working on a comprehensive package of measures in this area. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be publishing the report of the PIU study shortly. It will, I am sure, give much more detail on those proposals. Therefore, while we are using the opportunity of the Terrorism Bill to introduce civil forfeiture of terrorist cash at borders, modelled on the existing powers in the Drug Trafficking Act, to go any further at this stage would mean duplicating or perhaps cutting across the broader work that is of considerable importance in the wider sense of dealing with criminality. Options for civil forfeiture of terrorist cash other than at borders and of terrorist property other than cash are being considered as part of that much broader exercise.
With that reassurance, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. We think that both amendments highlight a useful issue; indeed, it is something of which we are very aware and upon which we shall be publishing more details shortly. I hope that the Committee will be satisfied with my response.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: In his response, the Minister used the words "at this stage". But in view of what has been said, the discussion we had in the debate on the political parties Bill, when we touched on a parallel problem of money shipment into Northern Ireland, and the Prime Minister's forthcoming statement, I hope that he has not entirely closed his mind to tightening up the draft legislation as it stands.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister's reply was extraordinary. It seemed to boil down to the idea that the Government intend to do what is suggested in our amendment but will do so on a much wider basis. That is what I gathered from reports in the press this morning. In other words, the Government will adopt a much wider approach but they are not prepared to act now. That seems odd when we have the Bill before us and the time is available.
Moreover, if I may say so, the Minister did not seem to put forward any argument as to why money should be seized when being moved from, say, Liverpool to Belfast, but not when being moved from London to Liverpool or, for that matter, from Belfast to Londonderry. It seems to me most odd that it is only when the money is being moved, or is being prepared to be moved, between Northern Ireland and Great Britain that it should be subject to seizure, and not when it is being moved within Great Britain or within Northern Ireland.
658
However, the Government clearly intend to return to this matter. We shall need to discuss it at a later stage in the Bill to discover the reasons why the measure is proposed in the first place and, secondly, to ascertain what the Government propose in agreeing with us as they appear to do.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, we find the measure attractive. It is clear from press coverage—perhaps of remarks attributed to my right honourable friend Dr Mowlam—that we regard this as an important area. At this stage we are content with the provisions that we have put in place. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that as this is part of a wider and more complex picture we hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments at this stage. We recognise their importance and significance, but because of the complexity of the matter we wish to ensure that the provisions we introduce are workable and appropriate in all circumstances. We are grateful to the noble Lord for prompting this important debate.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. Like my noble friend Lord Cope, I am not entirely convinced by the arguments that have been put forward but I understand that there is quite a lot of work going on behind the scenes. We look forward to hearing more, perhaps at Report stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 52B not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Detained cash]:
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 53:
Page 13, line 38, leave out ("of the following persons") and insert ("person").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 53 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 54 and 55. These are three minor government amendments. Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 were suggested by parliamentary counsel and are purely drafting amendments. They achieve precisely the same effect as the original wording but make it more concise. Amendment No. 55 provides an opportunity for third parties to be heard in civil forfeiture proceedings similar to the opportunities provided in connection with criminal forfeiture proceedings in Clauses 23(7) and 58(6). This is an additional safeguard which I hope will be welcomed by the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 54:
Page 13, leave out lines 41 to 44.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Forfeiture]:
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 55:
Page 14, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) Before making an order under this section, a magistrates' court or the sheriff must give an opportunity to be heard to any person—

(a) who is not a party to the proceedings, and

(b) who claims to be the owner of or otherwise interested in any of the cash which can be forfeited under this section.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [cordoned areas]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 56:
Page 16, line 9, leave out ("expedient") and insert ("reasonably necessary").
The noble Lord said: Before I deal with the substance of the amendment I should say that I asked for Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 to be removed from the group we are discussing. I was too late to secure a change to the groupings list but I hope that I shall be excused if I deal with Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 separately.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: They have been decoupled. Therefore they will form the subject of a separate debate. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful for those comments. I obtained my groupings list from outside the Chamber. It was not marked with the word "draft" and therefore I assumed that it was the final version.
Lord Bach: It was the final one, but not the final, final one. Apparently there is a revised version outside.
Lord Goodhart: The first group of amendments I wish to address comprises Amendments Nos. 56, 117 and 123. These amendments seek to tighten up the requirements before certain action can be taken, in each case by requiring the action in question to be "reasonably necessary" rather than, as provided by the Bill, "expedient". Amendment No. 56 applies to Clause 33(2) of the Bill which allows a police officer to designate an area as a cordoned area if he or she considers it expedient for purposes of terrorist investigation.
Amendment No. 117 applies to Clause 44(3) which allows police officers to authorise the stop and search of vehicles if,
"expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism".
Amendment No. 123 applies to Clause 48(2) which concerns the imposition of parking restrictions.
These are all, of course, actions which impose inconvenience on the public. No one in their senses would object to suffering some degree of inconvenience if there was a real possibility that as a result an act of terrorism would be prevented or if there
660
was a chance of catching a terrorist. However, the action must be proportionate to the objective. I would have expected the test in the Bill to be that the action must be reasonably necessary, not absolutely necessary or essential.
The Government may say that "expedient" means the same thing as "reasonably necessary". Therefore this is in effect a probing amendment. Do the Government say that "expedient" means the same as "reasonably necessary"? If not, what is the difference between the two expressions? Can the Government give examples of differences? I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not an expert in Fowler's Modern English Usage but I shall try to enter into the spirit of a debate about words.
Amendment No. 56 would alter the way in which the cordon designation regime under the Bill, which replicates that currently available under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, would work. It would replace the existing test that a cordon designation must be "expedient" for the purposes of a terrorist investigation with a "reasonably necessary" test. As the noble Lord said, Amendments Nos. 117 and 123 would similarly replace "expedient" with "reasonably necessary" in Clause 44, which covers stop and search, and Clause 48, which covers parking.
As we explained when a similar amendment was tabled at Committee stage in another place, we do not think that this quite meets the case. The police would not impose or maintain a cordon if they did not believe that to be the appropriate course of action in all the circumstances—and the involvement of a senior police officer in the process provides an adequate check on any tendency for over-use. However, that is not the same as requiring a reasonable belief that the cordon is necessary—which is what I take the amendment to mean. I am not sure that something which can be described as being "reasonably necessary" achieves exactly that. However, I shall not over-egg that argument.
An example might be where a bomb warning was imprecise, or the police believed it was inaccurate—deliberately or otherwise. In such a case the necessity for a cordon might be debatable, but it makes good sense to have one. Similarly, in the case of stop and search or parking restriction powers, there could be cases where a cordon might not he considered "reasonably necessary" but could be to the general advantage. That is the important test. For instance, this might be the case if the alternatives, in the light of a terrorist threat to an event, were to authorise the use of the stop and search power or parking restrictions around the venue or to see the event cancelled altogether.
That is not to say that the "expediency" requirement gives carte blanche for the police to set up cordons without good cause. The term has been criticised as being too broad or, perhaps, overly subjective. In debating it at the Commons Committee stage, Simon Hughes quoted a dictionary definition

661
which suggested that the term carried a sense of being "morally dubious". But that is not the primary meaning or understanding of the term.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary advises that the term means,
"Advantageous … fit, proper; suitable to the circumstances".
That last expression provides the basis for the kind of criteria on which we expect the police to make judgments when considering whether or not to set up a cordon.
I hope that that explanation helps the noble Lord. In that spirit, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: Perhaps I may make a short comment, having lived in an atmosphere and environment of cordons, searches and so on for 30 years. In my experience, "expedient" is a word which is understood by those in the services; it is used fairly frequently in different ways. It denotes a positive attitude; a positive way forward. Those of us who have lived in such an environment know that we do not want our security forces pussyfooting around and hesitating about whether or not to cordon off an area. If there is a likelihood that an area should be cordoned-off and you live around there, you would want it cordoned quickly.
Lord Goodhart: I listened with interest to what the Minister said. His examples all seemed to be cases where the test of "reasonable necessity" would have been satisfied. Certainly if the police think that a bomb warning is inaccurate as to the location of the bomb, any area where they suspect a bomb might be would be cordoned-off not only as a matter of reasonable necessity but as a matter of virtually absolute necessity. I have no difficulty with that.
However, I am left with a slight sense of uncertainty. I question whether the test of what even a relatively senior policeman thinks is "expedient" is necessarily the right one. As to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I take them very much on board. He has great experience of those conditions. But, again, the kinds of circumstances he spoke about would satisfy the test of reasonable necessity.
Having said that, we shall take the amendment away, think about it again and consider whether this matter is of sufficient importance to bring back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Duration]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 57:
Page 16, line 42, leave out ("14") and insert ("4").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 concern the power to cordon off an area and to exclude people from it.
662
There is no question but that this is an absolutely essential power in terrorist circumstances. Obviously the police need to keep people away from anywhere where they think a bomb may be liable to go off; they need to keep people away from land or buildings which are being searched for weapons or for evidence; and they need to keep people away from an area which is dangerous because of the damage caused to buildings by an explosion.
But, of course, the power can cause extreme inconvenience. People can be forced out of their homes; businesses in a cordoned-off area may have to close; and road closures obviously disrupt the activities of a locality. In most cases, closure would be necessary only for a matter of hours; where there has been an explosion, it could be a matter of perhaps two or three days in order to search for evidence and to remove debris. I wonder whether it is really necessary to provide that a police superintendent, on his or her own authority, can impose a cordon for as long as 14 days, and then extend it for a further 14 days.
The amendment seeks to impose a limitation of four days. I suggest that that would be sufficient in the great majority of cases. There may be a few cases where a longer period is needed but, given the serious effect of a cordon, I suggest that an extension beyond four days should require a court order. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: In our view, these amendments would significantly alter the way in which the cordon designation regime under the Bill would work. As the noble Lord explained, they would allow a cordon designation under police authorisation to last for only four days as compared with the current 14 days, extendable to 28 days, under the Bill. The amendments would also introduce a judicial involvement into the process.
This is, essentially, an operational matter. Having listened to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, of how one needs to be "expedient" in these circumstances—hence the use of that term in the earlier debate—we feel that this is a matter of expedience and of good operational sense. For that reason it would probably be entirely inappropriate to involve the courts.
I fully accept that a cordon imposes some limitation on the right of people to pass by and to have access to areas that they might otherwise freely use. But, after all, these powers are usually used in operational circumstances—for example, where an explosion has taken place; where evidence needs to be gathered; where the complexity of an investigation may grow; and in extreme circumstances of great tragedy, where many people have been affected, injured or perhaps even killed. It may well be necessary in such circumstances for the cordoned-off area to remain in that state for a particularly long period of time.
I think that the measures we have put in place, which allow 14 days and then a further period, will cover most circumstances. But, where the forensic examination of explosives at a bomb scene is involved, it may well be that the area will need to be cordoned

663
off for much longer. We have a proportionate approach which bears in mind the interference and the rights of passage involved. I can assure the Committee that the police are extremely sensitive at all times to the requirements of businesses and individuals in the wake of a terrorist incident. It is no small miracle that business returns as rapidly as it does in those kinds of extreme circumstances.
Ultimately, of course, the use of the power in any particular set of circumstances could be tested by judicial review. After 2nd October this year it will be open to those concerned properly to exercise convention rights.
I hope that, in the light of those comments—focusing as they do on the essential operational importance of retaining the powers—the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Monson: Before the Minister sits down, can he tell the Committee how many times in the past 30 years in the United Kingdom a cordon has been in place for longer than 96 hours, which is four days? It surely cannot have been very often.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I suspect that the noble Lord is right, that it has not been very often. I do not have the data in regard to the effect of cordons, the length of time they have been in place and the number of instances, but I undertake to make inquiries in that regard. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that there may well be circumstances—perhaps as with Canary Wharf or the Manchester bombing and so on—where, in extremis, it will be essential to have an area cordoned off for quite a long period of time,
Lord Goodhart: We will consider carefully what the Minister said. I do not hold out much hope for judicial review as a remedy. Given that the maximum period of time that cordoning can last is 28 days, it would he a very hopeful litigant who thought he might get a decision from a court within that time. We will consider that. I should certainly find it helpful if before Report stage the Minister could let me know how many cases there have been where cordons have been maintained for a period of longer than four days.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I gave an indication to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I would make investigations about that and of course any information I produce as a result of my investigations I shall share with your Lordships and place a copy in the Library.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to.
Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Sierra Leone
4.42 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a further Statement about the deployment of British troops in Sierra Leone.
"In my Statement last week, I informed the House about our forces' deployments to Sierra Leone. British troops are in Sierra Leone to get British nationals out, and to help get UN reinforcements in. That is what our troops were sent to do. It is what they will carry on doing as long as is necessary. They are doing this job exceptionally well. British forces in Sierra Leone have secured Lungi airport while UN forces are building up and, following the attack on the Paras last week, they have moved light guns ashore and conducted reconnaissance flights to assist in that task.
"Separately, British officers are providing military advice to UNAMSIL, the government of Sierra Leone, and the UN in New York. Our aim is to help the UN create a more effective UN force in Sierra Leone, one that can restore peace and order in Sierra Leone and help the government of Sierra Leone re-establish stability.
"This strategy is making significant progress. In the past week we have seen the arrival of capable and effective UN reinforcements through Lungi airport. The RUF has been pushed back by the forces of the government of Sierra Leone. We have seen Foday Sankoh, the RUF leader, arrested and detained by the Sierra Leone authorities. This is significant. He is ultimately responsible for the actions of the rebels he leads. His future is for the government of Sierra Leone to decide, but the RUF must be clear that the violence must stop, and that the peace process must be carried forward.
"Our longer term aim is to have a Sierra Leone that is stable, in which rebel fighting forces have been demobilised, with the government of Sierra Leone in control of the diamond producing.
"I should like to inform the House of changes in our military deployments following this encouraging progress in the UN build-up. As I made clear last week, our intention is that UK forces will stay in Sierra Leone no longer than is necessary. Indeed, UNAMSIL is preparing the way for a formal take-over of the UK's role at the airport in due course.

665
"The Spearhead Battalion group has played an outstandingly successful role in securing the airport since it arrived earlier this month. Conditions actually on the ground are difficult. Living conditions are extremely basic and the environment in which it is operating is hot, humid and thoroughly unpleasant. Furthermore, it needs now to prepare for other duties facing it later this year. The Government have therefore decided to replace the 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment, which will start to return to the UK this week, with 42 Commando Royal Marines. This has the practical advantage that it can be sustained logistically from the Amphibious Group of HMS "Ocean" just offshore. This will enable us to continue to secure Lungi during the continued build-up of UN forces over the period to mid-June, and to do so without ourselves over-taxing the limited infrastructure of the airport.
"This changeover will represent the first stage of our plan to withdraw the bulk of our deployed force by the previously announced timetable of mid-June. This recognises the other commitments that our Armed Forces have and my concern to avoid adding to the pressures on them. It also demonstrates the utility and effectiveness of the flexible, balanced force that we sent to the region.
"Looking ahead to when the main UK forces do withdraw, advance elements of the UK-led international military assistance training team, announced by the Prime Minister on 27th March, will be arriving in Freetown very shortly. The training team is part of the Government's wider programme of assistance in helping the government in Sierra Leone restore peace and stability after eight years of brutal civil war. The team will provide advice and training to help the government of Sierra Leone re-build a new, effective, democratically accountable armed force and Ministry of Defence in line with the Lomé peace agreement.
"Perhaps I may also take this opportunity to assure the House that we will also continue to be very mindful of the situation regarding the detainees, the delicate position of Major Andrew Harrison, and work on the continuing search for the missing aid worker Alan Smith.
"Creating new, democratically accountable armed forces in Sierra Leone is vital to the long-term restoration of peace and security in the country. The UK will provide the majority of the personnel, but the team will be a multinational effort. We are encouraging other countries with an interest in building peace in Sierra Leone to contribute to building it up—as soon as it is safe to do so—to a team of about 90 strong.
"Given the return to violence by the RUF, we will also be giving the Sierra Leone army access, if needed for operations and under the supervision of British officers, to stocks of light weapons and ammunition. The precise distribution of arms and
666
ammunition will be carefully considered in the context of the local political situation and the wider regional issues.
"Our Armed Forces are doing an excellent job, as has been widely acknowledged both here and internationally. Our servicemen and women can be justifiably proud of the job they have done. What we are now setting in place are the arrangements for our continuing support to the government of Sierra Leone.
"Our deployment has been a practical example of the British ground forces being a force for good and has clearly demonstrated the flexible deployment concept that was at the heart of the Strategic Defence Review. We are showing both that we can deploy forces rapidly in response to a crisis but also that we will withdraw them when we judge it is right to do so.
"In summary, our immediate mission remains the same: to secure the airport for evacuation purposes and to allow the reinforcement of the UN force. Our assumptions on timing remain the same: the buildup of UN forces between now and mid-June is on schedule. The replacement of the Paras by the Marines is a sensible military step which preserves our capability on the ground for the remainder of this mission, while allowing the Parachute Regiment to return to the UK.
"Finally, our commitment to promoting stability and security in Sierra Leone remains the same. Our decision to enhance the capability of the Sierra Leone army is an essential element of that.
"We will continue to do all we reasonably can to help the UN achieve its mission, including with advice and logistical support. Britain will continue to stand by the people of Sierra Leone in their search for permanent peace."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. As the Secretary of State has rightly said, a major and justified tribute should be paid to the work of the British forces in Sierra Leone. By all we see and hear, they are doing the most remarkable job. I am sure that they will continue to do so but I trust that they will not need to do so for too long.
I must again ask about the aims of the operation. The Statement says that the aims of going in were the evacuation of British nationals and to get United Nations reinforcements into Sierra Leone. There is no doubt that what has happened is wider than that. It has our complete support because it is designed to stabilise the political and military situation in Sierra Leone, but it is not quite what was stated at the beginning as being the aim.
We welcome most warmly the replacement of the 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment with 42 Commando Royal Marines. The Statement points out

667
that conditions at Lungi airport and around it are very basic. The fact that we have HMS "Ocean" and other detachments nearby means that life for those who are conducting operations will be very much more comfortable than it would if they had to set up at the airport on their own.
What consideration is being given to the problem of the forthcoming rainy season? The Statement refers to the humid and unpleasant atmosphere on the spot, but that will be made very much worse when the place is a sea of mud, as it will be between quite shortly and November.
One or two questions come to mind which should be asked. Has the Sierra Leone Government full control of the Sierra Leone army? We are looking for political and military stability, but we can get that stability only if a responsible government are in charge. It is not certain whether the Sierra Leone army has the benefit of the training officers and advisers from this country. In the light of that, the infusion of officers to train the Sierra Leone army is very welcome. I am sure that they will do an extremely good job.
My noble friend Lord Attlee and I were strongly criticised by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, for talking about the rules of engagement. I shall not do that now. Rules of engagement are important at a certain level. They are written on pieces of plastic card so that soldiers know what they may or may not do. But I should like to ask the Minister about the concept of operations in Sierra Leone. I started off by saying that what seemed to be happening was wider than was originally designed. So what is the concept of operations? Do we have absolute clarity about our aims and where we intend the Sierra Leone government to end up?
I am sure that everything that can be done by British forces on the ground, in the air and at sea will be done, but there then comes a moment of how and when we get out. One of my noble friends told me that after the previous Statement a friend of his on the ground in Sierra Leone had been told that they would be there for 45 days, which is not the figure we had been quoted. No matter. But do we know how and when we will get out; and if the situation does deteriorate—let us hope that it does not, but in Kosovo and places like that it did deteriorate—what is going to happen and what plans have been made? Let us hope that our forces can be centred around HMS "Ocean" and they can get straight out, but I do not believe that it will necessarily he easy. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us what plans have been made.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we on these Benches warmly congratulate the commanding officer and the personnel of our Armed Forces in Sierra Leone on their professionalism and efficiency and on the remarkable transformation that they have wrought already in the morale of the Sierra Leone armed forces, which, as the Statement says, has turned the tide against the RUF.
668
Will the build-up of the United Nations forces in Sierra Leone to the new strengths that were requested by the Secretary-General in his report to the Security Council of 19th July be complete by the time we are scheduled to leave in mid-June? Will that build-up contain the particular mix of forces for which the Secretary-General has asked, including additional air transportation assets, helicopters, the maritime unit of six armed patrol boats and so on? Have promises been made by contributing states to provide those forces? Do we have the heavy lift capacity to bring them into the area by the middle of June when our forces are scheduled to withdraw?
The Statement says that we are aiming to build up an effective armed force in Sierra Leone. Pursuant to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, are the Government satisfied that within the proposed timescale the government of Sierra Leone will exert effective control over the three sets of armed forces that are engaged in the battle against the RUF? One is the Sierra Leone army proper, which I understand is quite small. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on that point.
When we are talking about training, I assume—he will correct me if I am wrong—that the training will be provided only for the regular armed forces and not for the Kamajors or for the forces under the control of Johnny Paul Koroma, which have been acting in support of the government but which, as I understand it, frequently do their own thing and therefore ought not to be supplied with weapons or ammunition or even training by the British Government. In connection with the transfer of weapons, which is mentioned in the Statement, will we make sure that the serial numbers of all weapons so transferred will be recorded so that if by any chance they do get into the hands of the RUF we can identify them and recover them if possible?
Have the Government considered whether, in consultation with the authorities in Sierra Leone, to request Foday Sankoh to make a radio broadcast calling on the members of the RUF to lay down their arms and to agree to the Lomé accords which provide for their demobilisation and disbandment? Furthermore, the RUF should be requested to release the hostage peacekeepers, 290 of whom are still being held by RUF units. Will the Government join with me in thanking President Charles Taylor of Liberia for the efforts he has made to secure the release of some 260 of the hostages? Can we ask him whether there is anything that we could do to assist in the process of securing the release of the remainder?
5 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Burnham and Lord Avebury, for their helpful comments on the Statement. I should like also to thank sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, for his well-meant comments in respect of the Government's present policy on this issue.

669
The noble Lord asked about the references made in the Statement to the mission of the UK forces. I simply say that, so far as concerns our troops—and as reaffirmed by the Defence Secretary in the House on 15th May—British forces were deployed to allow for the safe evacuation of British nationals and other entitled personnel. Essential to that has been the securing of Lungi airport, which, as the Foreign Secretary said, will be extremely valuable to the United Nations forces as they build up over the next month. That was confirmed by the Prime Minister on 11th May and remains our position today.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, on the effect of the rainy season, which is due to begin shortly, I am sure that that comment will be borne in mind by the strategists when they consider the issue in the round. I am sure that noble Lords share my hope that by the time the rainy season arrives, we shall have been able to withdraw from operations in Sierra Leone.
On the concept of operation, I can say on that issue only that it remains the same. A general pattern has been developed that we should protect and also offer the safe evacuation of British nationals and other qualifying people; that we shall protect Lungi airport and assist the United Nations to bring in its peacekeeping forces over the coming month. The general pattern on plans for withdrawal is now well on course and, in terms of the time-scale that we have allowed for those plans, we are well on course.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised several issues. As regards morale, I think the actions taken on this occasion by Her Majesty's Government, not only to assist the government of Sierra Leone but also to assist the United Nations in its build-up of forces, have in themselves given a boost to the morale of those involved in Sierra Leone, and in particular the government.
As regards the build-up of United Nations forces and whether that is likely to be completed before our troops are in a position to withdraw, the present indications are that the UN has in place more than 11,000 troops. It appears that the figure that the United Nations has established for the peacekeeping force is well on course to be satisfied. It also appears that we shall be in a position to have the UN forces well established by the time the United Kingdom forces need to withdraw.
Furthermore, the United Nations will charter its own heavy lift equipment. United Nations forces have quickly been built up by the contributing nations. The Russians have provided four attack helicopters that are due to arrive shortly. Our replacement of forces and future withdrawal will be made in parallel with the build-up of the United Nations capability.
A further point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, concerned the training facilities which have been afforded by Her Majesty's Government. It is our intention that those will be dealt with in accordance with the wishes of the government of Sierra Leone. I am sure that his point about the regular armed forces
670
is valid and no doubt it will be taken on board. Perhaps I may also assure the noble Lord on the point he made about serial numbers. That, too, will be considered.
5.07 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, my noble friend has spelt out clearly and in great detail the aims and objectives of this intervention. I understand that he has told the House that two aims are being pursued: first, to create a more effective United Nations force; and, secondly, to enable the government of Sierra Leone to restore order in their own country. Those aims are perfectly acceptable and for my part I agree with them wholeheartedly. However, perhaps I may make the point that this has moved a long way from an emergency operation to remove from the airport at Lungi British citizenry who had gathered in a hotel in order for that removal to take place. The situation is no worse for that, but it is different. Because of that difference, I believe that certain extra considerations should now apply.
I should first say in parenthesis that of course I think that our troops have done a superb job. I also think that the rotation being proposed by the Government makes a great deal of sense. However, I think that two questions now arise. First, can my noble friend ensure that the Government do not set down in their plans a firm timetable for withdrawal? If they do, then they may well find themselves in a situation where they cannot live up to that timetable. Given the aims that have been detailed by my noble friend, with which I totally agree, it may be that progress takes longer than we can foresee at this stage, or indeed than we would wish. For those reasons, I hope that the Government will not paint themselves into a corner here.
Secondly, are the Government satisfied that we have obtained Security Council cover for the actions we are taking? I may be wrong, but as far as I know, I do not think that our participation in the recent events in Sierra Leone has been considered by the Security Council in New York. Obviously we are maintaining a close liaison with the United Nations itself and I sincerely hope that, broadly speaking, we are doing what the UN thinks is sensible and what we think it is sensible for the UN to think is sensible. It is important to get the legalities absolutely right. If we do not, we may find ourselves treading on difficult ground. I do not expect my noble friend the Minister—particularly since it is his birthday—to reply in detail on the intricacies of the legal situation so far as concerns the Security Council. I see that my noble friend Lady Scotland is sitting next to him. If one or other of them could undertake to write to me on the matter of Security Council authorisation, I should be grateful.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments and his well-meant words of support. I thank him particularly for the caution he expressed in relation to a timetable. I do not think that noble Lords would want me to comment hypothetically on a timetable or any of the issues concerning our involvement in Sierra Leone. The timetable is on course. British forces were indeed deployed to allow

671
the safe evacuation of British nationals and other entitled personnel. An essential has been the securing of Lungi airport. As the Foreign Secretary has said, it will be extremely valuable in allowing United Nations forces to build up during the next month. That was reaffirmed by the Prime Minister on 11th May and it basically remains our position today.
In response to the further point made by my noble friend, I assure him that, throughout, close contact has been made with the United Nations. Indeed, Kofi Annan has welcomed British involvement. I assure my noble friend that the most deep and concerning consultation has taken place with the United Nations throughout the whole of our involvement.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, first, may I thank the Minister for informing the House of the stunningly original fact that West Africa is hot, damp and unhealthy? Secondly, will he please clarify a statement made by Mr Hain as reported in The Times—a journal of record? He is quoted as saying that,
"Sierra Leone is a British colony".
He is further quoted as saying that the training delegation will not be sent in while the war is on at "full tilt". Does that mean that the training delegation waits until the war is over, when it will not be necessary; or waits until the war is lost, when it will be too late? Furthermore, what will happen if there is a longer than temporary occupation. I draw the noble Earl's attention to what Gladstone said about Tel-el-Kebir; namely, that it would be a temporary operation—and the campaign lasted from 1882 to 1956. Are reserve troops ready to go to Sierra Leone when it is time to relieve the Royal Marines, as will undoubtedly become necessary?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I am in some difficulty as regards the newspaper item referred to, and while I accept the noble Earl's back-handed compliment about informing the House of the conditions in Sierra Leone, it is not my intention to comment on any statement by Peter Hain as reported in the press. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that I would not wish to go down that particular route. On the noble Earl's further point, again that is a route that I do not wish to go down. We have set out what is our stated mission in Sierra Leone. It is our intention to carry that out on the basis on which it is presented. I do not want to indulge in hypothetical discussion on what is likely to happen afterwards. If' there are further developments in relation to Sierra Leone, your Lordships will be informed in the normal fashion.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, does the noble Lord believe that there should be a degree of flexibility as regards withdrawal? Do the Government feel obliged to keep our forces in Sierra Leone until all the hostages are released? Specifically, did the 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment have to borrow troops from other units before going to Sierra Leone in order to ensure full strength?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, on the noble Viscount's first point, throughout the course of events in Sierra
672
Leone the appropriate discussions have taken place and we have been in consultation with the United Nations. Regarding his question as to whether the Paras needed reinforcements before leaving for Sierra Leone, I do not have the answer and I shall write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the Statement. What use has the United Nations been able to make of our holding the airport?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I did not quite catch my noble friend's question. I assume that she was referring to the progress we have made as regards capturing the airport.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, perhaps I may put the question again. I apologise to my noble friend; I probably spoke too quickly. I asked what use the United Nations has been able to make of our holding the airport.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for not catching her question initially. The United Nations has certainly appreciated our involvement and it has complimented us in relation to our activities. The United Nations has been quick to respond. Its response has been robust, effective and highly capable. It allows the UN to continue to build up the necessary resources, which will be helpful in our withdrawal from Sierra Leone.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, since the British Government played a major role last year in securing the Lomé Agreement, which brought into government Mr. Foday Sankoh, the leader of the rebels, as Minister responsible for the diamond mines, have the Government given any thought to the kind of political solution they would like to see after the present troubles are resolved? If I understood the Statement correctly, the Secretary of State appears to have said that the situation after the settlement should be in line with the Lomé agreement. As the agreement does what I have just described, and also brings the rebel forces into the armed forces of Sierra Leone, is that really what the Secretary of State said, and did he mean that?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, it is the wish and intention of Her Majesty's Government that we are able to assist in the establishment of a democratic regime in Sierra Leone. It is for the people of Sierra Leone eventually to determine the basis of that government.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I echo his comments about the way in which British forces have performed their duties. One way of judging Her Majesty's Government's view about the future security situation is the advice being given to British nationals and others about leaving Sierra Leone and/or about when it may be safe for them to return. What advice is being given by the Foreign Office? If the

673
present advice is that people should leave, can the noble Lord say when the situation will be sufficiently stable for nationals to return?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the present advice remains that British nationals should leave Sierra Leone. So far there have been 442 evacuations of entitled persons from Sierra Leone. A good number of British nationals and others who are entitled to leave still remain in that country. Our advice is that they should leave. However, we shall constantly reflect upon the circumstances in Sierra Leone.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the other day the papers reported that when the commanding officer of the 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment visited a naval vessel he was asked to divest himself of his clothes which stank so that they could be laundered and he could have a bath. In that part of the world the climate is most unpleasant. What arrangements are being made for the troops to have proper laundry and bathing facilities for the sake of their health? In addition, I suspect that the troops are being fed on compo rations which at best can be described as boring. What arrangements are being made for troops to have fresh food, particularly fruit and vegetables? The noble Lord has already said that the Parachute Regiment is to be replaced by the Royal Marines. What is happening to the support troops? Are they also to be replaced in due course?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's concern about British troops. I regard the 1st Battalion as the crème de la crème of British Armed Forces. I am sure that those troops are capable of looking after themselves in the circumstances. In addition, it is the desire of the British Government that those troops should have all that they need to fulfil the role that they are now playing in Sierra Leone. I am sure that that will be forthcoming. If not, those troops are very capable of making us aware of the circumstances.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing my noble friend a very happy birthday.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that already the presence of British troops has brought about greater stability in Sierra Leone? Will my noble friend join me in congratulating those troops on their efforts to bring about order and a peaceful solution to the unhappy state of affairs in that country?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hoyle for his good wishes. People who reach my age begin to try to forget birthdays. When I arose this morning I hoped that nobody would be aware that I was a year older. I thank my noble friend for his comment about the confidence that has been built up
674
in Sierra Leone by the involvement of British troops. I am sure noble Lords agree that our Armed Forces have been responsible for raising the morale not only of troops generally in that area but of the Government of Sierra Leone and that country's immediate neighbours. Morale has been raised immensely by the involvement of our troops.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what mandate is to be given to the UN troops whose numbers are now to be greatly increased? When they went to Sierra Leone it was intended that they should collect arms from what was believed to be a group that had agreed to give them up. They found themselves confronted by a war and people who, thanks to the Lomé Agreement, now possess the diamond fields. Is anything being done by HMG to get the Security Council to change the UN mandate to the waging of war in order to restore the situation, regain the diamond fields and give the people of Sierra Leone some prospect of surviving? If we merely let the UN troops go there, do nothing and eventually withdraw, so that they are discredited not only in that country but in the rest of Africa, it will all have been for nothing. What is being done to change the UN's mandate so that the people of Sierra Leone may regain the country which they lost thanks to the Lomé Agreement?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that the mandate of the United Nations remains the same. If it is necessary to respond in the way suggested by the noble Baroness I am sure that that will be taken on board. If it is necessary to make an approach along those lines, that will be the course of action which develops in future.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, in the few seconds that remain perhaps I may be allowed to make an observation. I understand that the purpose of these proceedings is to put questions on the Statement. I believe that noble Lords have gone very much further than that in their questions to the Minister, who obviously has not come prepared to deal with such a wide range of issues on matters which do not relate to the Statement. Perhaps I may suggest to the Front Bench that this is a matter that should be considered by the Procedure Committee.

Terrorism Bill
5.27 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Schedule 5 [Terrorist Investigations]:
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 59:
Page 98, line 34, leave out ("procurator fiscal") and insert ("sheriff).
The noble Lord said: The Committee turns now to eight government amendments which relate to Schedule 5. All of the amendments are minor drafting amendments to Part II of the schedule and apply only

675
to Scotland. Amendment No. 59 corrects an unintended reference to the procurator fiscal in paragraph 22(5). The reference should be to the sheriff. The other amendments ensure consistency in drafting between Part I relating to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and Part II relating to Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendments Nos. 60 to 66:
Page 99, line 47, leave out ("discharge") and insert ("recall").
Page 101, line 19, leave out from ("that") to ("immediate").
Page 101, line 21, leave out ("possible") and insert ("is reasonably practicable").
Page 101, line 28, leave out ("without reasonable excuse").
Page 101, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under sub-paragraph (3) to show that he had a reasonable excuse for his failure.").
Page 101, line 42, leave out ("or 32 or").
Page 101, line 42, at end insert ("or a notice under paragraph 32").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 60 to 66 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Further appeal]:
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 67:
Page 102, line 19, after ("liable") insert ("on summary conviction").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 68. They are minor and technical drafting corrections suggested by parliamentary counsel. Amendment No. 67 uses the standard language where the offence is a summary one. The second amendment removes a word which has somehow slipped into the text. They do not change the effect of provisions in any way. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 68:
Page 103, line 7, leave out ("person").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Terrorist: interpretation]:
Lord Lloyd of Berwickmoved Amendment No. 68A:
Page 18, line 41, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment makes sense only if it is taken with Amendment No. 142A. The later amendment solves the difficulty which I have with Clause 40 as drafted.
Clause 41(1) creates a new statutory power of arrest without warrant. There would be nothing wrong with that if, under Clause 41(1), being a terrorist were itself an offence. It would then follow the ordinary law under Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence
676
Act under which the police can always arrest without warrant when they have reasonable suspicion that an arrestable offence has been committed. The trouble is that being a terrorist is not an offence. It is an offence so far as it is covered by Clause 40(1)(a), and if the definition of "terrorist" had stopped there there would have been no problem. But the definition does not stop there. It continues in Clause 40(1)(b), and it is the combination of the power of arrest in Clause 40(1) with the wide words of Clause 40(1)(b) that I have great difficulty in accepting. Being concerned,
"in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism",
is not itself an offence.
The wide power of arrest to which I have referred is far wider than anything that would be permissible under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, but that is only the start of the problem. The much greater problem is that it is also inconsistent with what is permissible under the Human Rights Act.
Article 5(1)(c) of the human rights convention allows a person to be arrested for the purpose of being brought before a court on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence. It is thus very similar to the ordinary English law, and that is perhaps not surprising because the convention itself is, as I suspect we all know, based on English common law. However, the convention is clear. It allows an arrest where a person has committed an offence. It does not permit the power of arrest on reasonable suspicion that a person is concerned in acts of terrorism in general. You must be able to point to a specific offence which he has committed.
The position will become even clearer, and the problem even more difficult, when the Human Rights Act becomes part of English domestic law. In English law, when you arrest a person you must inform him of the offence of which you suspect him. How could that happen in the case of a person arrested under Clause 40(1)(b) when it does not itself create an offence? The answer is that the police officer in those circumstances could not inform the person arrested of what offence he was suspected.
So what will happen when the Human Rights Act becomes part of English domestic law? Let us suppose that one has a person who is arrested. He has committed no offence under Clause 40(1)(a) but is suspected of being a terrorist in general under Clause 40(1)(b). Let us suppose that he challenges the validity of his arrest, as he almost certainly would. The case will then come before the courts, and very probably end up before this House in its judicial capacity. Putting it at its very lowest, there must be a grave doubt whether the validity of his arrest would be upheld. There would then be a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act and Clause 40 would come back again before this House in its legislative capacity in order to make it compatible with the Human Rights Act by amendment—perhaps the omission of Clause 40(1)(b) as it stands. Surely it makes sense to get it right now rather than to leave it until that point has been decided by the courts.

677
When I mentioned this difficulty at Second Reading, the Minister referred in his reply to a case called United Kingdom v. Brogan which came before the Court of Human Rights. However, the case did not decide what I think the Minister believes that it decides. The whole point of that case was that the applicants there were suspected of being members of a proscribed organisation, which is a specific offence, and suspected of various other specific offences. They were not suspected of being involved generally in acts of terrorism, as the Government were at great pains to point out. It was not on that ground that the European court decided at that point in favour of the United Kingdom. Perhaps I may read briefly from the judgment since the case was referred to by the Minister at Second Reading. At page 130 it states:
"In this connection, the government pointed out that the applicants were not in fact suspected of involvement in terrorism in general, but of membership of a proscribed organisation and involvement in specific acts of terrorism, each of which constituted an offence under the law of Northern Ireland and each of which was expressly put to the applicants during the course of their interviews following their arrests".
Therefore, if the Government still rely on United Kingdom v. Brogan in support of that defence of Clause 40 as it currently stands, I suggest that they are on very weak ground.
What is to be done? I suggest that things cannot stay as they are; at the very least, it would not be wise to leave them as they are. There is an obvious solution at hand. It is to make Clause 40(1)(b) into a specific offence under the Bill. If that were done, all the difficulties would disappear and the power of arrest under Clause 41 could no longer be challenged.
That is the purpose of my second amendment, Amendment No. 142A. It might seem far reaching but it is not. It was first proposed as an offence long ago by a committee under Lord Gardiner. I adopted the proposal in my report and repeated my views in commenting on the Government's consultation paper on the Bill. However, they simply answered that in their view the creation of the new offence was not the way ahead. I ask why not. What is wrong with the proposed new offence? It follows conveniently after Clause 56, which makes it an offence for a person to direct the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism. If the director can be liable, why should the member of the organisation not be liable? Why should the individual not be liable even if he is not a member of an organisation?
Clause 57 provides the offence of possession for terrorist purposes. It makes it an offence if a person,
"possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".
Why should the possession of an article make all the difference? Let us suppose that there was convincing evidence from, say, an informer that a person was instigating or preparing to commit an act of terrorism at a certain place and on a certain date. Surely it would
678
make sense that that person should be arrested before rather than after the bomb goes off. Why should the instigation and preparation not itself be an offence? Why should it be an offence only if the instigator is himself in possession of the bomb, which he almost certainly would not be? It does not make sense. If a new offence were inserted between Clauses 56 and 57, it would be added to the list of offences in Clause 40(1)(a) and Clause 40(1)(b) could be omitted without loss.
In summary, I suggest that the new offence is highly desirable in itself and at one stroke it would solve the difficulty under Clauses 40 and 41. Apart from the definition of terrorism in Clause 1, to which I hope we shall be able to return on Report and reach an agreed solution, I am more concerned about Clauses 40 and 41 than any other provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I hope that I have followed the logic of my noble and learned friend in his three amendments. However, I notice that he has not tabled an amendment to delete Clause 41(1). Is he therefore happy that it should remain in the Bill?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: No, I certainly do not wish Clause 41(1) to be deleted. It creates the power of arrest, which is essential. The problem is that that is fine so far as it relates to Clause 40(1)(a) but it is very far from fine so far as it relates to Clause 40(1)(b).
5.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: I rise to speak to my Amendment No. 68BA. Having listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord, I am no wiser than he is about why the Government did not accept the recommendation in his report to create a specific offence of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
If I may venture to speculate, the ambiguity lies in the phrase "being concerned in". If one created an offence of committing, preparing or instigating acts of terrorism, those would be substantive acts. However, I am not sure that the courts would find it easy to interpret "to be concerned in" an act. Perhaps the phrase "being concerned in" occurs in the PTA and elsewhere and does not cause that difficulty. As the noble and learned Lord was speaking, I was struck by the thought that that may have been the reason why the Government were hesitant in accepting the recommendation in his report.
However, he has put his finger on the mischief that is caught by the combined offence under Clauses 40(1)(b) and 41(1). I have approached that from a different angle; that of amending Clause 41(1). I have removed the words "be a terrorist" and inserted:
"have committed or to be about to commit an act of terrorism within the meaning of section 1".
That would still mean that a person who is concerned in the commission, preparation and instigation of acts of terrorism would not be liable to arrest without a warrant, but the noble and learned Lord believes that

679
he should be. However, if the two provisions remain as they stand, it would be a contravention of Article 5.1(c) of the ECHR.
Again, I ask the Minister to explain to the Committee how he can possibly have concluded that the provision is compatible with the Human Rights Act. It passes my comprehension. The particular article in the convention permits arrest to bring a person before a competent legal authority, first, on the grounds of reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence; secondly, as a necessary measure to prevent the person from committing an offence; and, thirdly, in order to prevent a person from fleeing, having already committed an offence. The second ground—that is, to prevent a person from committing an offence—has been interpreted by the European Court as meaning that the anticipated offence must be a concrete and specific act. That was in the case of Guzzardi v.Italy.
Therefore, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that together the clauses as they now stand contravene Article 5.1(c) and also possibly Article 5.2, which requires anyone who is arrested to be informed of the reasons for his arrest. I hope that the noble Lord will listen to the advice that he has been offered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, with the wide experience and background that he has in these matters. We cannot allow the wording of these two clauses to remain unaltered. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will assure the Committee that something will be done by the Government before we reach Report stage so that we do not have to return to the matter again.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: First, for the record I make an extremely small point. I believe that there is a misprint on the Marshalled List, which states "leave out paragraph (6)". It should, of course, read "leave out paragraph (b)".
I find the noble and learned Lord's formulation of what we are trying to achieve much more satisfactory than the terms of the Bill. I do not believe that there is a great deal of difference in what the Government and the noble and learned Lord and others are trying to achieve. The question is how to achieve it through the most satisfactory wording.
However, this matter concerns more than simply a drafting point. If the noble and learned Lord is correct, as I believe he is from my knowledge, which is so much less than his, that the European Convention on Human Rights, and particularly the writing of it into our own domestic law, will upset this provision and make it inoperable, that, of course, is a serious matter. We all want it to be possible to arrest terrorists and for powers to be used in a preventive capacity in order to avoid the bomb going off, and so on. We all want that. The question is how to achieve it and make it stick if it comes to a court case.
One of the features of virtually all terrorist offences is that they require a great deal of elaborate preparation. They involve many people. They often involve passing a gun, both before and after its use,
680
between various carriers so as to avoid detection and to avoid the person who does the shooting being caught with the weapon. The events which surround the commission of a murder or the letting off of a bomb are as much terrorist offences and as essential to the satisfactory execution of the offence as the actual firing of the gun. That is why it is important to catch and to be able to convict the other people who are involved.
It is said that this produces an extension of the offences under the Act. It does, but it is a very small extension given, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, that membership of a proscribed organisation, direction and other things akin to it are already offences. The extension proposed in Amendment No. 142A is very small but I believe valuable.
I wish to make one or two small points. Clause 42(1), which deals with the search of premises, depends on Clause 40(1)(b)—the paragraph that the amendment seeks to delete—and clearly would need to be modified. I do not believe that,
"a person falling within section 40(1)(b)",
is very happy wording. However, we are not concerned with its happiness or otherwise; we are concerned with the fact that that wording needs to be modified as well.
Another point that I wish to make is that, rather curiously, none of this applies to the offences set out in Clause 13. All the other relevant clauses seem to be listed, but Clause 13, which concerns the wearing of a terrorist uniform, is omitted. However, there is a specific provision in Clause 13 for arrest in Scotland n that connection. But that seemed to me to be odd.
So far as concerns the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the words "concerned in", as those words occur in both the Government's draft in the Bill and in the noble and learned Lord's amendment, I am prepared to accept them as being necessary in order to catch the people who are peripheral to the key offence, be it murder or whatever. Therefore, I support the amendments.
Lord Goodhart: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has put his finger on what he has shown beyond doubt to be a serious defect in the drafting of Clauses 40 and 41. It is more than a pure technical defect and will require a rethinking of the operation of those clauses. I believe that the solution that he has found certainly goes a long way to dealing with the problem. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I have a certain concern about the use of the word "concerned". I believe it is arguable that that is rather too broad and general a word, and I should be interested to hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say when he winds up this debate.
Therefore, I am inclined to prefer a solution more on the lines, if perhaps not in the identical words, of that put forward by my noble friend Lord Avebury to make it clear that a specific offence must have been committed or is about to be committed by the person who is arrested.

681
So far as concerns the word "concerned", I believe that my worry has been increased by looking at Clause 3, which refers to the question as to when an organisation is concerned in terrorism. Under Clause 3(5),
"an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it—

(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,

(b) prepares for terrorism,

(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or

(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism".

While paragraph (d) is extremely general, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are fairly specific. When creating a new offence, I wonder whether it would not be desirable to be as specific as are paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 3(5). Again, that is a point on which I should be interested to hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say. However, I believe that his own amendment, Amendment No. 142A, is perhaps not yet quite tight enough with regard to his definition of what is the requisite degree of involvement in an act of terrorism.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am extraordinarily grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, for the way in which he has advanced his arguments this evening. I rather felt that we were at a learned disputation on the subject, and I found it very helpful.
The arguments that the noble and learned Lord set out are not entirely new to us. He set them out before in his report on the legislation against terrorism, and he made them very fully in his response to the Government's consultation paper and again with great courtesy at Second Reading of the Bill. I am drawn to conclude that it is rather strange to hear in the year 2000 that a power that has been on the statute book for some 25 years, unchallenged, as it has been, since the Brogan case, suddenly is fatally flawed. However, the noble and learned Lord has advanced a good argument.
The Government have not reached lightly the conclusion that the power is compatible with the convention. We can see serious drawbacks to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. For that reason, we shall not yield on this issue. One or two noble Lords have drawn attention to some drafting flaws, if nothing more. However, we wish to take up some fundamental issues against this amendment. We have looked very carefully at the points made by the noble and learned Lord, but, as I said on Second Reading, this is an issue on which, with the greatest respect, we have formed a very different view, and I shall set out why.
The Government are not persuaded that it is necessary to create a separate and new offence of terrorism; nor do they believe that that would be entirely desirable.
I deal first with the necessity for the offence. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, proposes an offence of terrorism primarily, it seems, because of his quite understandable concern that the arrest power under the Bill would not otherwise comply with Article 5(1)(c) of the ECHR, which
682
provides that a person's arrest must be effected for the purpose of bringing the person before a competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence. With the greatest respect, the Government take a different view.
In Brogan v. the United Kingdom in 1988 the Government argued successfully that it was not necessary to have arrested someone under the Prevention of Terrorism Act arrest power in connection with a specific offence in order to be compliant with Article 5(1)(c) of the convention. They argued that the way the arrest power was formulated in terms of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism should be regarded for convention purposes as a power of arrest for an offence.
The Court accepted that submission, saying that the arrest and subsequent detention of the applicants were based on a reasonable suspicion of an offence within the meaning of Article 5(1)(c).
While the Government recognise that no particular case can settle an ECHR point for all time—that has to be the case—and that the Court underlined that the particular circumstances of the Brogan case influenced the decision it took, the Government continue to be of the view that a terrorist arrest power, without an explicit link to a specific offence, is compatible with the ECHR and Article 5(1)(c) in particular. It was on that basis that the Section 19(1)(a) Human Rights Act certificate was signed.
6 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Would the noble Lord remind the Committee whether the case of Brogan came before or after the case of Guzzardi v. Italy in the European Court and whether or not in the case of Guzzardi, it was ruled that the anticipated offence must be a concrete and specific act?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Lord for his question. I shall undertake inquiries and respond to him in due course.
I am aware that parties other than the noble and learned Lord have expressed concern about the vulnerability of the terrorist arrest power in the Bill to a successful challenge by the ECHR. The concern appears to focus on the fact that it was the particular circumstances of the Brogan case that resulted in the Government's case being upheld and that such a result could not be relied upon in future cases.
That gives me the opportunity to reiterate the Government's position on the way in which the specific Section 14(1)(b) terrorist power of arrest under the PTA works and how it is envisaged that the terrorist arrest power will operate under the Bill. The arrest power will be available for use where, and only where, a constable has reasonable suspicion that a person is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; and the purpose will be with a view to securing sufficient usable and admissible evidence in criminal proceedings against the person concerned.

683
The Court in Brogan ruled that the reference in Article 5 to an "arrest for an offence" included arrest for this purpose, and we rely on that position. It follows from what I have said that we do not agree that it was necessary to create an individual offence of being involved in terrorism. The question therefore is whether it might be desirable for any other reason to create such an offence, and on balance the Government think not.
The activities in which terrorists engage are, we believe, already caught by specific criminal offences. The situation has moved on significantly since the Gardiner report in 1975, to which the noble and learned Lord referred earlier. That recommended the individual offence of terrorism. We now have offences of, for example, directing a terrorist organisation, recruiting and training. Indeed, we believe that the Bill plugs a few gaps in that respect in that certain of these offences have up to now been available only in Northern Ireland and their extent is now broadened to be UK-wide.
On balance the Government prefer to rely on the existing offences under the criminal law, which they believe adequately cover the ground, rather than to create an additional individual offence of terrorism, which the noble and learned Lord's approach would deliver. That approach is also consistent with our view that the occasions on which terrorists are treated differently from "ordinary" criminals should be kept to an absolute minimum. I know and understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, supports that. Because of the way terrorists are organised, financed and operate, dealing with such persons requires special measures, but their acts remain the ordinary callous acts of murder, bombings, arson and so forth, and we believe that they should be recognised as such.
It is with regret that the Government have taken the view that they cannot agree with the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, for the creation of an act of terrorism. I hope that the Committee has found my explanation of our position helpful.
The police have found the current arrest power, with its link into a separate offence, operationally invaluable, and they certainly support our proposal to retain this approach in the new Bill.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will reflect on the points that have been made and perhaps not press his amendments this evening.
I turn now to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. This provides that the terrorist arrest power may be used only in connection with a person a constable reasonably suspects to have committed or to be about to commit an act of terrorism within the meaning of Clause 1. We believe that this amendment unduly narrows the availability for the arrest power in a very unhelpful way. First, it is not clear that all the terrorist offences listed in the Bill will be caught by the formula "have committed or to be about to commit an act of terrorism" For example, it is by no means certain that the terrorist fund-raising clauses would be caught; nor, indeed, the offence of
684
directing a terrorist organisation, which is to be found in Clause 54. Yet we believe it is essential that the terrorist arrest power should be just as much available in connection with those who support terrorism in less direct ways, such as these, as for those who actually undertake the terrorist acts themselves. I think there has been common agreement to that approach.
Also, the Government think that a move to the formula of a person who a constable reasonably suspects to have committed or to be about to commit an act of terrorism from the current formula concerning the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism again narrows unacceptably the arrest power. It does not explicitly include acts which, behind the scenes, support the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
The Government do not want the police to be in a position where they may only be able to arrest the man actually with the bomb. That would be ridiculous.
The Government are not persuaded that, having accepted that there should be a special terrorist arrest power, it should be available only to respond to some of the more front-line actions in which terrorists engage. Moreover, the arrest power and the linked detention regime is of particular use when there is a reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism but it is not yet clear what that involvement actually amounts to. That is where the additional time to check statements, run forensic tests and carry out other operational matters is most valuable, and yet the amendment would mean that the terrorist power of arrest would not be available in those very important circumstances.
The police are firm in the view that the special arrest power has been the key to their ability to prevent, disrupt and investigate terrorism. I believe that to modify the power as the noble and learned Lord suggests would seriously hinder their effectiveness and I would hope that, on reflection, he would not wish to press his amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me a specific question. I do not have the answer to that question this afternoon, and nor do my officials. I am more than happy to carry out some research so as to provide an answer to that point. If the noble Lord is satisfied on that point, I shall write to him and provide those details to other Members of your Lordships' House.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I am grateful for what the Minister said, although I am not sure that he has carried the matter much further than he did on Second Reading. I shall certainly study what he said with great care. I am grateful also for what other Members of the Committee have said.
It may be that the proposed new offence is drafted somewhat too widely. The reason that the words,
"concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation"
of offences are included in the proposed new offence is that that was the wording I found in the existing legislation. But I notice that the words "concerned in"

685
are not to be found in the offence originally proposed by Lord Gardiner. There is possibly scope for redrafting to make it tighter.
As I say, I shall study what the Minister said. This is an important point. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts on the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68B not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Arrest without warrant]
[Amendment No. 68BA not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 68C:
Page 19, line 10, leave out ("48") and insert ("36").
The noble Lord said: Four amendments in this group, standing in the names of my noble friends and myself—Amendments Nos. 68C, 95A, 103A and 103B—have been instigated by the Law Society and we have agreed and are pleased to put them forward.
Amendments Nos. 68C and 95A require certain rules as to the time a person can be held on the authority of the police to be brought into line with the times provided in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, generally known as PACE. Under Clause 41, the time during which someone who has been arrested can be held without charge on the authority of the police without the need for any judicial intervention is 48 hours. Under PACE, the equivalent period is 36 hours.
There is no justification or need for different time limits under this Bill and under PACE, most obviously because most of the offences which are likely to lead to arrest under Clause 41 will themselves be offences to which PACE applies. Therefore, since PACE requires the period to be limited to 36 hours, it means that the period will, in effect, be 36 hours in any event.
Thirty-six hours should be quite sufficient to enable a competent police officer to investigate an offence and decide whether or not to charge or request a further period of detention. Obviously, a suspect can be detained longer but not simply on the say-so of the police and 36 hours seems an appropriate period for this Bill as well as for PACE within which the police should be required to obtain judicial authority for the continued detention of the suspect.
The effect of Amendment No. 95A is again to ensure that a judicial review takes place not only at the end of the first 36 hours but at successive intervals of no more than 36 hours thereafter. As matters stand, an accused person may be detained for up to seven days from the time of his arrest subject to only one review by a court after 48 hours. That is under Schedule 8. This amendment would ensure that a judicial review takes place every 36 hours.
Under PACE, if a court decides to allow a period of further detention, it is only for 36 hours at a time, unlike in this Bill where the police could detain a
686
suspect for a further period of five days without having to satisfy a court at any time during that period that the continued detention was necessary and justified.
It is crucial that continued detention is regularly and independently justified and that the judicial authority is satisfied that the police conduct their inquiries expeditiously.
The second two amendments in the group concern a different aspect of detention; namely, the right of representation of the suspect when the question of the suspect's continued detention is being considered by the court.
The problem arises because under paragraph 35(3) of Schedule 8, on the hearing of an application for extension of detention under Clause 41, it is provided that,
"A judicial authority may exclude from any part of the hearing … both the person to whom the application relates",
that is, the suspect, and,
"anyone who is representing him".
Potentially, that means that the suspect might have nobody in a position to defend him and may be faced with the position where the case for continued detention is being put by the police alone.
Amendments Nos. 103A and 103B are alternative amendments. Perhaps I may first take Amendment No. 103B because it is more far-reaching. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that a decision on further detention is not made by a judicial authority without the authority taking into account the suspect's responses to the reasons asserted for the need for continued detention. It does so by making subparagraph (3) ineffective if that would prevent the suspect from responding fully to the reasons given for the request for continued detention.
The alternative is Amendment No. 103A which makes sub-paragraph (3) apply only on the application of the Crown prosecutor or authorised advocate or litigant. The purpose is to ensure that if an application is made for continued detention at a time when the suspect and his representative have been excluded, there is at least an independent and objective legal element present in the court to ensure that the matter is not dealt with solely by the police, the Crown prosecutor or the authorised advocate being the person in question.
If one or other of the amendments is not accepted, there is a serious risk of miscarriage of justice. What is required is that there should be either a representative of the suspect present or, at least, somebody who is independent of the police, legally qualified and subject to a professional duty to be fair and who has considered the public interest need for such an application. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that he thought that there was no justification for a time-limit of 48 hours instead of 36 hours for detention in line with PACE. I believe that there is justification and that justification is clearly set out in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, at paragraph 9.10 and in following paragraphs.

687
I shall not refer to that in detail as it is set out in those paragraphs, but he draws attention to the additional problems faced by the police in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland in dealing with terrorist suspects.
Such problems arise from a number of matters. Often cases involve great complexity; sometimes it is necessary to refer to inquiries overseas, and so on; and these days terrorists in Northern Ireland and those from other terrorist organizations—many of them consult and learn from one another—are highly trained to resist interrogation and to resist co-operating with the police in any way. I am quite prepared to go along with the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and with the Bill and to stick with the 48 hours.
There are a number of other amendments in this group in my name and those of my noble friends that concern the related matter of who should decide about the extension of detention. The proposal in the Bill is that in future in all cases, including in Northern Ireland, detention should be extended only through judicial authority. "Judicial authority" is defined in the Bill, but basically it is shorthand for judges.
I believe that, particularly in Northern Ireland, it should still be the Secretary of State who is able to decide on the extension of detention beyond the 48 hours. As is mentioned in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, the judiciary in Northern Ireland have been, and remain, against having such a responsibility. I can well understand why. I do not want to make the job of the Northern Ireland judiciary more difficult than it is already. I have the highest respect for all that the Northern Ireland judiciary has had to put up with—I hope that is not too weak a term—over many years. After all, some of them have given their lives in the process. I believe that in a matter of this kind we should take the view of the judiciary in Northern Ireland extremely seriously.
However, there is a wider point of principle. In this context I refer particularly to Northern Ireland. If the judiciary become involved in the decision as to whether to extend the period of detention in order to allow an investigation to proceed, they will become drawn into the whole matter of the investigation and its supervision. Necessarily, they will have to consider intelligence evidence that could not be presented in open court but which it would be essential to consider when deciding whether to detain suspects for longer. Quite rightly, in Northern Ireland the separation of the process comes between, on the one hand, the judges, who are responsible for conducting the courts, and, on the other hand, the Secretary of State and the police, who are responsible for investigation, intelligence and weighing up all that. That is extremely important.
We all hope that in future the situation in Northern Ireland will not be as it has been in the past and as it was when I was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. We hope that in future peace will reign and that everything will be much easier, as it is, to a large extent in Great Britain. However, this Bill is not planned in its entirety on that supposition. The report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was written on the
688
basis of what to do after peace has been arrived at in Northern Ireland. Quite rightly, part of the Bill takes account of the fact that even if in the next few days a settlement is reached with the main parties in Northern Ireland—as we all dearly hope—there are likely to be terrorists—maybe maverick groups of terrorists that are not under the control of the main terrorist organisations about which we hear so much—still operating and those powers will still be required. I believe that they will be required and I do not believe that we should plan on the assumption that they will not be required. Among those powers are those to which I referred about who decides on the extension of detention.
I appreciate that I am talking entirely about the position in Northern Ireland, as opposed to that in Great Britain. The amendments that I have tabled refer to the whole of Great Britain. In general, the arguments, although not as strong as far as Great Britain is concerned, are similar and while I would be prepared to accept alterations to the amendments to confine this point to Northern Ireland, I believe that it is desirable that the same should happen in both jurisdictions. Although the arguments are not as strong, I believe that they apply on both sides of the water. For that reason I believe that Amendment No. 95, and the others that follow it, are desirable.
Of course, they also have the effect of continuing to ensure that the Secretary of State arrives at a decision in private, rather than the matter taking place in court with representations from the opposite side. I recognise that that is a departure from what one may want in this context, but I believe that it is a justified departure, and such a situation has been the practice up to now. I believe that Amendment No. 95 and the others grouped with it are justified.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I warmly agree with what has been said by my noble friend. It is of paramount importance that the reputation and perceived position of the judiciary in Northern Ireland as being wholly independent of the Executive should be preserved. They are jealous of that reputation, which is one that I have never heard seriously challenged even during my time in Northern Ireland from republican sources. They have achieved that tremendous prize themselves and they are rightly jealous to retain it.
I know that it was the view of at least one previous Lord Chief Justice that the jurisdiction that is now sought to be bestowed upon them by the Bill, in place of the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State, would be harmful to that reputation. I am pretty confident, although I cannot absolutely assure the Committee, that that was the view of two Lord Chief Justices. Whether it was the view of one or two Lord Chief Justices, that view is soundly based because, as my noble friend has said, a member of the judiciary would be drawn into deciding matters that would be perceived as pertaining to the Executive role. When one looks at the matters which he would have to take into account in Schedule 8, one sees how sensitive they are.

689
It may be said on behalf of the Government that there is a parallel jurisdiction held by magistrates to decide whether or not, after 24 hours—it may be 48—an extension should be permitted. I ask the Government to accept that the matters which magistrates have to take into account under PACE are a world away from the matters which the judiciary would have to take into account in Northern Ireland in terrorist cases.
I suggest also that, if this provision were implemented, we would find significantly less covert information coming forward to the police from informers. They would fear that, no matter what the reputation of the judge hearing the application, somehow or other their identity would get out. That is a fact of life and that would be the advice received by the Government if it has not already been received by the chief constable. I need scarcely mention how important it is, in the battle of terrorism under the rule of law, that there should be an uninhibited supply of information from people who do not wish their identity to be known, or even to risk it becoming known. That is a second important factor to add to that already alluded to by my noble friend.
The last point I should like to make on Amendment No. 95 is that one must always look to see whether a proposed change in the law will be an improvement on what exists at the moment. In that regard it may be helpful for me to mention how the system works at present. As has been made clear, it falls to the Secretary of State to hear an application by the police to extend a period of detention beyond 48 hours and up to a maximum of seven days, which is rarely asked for, before a judicial authority is involved. That procedure is extremely scrupulously operated. In the vast majority of cases the authority is given by the Secretary of State after careful consideration of the application put forward in paper form. Occasionally it may be taken by a junior Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State. On rare occasions it may be given by the Permanent Under-Secretary, but always subject, at the first opportunity, to ratification by the Secretary of State. It is a scrupulously operated procedure. And it is by no means unknown for the Secretary of State to refuse such an application.
Moreover, the operation of that procedure is subject to the surveillance and monitoring of an independent commissioner—it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, a few years ago—who has the right to call for all papers in every case in which this jurisdiction has been exercised, and who has the duty to report each year to Parliament on his findings. It is unusual—I do not recall an occasion—for the Secretary of State to be critical of a genuine mistake. Indeed, when a genuine mistake is discovered by officials in the Northern Ireland Office, that is always voluntarily drawn to the attention of the commissioner for subsequent ratification or at least remedy.
The present situation provides a fair and practical safeguard against abuse, given the circumstances of Northern Ireland and the need to combat terrorism. I
690
ask the Minister therefore to consider carefully whether it is wise to accede to what has been a nationalist request for a long time—I grant that—but against which powerful arguments can properly be ranged.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I appreciate the great experience that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, brings to bear on this subject, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I am sure that they both signed a number of extension orders during their time in Northern Ireland, as I did. But I am not totally persuaded by the arguments deployed in relation to Amendment No. 95.
I signed such orders. They were always meticulously presented. The arguments were clearly stated and on only two occasions did I go beyond the PACE maximum of 96 hours. There was never a request for more than an increment of 48 hours' detention and never for the full five days. But the arguments were clearly presented.
I do not understand why, given the expression "the rule of law" used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that rule of law is not better fulfilled by a politician extending the period during which an accused person is kept in custody rather than it being done as a judicial process. I had to sign extension orders when I was on duty at the weekend in the absence of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so he would have signed many more than any duty Minister. However, I can recall no occasion when, on the information presented to me about a specific individual or a number of individuals, there could have been any difficulty in a judge looking at the same information and deciding whether or not extension was appropriate.
I am not persuaded by the argument in relation to informers. I do not remember all the details of individual instances and it would not be appropriate, if I could remember them, to refer to them here. But I cannot think of any instance where the manner in which the information was presented to me would have in any way prejudiced the anonymity of an informer had that same information been presented to the judge.
A further point is that at the moment the United Kingdom has a derogation, under the European Convention on Human Rights, to enable this procedure to continue. That derogation may not be permitted in the future. I am not totally familiar with the procedures of derogation but that is my understanding. It seems to me that, as a country, we are sailing close to the wind in continuing a procedure which is not one that is fully in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. That will have more focus when the Human Rights Act comes into force in October this year.
Therefore, while bowing to experience, I prefer the system which reflects the rule of law as completely as possible; in a nutshell, that decisions in relation to detention should not be made by politicians; they should be made by judges. Judges can bring the full

691
impartiality of their position to bear when making those decisions. It may be that the decisions will be no different and in practice it will make no difference. But the perception of the process will be different and the way in which this country does these things will be perceived to be better done by the judiciary rather than politicians.
The thought that the Northern Ireland system, as it is now, will be extended to other parts of the United Kingdom makes me even more concerned about Amendment No. 95 and the related amendments. I hope that the Government will not be swayed by the arguments we have just heard.
Lord Hylton: I wish to say a few words about the rather narrow point concerning a second review by an independent person after 48 hours following arrest and before the expiration of a period of seven days. I believe that this point is covered by one of the amendments in this group. I am aware that Schedule 8 already provides that there will be a review every 12 hours by a police officer of fairly senior rank.
However, let us imagine a case where the wrong persons have been arrested. They may be people of low intelligence, suffering from mental impairment or learning difficulties, who may, even if they do not suffer from those conditions, have weak characters and be very suggestible. These are the kind of circumstances in which miscarriages of justice have been known to occur in the past. I have in mind the case of the Guildford Four, of which I had some slight personal experience. It seems to me to be rather important that there should be provision for a second review by an independent person.
I should just like to add the suggestion—I do so rather diffidently, knowing that this Bill applies to the whole of the United Kingdom and not just to Northern Ireland—that such a review might be conducted by an ombudsman. After all, he is a person who is not attached to the judiciary or indeed to the executive.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had a most interesting and useful debate, which has focused on the two different approaches from the Benches opposite. The Official Opposition seeks to retain the current position whereby the Secretary of State authorises detention after the 48-hour point has been reached, while the Liberal Democrats support judicial authority but seek to amend the Bill's regime.
I shall turn, first, to the Conservative amendments because these constitute a fairly radical departure from the Government's position. While looking at the amendments of the Official Opposition, perhaps I ought to say how much I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for the 48-hour police detention. I should add that we are mindful of the position of the judiciary in Northern Ireland. Both the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, spoke very wisely of the difficulties that it faces and there are concerns in that regard. However,
692
on balance, we believe that our Strasbourg obligations lead us in a rather different direction from that suggested.
I do not accept that this is such a novel matter that it falls outside the natural remit of the judiciary. In fact, I believe that the judiciary is probably best placed to decide on the issue—an argument very ably advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in his report at paragraph 9.19.
I should also like to comment a little on the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. I take very careful account of what he said. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said, he has, along with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, considerable experience in such matters, having had to study these cases most closely and make determinations. However, I cannot accept that this is a matter that is so inextricably linked to the executive that it cannot properly be transferred to the judiciary. Although I can sympathise with the arguments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that the present system works well—there is no question about that—in the light of the ECHR judgment in Brogan, I am afraid that it is not a system that can be maintained in the longer term.
Similarly, I do not entirely agree with the other point made so ably, as always, by the noble and learned Lord; namely, that terrorism cases are a world away from ordinary cases in every respect. The difference is not so stark at the top end. Let us take, for example, cases involving drugs, drug smuggling, gangster activities, and so on. These are similar, though not identical, to some of the sensitivities that apply in PACE cases. So it is not a matter of such cases being entirely different. Although the noble and learned Lord is right to suggest that PACE, with its invigilation conducted by magistrates, cannot be immediately transferred in exactly the same way to the Northern Ireland situation, we believe that the principle of having judicial involvement must be right.
The noble and learned Lord made a further important point about the need in instances of terrorism, especially in the context of Northern Ireland, to protect intelligence sources. We recognise that fact. However, it is best to stress that the role of the judicial authority is very forward looking in that respect. We shall continue fully to consult and ensure that we have the confidence of the police in this matter. Indeed, I am sure that we have that confidence.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, pointed out on Second Reading, Strasbourg requires judicial authority. In order to maintain executive authorisation of detention, we take the view that the UK would also have to maintain the derogation from the convention, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Dubs. We believe that it is right in principle that we should comply with Article 5 in this respect. We wish to withdraw the derogation as soon as practicable.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to consider most carefully the point that a derogation may be maintained only when there is a public emergency threatening the life of the nation. In that respect, we

693
firmly believe that the derogation is safe today. However, I am sure that Members of the Committee will no doubt hope that the situation in Northern Ireland will continue to improve, as it has been, and that we shall be able to reach a point where the derogation could no longer be sustained. I give way.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am most grateful to the Minster for giving way. However, on that very point, is it not the case that, by writing into the Bill and preserving in it the ability to extend for up to seven days the period before which someone has to be brought before a judicial authority, the Government are dwelling upon and perpetuating the present rule that necessitated the derogation from the convention? Further, is it not also the case that, if not in Brogan then in the predecessor case—the name of which eludes me for the moment—it was said in effect by the ECHR that up to four days is all right but seven is too much? That led to the derogation, the validity of which was upheld in the case of Brogan.
Therefore, the argument being made that we really must do our best to conform to the convention and that that justifies rejecting Amendment No. 95—a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—does not deal with the point that by keeping the seven-day period we are retaining the fruit of that derogation. In other words, if it is right to retain seven, why is it not right to retain "Secretary of State" in this respect rather than having the judiciary?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I suspect that that is a rather different point. I do not believe that we would accept that this is a breach of Brogan. If the noble and learned Lord recalls, the case of Brogan turned on a lack of judicial intervention. That is the point we are trying to establish in moving away from the current system. The case was not about the time spent in detention. I believe the noble and learned Lord to be half right, but we are trying to build and create a very different situation. We do not think that we can maintain derogation any longer on that basis.
We believe that we have constructed a system which both meets and goes beyond our convention requirements. It is important for us to do so in terms of pre-charge detention. The minimum requirements were set out in the Schiesser case. We have added to those requirements the right of representation in relation to the hearing. As I said at the outset of my remarks, there is a clear difference in our approach. Fundamentally, we believe that it is right in principle that matters relating to the liberty of the individual should be in the hands of the judiciary. Indeed, I should have thought that there would be general agreement on that point in this place.
However, I move from the fundamental principle at stake and suggest that the next issue for consideration is whether the system proposed in the Bill is workable; we think that it is.
Some have said that this is a difficult role for the
694
judiciary but I stress that the role of the judicial authority here is to look forward at whether a case has been made for further detention. That is a role with which the judiciary are familiar, and best placed to judge. There are, of course, concerns about the need to look at sensitive information, as we have said before. This may indeed form part of the police case, but I stress again that the remit is forward looking.
Moving further into the detail of the amendments, the noble Lord seeks to replace the references to the judicial authority with references to the Secretary of State. As he has argued, this leaves the scheme largely intact but produces some interesting, if perhaps slightly odd, results. For example, Amendment No. 101 deletes entirely paragraph 35 of Schedule 8, while Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 seek to alter it. The second approach would give the detainee a right to make oral or written representations to the Secretary of State. Does the noble Lord intend—I cannot believe that this is his intention—that the detainee would appear before the Secretary of State? It is an important point of detail although I shall not dwell on it. We wish to concentrate here on the principle.
We continue firmly to believe that judicial authority—that is, after all, part of the separation of powers—is the right approach. The Opposition have in the past said that they would not be concerned about continuing to derogate from the convention. However, we are concerned about this.
I note what the noble Lord has said and I also note what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, has said. I fully accept that there has to be room for more than one view on this matter in particular. However, I ask the Committee to think carefully about our international obligations. I trust that the noble Lord will not press the amendments.
I turn to the Liberal Democrat amendments. I again welcome the support we have received from them on achieving our important policy objectives. I should say at the outset that I appreciate that the amendments are tabled with a wish to improve the regime. That seems to me entirely laudable. While I acknowledge that aim, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendments. I should like to explain why that is the case in some detail.
Amendment No. 68C would reduce the time the police may hold a detainee from 48 to 36 hours. This issue was carefully considered during the Committee stage in another place and, of course, prior to that by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. The Government continue to agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that 36 hours is insufficient for the special circumstances of terrorist cases. The noble and learned Lord considered this point in great detail in his report and concluded that the first 24 hours can often be entirely taken up with preliminary processing matters, not least the proper taking into custody and the identification of the detainee. Anyone who has been involved in those matters will be aware of that. Therefore we continue to believe that 48 hours is the right balance. I trust that the amendment will not be pressed.

695
Amendment No. 95A would mean that the judicial authority could grant no more than 36 hours further detention per application, up to seven days in total. This may be seen as a compromise position, compared with the approach taken in another place, that the seven day total should be reduced to four. That position was based on a view that seven day detention would be in breach of Brogan, where the European Court found that detention of four days and six hours was a breach of the convention. But, as I explained earlier, in that judgment the case turned on the lack of judicial intervention and not on the time spent in detention itself.
We do not believe that there are convention requirements which would lead us to accept that the detention period should be capped. The next issue is whether, in the absence of a requirement, capping would be desirable. We do not believe that it would be. It is for the police to make out their case. It is difficult, if not impossible, to envisage a case where the police would be able to persuade the judicial authority that five clay detention is essential. However, I do not want to fetter the judicial authority's discretion here. It is, after all, for the judge to decide on the amount of time to be spent in detention.
I return here to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd—terrorist cases are not like ordinary crime. That is why we are debating this legislation today. Terrorist crime is inherently different and I am therefore opposed to capping as proposed by the noble Lord. It is better in my view that the time is left at the discretion of the judicial authority.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 103A and 103B seek to ensure that a detainee can be excluded from proceedings only if certain requirements are met. I am happy to set out our thinking behind those provisions, which I hope will reassure the noble Lord as to our intentions.
As I said earlier, we have based the regime on Schiesser requirements. That includes a right to appear before the judicial authority. Here, the detainee has a right to make written or oral representations and we consider this to be absolutely crucial. The judicial authority must hear both sides of the case or his discretion will be fettered and, although he must be a member of the judiciary, without this provision the regime would not be judicial in character. The power for the judicial authority to exclude the detainee and/or his or her representative is to ensure that proceedings can be properly managed. Exclusion is a matter for him alone and if he found it essential to exclude the detainee, he would not automatically need to exclude the representative.
Let us consider a case where the detainee was obstructing proceedings simply so that the judicial authority could not complete the proceedings. It would be wrong if the process could be frustrated in that way. The judicial authority must have the ability to run his proceedings in an orderly manner conducive to his important remit. However, I can confirm that
696
the Government are absolutely committed to the principle that the detainee must have a right of appearance.
I have given a lengthy response but I hope that it satisfies noble Lords and that they will agree to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Goodhart: I have a slight problem as most of the debate has been directed not at our amendments but at the Conservative amendments which concern a matter which our amendments do not address; namely, whether the decision we are discussing should be taken by the Secretary of State or by a judicial authority. I have therefore not had an opportunity to speak on that issue. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I speak briefly on that matter.
I am reluctant to differ from the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, for whom I have the greatest respect both as a lawyer and as someone who played a most distinguished role in Northern Ireland and has enormous knowledge of what happens, and has happened over the years, in that Province. My reluctance to differ from him is, however, somewhat reduced by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has spoken in a contrary way. My views are very much the same as those of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
We have to start by lifting our eyes from Northern Ireland, or indeed from the United Kingdom as a whole, and thinking what we would say if we were considering this question in relation to another country, a civilised country with a proper legal system. We would surely say that decisions on detention of suspects, whether for terrorism or other offences, should be taken by the judiciary and not the executive. I think we would all be horrified at the idea that decisions on bail after charges, for example, ought to be taken, or even could be taken, by members of the executive. It seems to me that the principle can be no different with regard to the authority for detention for questioning.
It seems to me therefore that in principle it must be right that the decision on continued detention should be taken by a judicial authority. Indeed the fact that it had to be taken by the Secretary of State in Northern Ireland was not due to the fact that judicial authority was for some reason the wrong thing to apply there but because in that case it was impossible to find a judicial authority willing to act in the matter. That was an extremely unfortunate situation. The European Court of Human Rights recognised in the Brogan case that, in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, a departure from the proper rule of judicial authority for detention could be justified.
But, when one is creating a permanent Bill which will apply not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom, and which will apply across a wide variety of circumstances and different cases, we must surely incorporate in that kind of legislation the proper rule that the decision on detention should be taken by a judicial authority and not by the executive. It is to be hoped that it will not be necessary to maintain the derogation for Northern Ireland for much longer.

697
Turning to our amendments, I do not wish to press further the question of whether the appropriate initial period for police custody should be 36 or 48 hours. However, Amendment No. 95A needs serious attention and we may wish to come back on it. There are serious problems in the possibility of a judicial authority allowing continued detention for a period of five days without the suspect having the opportunity to come back to ask for release during that period. If the initial period is two days, it would be necessary for continued detention to be ordered for no more than two days at a time. If the Government do not accept that principle, they will face the possibility of a real challenge to that provision. We may well return to that issue. I suspect that we may not come back on the other issues, but certainly I do not give that commitment at this stage. We shall not take this point further today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Detention]:
7 p.m.
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 69:
Page 110, line 38, leave out from ("State") to end of line 39 and insert ("shall designate places at which persons may be detained under Schedule 7 or section 41").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, in moving Amendment No. 69 I shall speak also to the other essentially technical amendments with which it is grouped—that is, Amendment Nos. 70, 72, 73 and 166.
In regard to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70, at Committee stage in the Commons we undertook to look again at the drafting of the beginning of Schedule 8 to ensure that it was clear that the Secretary of State's power to designate places at which detainees could be held under the Bill was a general power, not a power to direct that a particular detainee be held at a particular place. Amendment No. 69 is designed to make that intention clear. Amendment No. 70 provides that references to a police station in Schedule 8 include references to any other places the Secretary of State has designated under this power.
Amendment No. 72 provides that where a video recording with sound requirement is in force, the Secretary of State need not also require audio recording. This avoids unnecessary duplication. Amendments Nos. 73 and 166 make it clear that interviews need only be audio or video recorded if they take place at a police station. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 70:
Page 110, line 41, leave out from ("place") to ("be") in line 42 and insert ("which the Secretary of State has designated under sub-paragraph (1) as a place where a person may").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 71:
Page 111, line 25, at end inser—
("( ) This paragraph does not confer the power to take—

(a) fingerprints, non-intimate samples or intimate samples (within the meaning given by paragraph 9F below), or

(b) relevant physical data or samples as mentioned in section 18 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 as applied by paragraph 22 below.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 71 I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group.
On forfeiture, Amendments Nos. 84, 86, 91A and 92A make equivalent provisions for Scotland. Amendments Nos. 105, 107 and 108—no, this is wrong. I apologise to the Committee. My speaking note was out of order.
These amendments set out on the face of the Bill the regime for taking, retaining and using the fingerprints and samples of those detained under the terrorism provisions in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. This regime is modelled closely on that in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the PACE (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989 provided for the PACE regime to be applied with certain necessary modifications in terrorism cases. We started by using that approach in the Bill, and this is reflected in the current wording of paragraphs 10 to 15 of Schedule 8. However, we have come to the view that it is more helpful to the reader to set out the regime as it applies in terrorism cases on the face of the Bill—not least because the PACE regime is itself extremely complicated.
The Scottish position is set out in paragraph 22 of Schedule 8. This provides that the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 are to be applied in terrorism cases, with certain necessary modifications. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: As a question of detail, Amendment No. 71 states,
"This paragraph does not confer the power to take … fingerprints, non-intimate samples or intimate samples within the meaning given by paragraph 9F below)".
Are we removing the power to take fingerprints?
Lord Bassam Brighton: I should make it clear that we are not removing that power.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendments Nos. 72 and 73:
Page 111, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) Where the Secretary of State has made an order under sub-paragraph (2) requiring certain interviews to be video recorded with sound—

(a) he need not make an order under sub-paragraph (1)(b) in relation to those interviews, but

(b) he may do so.").

Page 111, line 45, leave out from ("under") to ("if) in line 46 and insert ("Schedule 7 or section 41").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 74:
Page 113, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (4A),").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 74 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 75, 76, 77, 84, 86, 91A, 92A, 105, 107 and 108—11 government amendments in all.
Paragraphs 6 to 9 of Schedule 8 make provision for the rights of detained persons to have someone informed and to consult a solicitor. These paragraphs are modelled on Sections 56 and 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and have effect in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland.
Amendments Nos. 74 to 77 complete the replication of Sections 56 and 58 by adding provisions corresponding to Sections 56(5A) and 58(8A). They allow the rights to be delayed if a superintendent believes it will hinder confiscation of criminal proceeds or forfeiture of terrorist property. The rights still cannot, of course, be delayed beyond the 48-hour point in any circumstances. Amendments Nos. 84, 86, 91A and 92A make equivalent provision for Scotland.
Paragraph 36 of Schedule 8 allows information in extension of detention hearings to be withheld from detained persons in certain circumstances. These circumstances are similar to those where rights can be delayed. Amendments Nos. 105, 107 and 108 therefore provide for information to be withheld where this might hinder confiscation or forfeiture. This is subject to the important safeguard that the judicial authority must be satisfied that the conditions apply. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendments Nos. 75 and 76.
Page 113, line 20, at end insert ("or in respect of which a forfeiture order could be made under section 23").
Page 113, line 27, at end insert—
("(4A An officer may also give an authorisation under sub-paragraph (1)) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that—

(a) the detained person has committed an offence to which Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, Part I of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995, or the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (confiscation of the proceeds of an offence) applies,

(b) the detained person has benefited from the offence within the meaning of that Part or Order, and

(c) by informing the named person of the detained person's detention (in the case of an authorisation under sub-paragraph (1)(a)), or by the exercise of the right under paragraph 7 (in the case of an authorisation under sub-paragraph (1)(b)), the recovery of the value of that benefit will he hindered.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): In calling Amendment No. 76A, I should point that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 77.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 76A:
Page 113, line 45, leave out paragraph 9.
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment which has come on the proposal of the Law Society. It removes the requirement that a detainee can consult with his solicitor only in the sight and earshot of a police officer.
Requiring a consultation to take place in the sight and hearing of a police officer breaches the principle that a consultation between a suspect and his solicitor is confidential and protected by legal professional privilege. A suspect has a right to establish what his position is in law and what his legal rights are. He will not be able to give a full account of his situation if his explanation could then be used as evidence against him on the grounds that it had been overheard by the police officer.
Communications made between a lawyer and his client for the purposes of seeking or giving legal advice are privileged and thereby protected from disclosure. The crucial importance of the rule was reinforced by the House of Lords in a decision reported in 1995. The House of Lords said:
"The principle which runs through all the cases … is that a man must be able to consult his lawyer in confidence, since otherwise he might hold back half the truth. The client must be sure that what he tells his lawyer in confidence can never be revealed without his consent. Legal professional privilege is thus ranch more than an ordinary rule of evidence limited in application to the facts of a particular case. It is a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole rests".
I recognise that it is not a general rule under Schedule 8 that a detainee can consult with his solicitor only within sight and hearing of a police officer. Nevertheless, the fact that in any circumstances an order can be made to that effect is one which I believe is extremely difficult to justify. I look forward with interest to hearing how the Minister does in fact defend that proposition. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I do not want to anticipate too much of what the Minister will say in responding to the amendment. I think that this provision has validity and, in some cases, will be important. It is not available very easily. It has to be authorised by an assistant chief constable or a commander and can take place only in the circumstances set out in paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 8, which are serious circumstances and will not normally apply. Therefore, I am not at the moment persuaded that it would be right to accept this amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I welcome the opportunity for a short debate on access to legal advisers. We believe that we have done a very significant amount to put the position on a much clearer and consistent footing through this piece of legislation and the codes which flow from it.
First, we have put it beyond doubt in respect of all three jurisdictions that access to a solicitor may be denied essentially only where it is believed that access might compromise the ongoing investigation, and then for a maximum 48 hours. That is consistent with a

701
longer period of detention under the police authority that we have discussed already. We would not expect access to be denied very often; indeed, we have no records of access being denied in terrorist cases in England and Wales in recent years. But we believe it is right, as in ordinary criminal cases under PACE, to provide for that very, very occasional possibility.
Secondly, we propose to ensure that once a person has been granted access to a solicitor, that solicitor may, save in the most exceptional of circumstances, be able to be present at all interviews. That is already the position in England and Wales under paragraph 6.8 and following of PACE code C. It is our intention, also by code, to make that the position too in Northern Ireland. For Scotland, where no equivalent of the PACE code exists, that position is achieved already by paragraph 21 of Schedule 8. Currently, this provision is in force only in England and Wales, and again our records suggest that it has not been used in terrorist cases in recent times.
Thirdly, I turn to the focus of this debate: the provision that once access to a solicitor has been granted, a police officer of the rank of assistant chief constable may authorise that interviews between the detainee and his solicitor must be in the sight and hearing of a police officer unconnected with the case and of inspector or above rank. The authorisation may be given only if the assistant chief constable believes that not to do so would compromise the ongoing terrorist investigation in one of the ways set out in paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 8.
It must be stressed that we do not envisage that this power will be used other than in the most exceptional of circumstances. The fact that an authorisation has to be granted by an officer of ACC rank or above very neatly and clearly underlines this point. The Government are anxious to provide detainees under the terrorism powers with access to a solicitor. We accept that this is a very important and fundamental right.
Just as with other issues concerning access to solicitors, we do not accept that private access is an absolute right. We accept that it is acutely uncomfortable to envisage that circumstances may arise where it is believed a terrorist investigation might in some way be compromised if private access to a solicitor were permitted, but we do believe that provision should be made. An example might be where there was intelligence that a detainee might place a solicitor under extreme duress if a private interview were held.
Paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 provides for private access to be limited in such exceptional circumstances. The threshold is very high, with authorisation at ACC rank, and any decision could be tested by judicial review which, after 2nd October, could include consideration of whether convention rights had been observed. We believe we have to provide for the case, however rare, where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting and for believing that a private interview might compromise important terrorist investigations.
702
In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Lord will reflect further on our arguments and not press his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I thank the Minister. I shall consider what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bachmoved Amendments Nos. 77 and 78.
Page 114, line 6, at end insert ("or the consequence specified in paragraph 8(4A)(c)").
Page 114, line 15, leave out paragraphs 10 to 15 and insert—
("9A.—(1) This paragraph applies where a person is detained in England, Wales or Northern Ireland under Schedule 7 or section 41.
(2) Fingerprints may be taken from the detained person only if they are taken by a constable—

(a) with the appropriate consent given in writing, or

(b) without that consent under sub-paragraph (4).

(3) A non-intimate sample may be taken from the detained person only if it is taken by a constable—

(a) with the appropriate consent given in writing, or

(b) without that consent under sub-paragraph (4).

(4) Fingerprints or a non-intimate sample may be taken from the detained person without the appropriate consent only if—

(a) he is detained at a police station and a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent authorises the fingerprints or sample to be taken, or

(b) he has been convicted of a recordable offence and, where a non-intimate sample is to be taken, he was convicted of the offence on or after 10th April 1995 (or 29th July 1996 where the non-intimate sample is to be taken in Northern Ireland).

(5) An intimate sample may be taken from the detained person only if—

(a) he is detained at a police station,

(b) the appropriate consent is given in writing,

(c) a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent authorises the sample to be taken, and

(d) subject to paragraph 9D(2) and (3), the sample is taken by a constable.

(6) An officer may give an authorisation under sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (5)(c) only if—

(a) in the case of a person detained under section 41, the officer reasonably suspects that the person has been involved in an offence under any of the provisions mentioned in section 40(1)(a), and the officer reasonably believes that the fingerprints or sample will tend to confirm or disprove his involvement, or

(b) in any case, the officer is satisfied that the taking of the fingerprints or sample from the person is necessary in order to assist in determining whether he falls within section 40(1)(b).

(7) If an authorisation under sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (5)(c) is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable.
9B.—(1) Before fingerprints or a sample are taken from a person under paragraph 9A, he shall be informed—

(a) that the fingerprints or sample may be used for the purposes of paragraph 9E(4), section 63A(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and Article 63A(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (checking of fingerprints and samples), and

(b) where the fingerprints or sample are to be taken under paragraph 9A(2)(a), (3)(a) or (4)(b), of the reason for taking the fingerprints or sample.

(2) Before fingerprints or a sample are taken from a person upon an authorisation given under paragraph 9A(4)(a) or (5)(c), he shall be informed—

(a) that the authorisation has been given,

(b) of the grounds upon which it has been given, and

(c) where relevant, of the nature of the offence in which it is suspected that he has been involved.

(3) After fingerprints or a sample are taken under paragraph 9A, there shall be recorded as soon as is reasonably practicable any of the following which apply—

(a) the fact that the person has been informed in accordance with sub-paragraphs (1) and (2),

(b) the reason referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b),

(c) the authorisation given under paragraph 9A(4)(a) or (5)(c),

(d) the grounds upon which that authorisation has been given, and

(e) the fact that the appropriate consent has been given.

9C.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) two or more non-intimate samples suitable for the same means of analysis have been taken from a person under paragraph 9A,

(b) those samples have proved insufficient, and

(c) the person has been released from detention.

(2) An intimate sample may be taken from the person if—

(a) the appropriate consent is given in writing,

(b) a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent authorises the sample to be taken, and

(c) subject to paragraph 9D(2) and (3), the sample is taken by a constable.

(3) Paragraphs 9A(6) and (7) and 9B shall apply in relation to the taking of an intimate sample under this paragraph; and a reference to a person detained under section 41 shall be taken as a reference to a person who was detained under section 41 when the non-intimate samples mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) were taken.
9D.—(1) Where appropriate written consent to the taking of an intimate sample from a person under paragraph 9A or 9C is refused without good cause, in any proceedings against that person for an offence—

(a) the court, in determining whether to commit him for trial or whether there is a case to answer, may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper, and

(b) the court or jury, in determining whether that person is guilty of the offence charged, may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper.

(2) An intimate sample other than a sample of urine or a dental impression may be taken under paragraph 9A or 9C only by a registered medical practitioner acting on the authority of a constable.
(3) An intimate sample which is a dental impression may be taken under paragraph 9A or 9C only by a registered dentist acting on the authority of a constable.
(4) Where a sample of hair other than pubic hair is to be taken under paragraph 9A the sample may be taken either by cutting hairs or by plucking hairs with their roots so long as no more are plucked than the person taking the sample reasonably considers to be necessary for a sufficient sample.
9E.—(1) This paragraph applies to—

(a) fingerprints or samples taken under paragraph 9A or 9C, and

(b) information derived from those samples.

(2) The fingerprints, samples or information may be used only for the purpose of a terrorist investigation.
(3) In particular, a check may not be made against them under—

(a) section 63A(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (checking of fingerprints and samples), or

(b) Article 63A(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (checking of fingerprints and samples),

except for the purpose of a terrorist investigation.
(4) The fingerprints, samples or information may be checked, subject to sub-paragraph (2), against—

(a) other fingerprints or samples taken under paragraph 9A or 9C or information derived from those samples,

(b) relevant physical data or samples taken by virtue of paragraph 22,

(c) any of the fingerprints, samples and information mentioned in section 63A(1)(a) and (b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (checking of fingerprints and samples),

(d) any of the fingerprints, samples and information mentioned in Article 63A(1)(a) and (b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (checking of fingerprints and samples), and

(e) fingerprints or samples taken under section 15(9) of, or paragraph 7(5) of Schedule 5 to, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 or information derived from those samples.

(5) This paragraph (other than sub-paragraph (4)) shall apply to fingerprints or samples taken under section 15(9) of, or paragraph 7(5) of Schedule 5 to, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and information derived from those samples as it applies to fingerprints or samples taken under paragraph 9A or 9C and the information derived from those samples.
9F.—(1) In the application of paragraphs 9A to 9E in relation to a person detained in England or Wales the following expressions shall have the meaning given by section 65 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Part V definitions)—

(a) "appropriate consent",

(b) "fingerprints",

(c) "insufficient",

(d) "intimate sample",

(e) "non-intimate sample",

(f) "registered dentist", and

(g) "sufficient".

(2) In the application of paragraphs 9A to 9E in relation to a person detained in Northern Ireland the expressions listed in sub-paragraph (1) shall have the meaning given by Article 53 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (definitions).
(3) In paragraph 9A "recordable offence" shall have—

(a) in relation to a person detained in England or Wales, the meaning given by section 118(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (general interpretation), and

705

(b) in relation to a person detained in Northern Ireland, the meaning given by Article 2(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (definitions).").

The noble Lord said: These amendments were spoken to with earlier amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 79:
Page 116, line 11, leave out paragraph 16.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 79, I wish to speak to seven other government amendments, Amendments Nos. 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87 and 92D.
This group of drafting amendments ensures that Part I of Schedule 8 in its application to Scotland is consistent with and, where possible, similar to the drafting of Part I of Schedule 8 for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 79 removes paragraph 16 which becomes unnecessary in view of the other changes being made to the Scottish section of Part I of the schedule. Amendments Nos. 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87 and 92D align the drafting of paragraph 17 for Scotland with the drafting of paragraphs 6 and 8(b) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Unless your Lordships require me to do so, I shall not speak to each of these relatively minor drafting amendments individually. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: All of these drafting amendments—I accept that they are drafting amendments of some complexity—refer to Scotland. The fact of having to bring them forward, and for that matter other amendments in different parts of the Bill, implies to me that there was a lack of consultation between those who drafted the Bill and the Scottish authorities. We were told earlier that the Scottish Parliament had not been consulted on the Bill although the Scottish Executive had been. Whereas terrorism and the pursuit of terrorism are reserved matters properly dealt with by this Parliament, the law and the administration of the law in Scotland are devolved matters. The Bill affects devolved matters in that respect because it alters the way in which the law is managed in Scotland. Some of the amendments refer to points of that kind. Can the Minister tell us about the consultation that took place and why it was, judging by the amendments, ineffective?
Lord Bach: I cannot tell the Committee much more about the consultation than I did at the first sitting of the Committee last week. But I can explain why the provisions for Scotland were originally drafted differently.
These are not, for the most part, original provisions. They have appeared in earlier Acts about terrorism and those Acts have not always been concerned with terrorism. In drafting the current provisions for Scotland, account was taken of the earlier provisions. So far as is possible and consistent with the separate and different Scottish criminal system, the aim is to have consistency of approach between the provisions for Scotland on the one hand and for England, Wales
706
and Northern Ireland on the other. The amendments are part of the process of achieving that consistency. If the noble Lord is concerned that there has been some kind of difficulty in relation to consultation between Scotland and England on this matter, he can rest assured that that is not the case.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendments Nos. 80 to 83:
Page 116, line 12, after ("detained") insert ("under Schedule 7 or section 41 at a police station in Scotland").
Page 116, line 14, leave out ("reasonably").
Page 116, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) The person named must be—

(a) a friend of the detained person,

(b) a relative, or

(c) a person who is known to the detained person or who is likely to take an interest in his welfare.

( ) Where a detained person is transferred from one police station to another, he shall be entitled to exercise the right under sub-paragraph (1) in respect of the police station to which he is transferred.").
Page 116, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("in").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 84:
Page 116, line 18, at end insert ("or where paragraph 19(3A) applies").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendments Nos. 85 to 87:
Page 116, line 26, leave out from beginning to ("in").
Page 116, line 28, at end insert ("or where paragraph 19(3A) applies").
Page 116, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) Where a person is detained under section 41 he must be permitted to exercise his rights under this paragraph before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (3) of that section.").
The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 87A, I have to say that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 87B to 88B inclusive.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 87A:
Page 116, line 30, leave out paragraph 18.
The noble Lord said: This is a substantive group of amendments for Scotland. They pick up a point to which the Scottish Centre for Human Rights has drawn careful attention. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in his amendments has sought also to address the problem. I am grateful to him for doing that. I am most grateful to the Scottish Centre for Human Rights for having drawn our attention to the problem.

707
The problem and the amendments are concerned with the position of a child who is detained in Scotland under Clause 41 of, or Schedule 7 to, the Bill. Paragraph 18 of Schedule 8 deals with the rights of a detained child by modifying paragraph 17 which deals with the rights of detained adults. The provisions of paragraphs 17 and 18 are not new. They repeat provisions which the government of the day introduced in 1984–85. Paragraph 18 requires that where a child has been detained, the police must inform his parent without delay of his detention and where he is being detained and must also allow the parent access to the child. However, the police may authorise a delay of up to 48 hours in telling the parent about the child's detention, where the police consider that to tell the parent earlier would prejudice the investigation of crime or the apprehension and prosecution of offenders. So, in an extreme, and I would hope unlikely, case a parent may not know for up to 48 hours where his or her child is and why.
Paragraph 20(2) of Schedule 8 at present states that the provisions about detention of an adult under paragraph 17 and, more particularly, of a child under paragraph 18 replace any other rule of law about rights on detention. In this context, the relevant provision which is replaced by virtue of paragraph 20(2) is Section 15 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, on which I shall say a little more shortly.
The Scottish Human Rights Centre quite correctly has pointed out that the effect of paragraph 20(2) is to put a child detained in Scotland under the Bill in a different position from a child detained in England, Wales or Northern Ireland under the Bill. The effect also of paragraph 20(2) is to put the child detained in Scotland under the Bill in a different position from a child detained in Scotland on any other ground. The position in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is that the PACE legislation in its various forms and codes issued under it will require that the child's parent or guardian must be told without delay that the child is being detained and where he is being detained. It is not the intention of this Government, in this Bill, to have such a prejudicial difference for the child in Scotland. I have therefore brought forward amendments to remedy the position.
The first main amendment is Amendment No. 87A. This removes paragraph 18 from Schedule 8 to the Bill. Amendments Nos. 90A, 90B, 92B and 92C and 93A and 93B are consequential on that removal. The second main amendment is Amendment No. 93C. This is concerned only with the child and it applies, in effect, the general criminal law in Section 15(4) of the Scottish 1995 Act.
The first effect of applying Section 15(4) of the 1995 Act is that in every case where a child is detained in Scotland under Clause 41 or Schedule 7 his parent, if known, must be informed without delay that he has been detained and where he is being detained. The second effect is that the child's parent must be allowed access to him unless the police have reasonable cause to suspect that the parent has himself or herself been involved in the offence for which the child is being
708
detained. In those cases, the police may nevertheless allow the parent access to the child but they are not necessarily required to do so.
In every case where a parent is to have access, the nature and extent of the access which is granted may be subject to any restriction which is essential for ensuring the wellbeing of the child or for the investigation of the alleged offence. That is the effect of the application of Section 15(4) of the Scottish 1995 Act. It puts the child detained in Scotland in a similar position to a child detained under the Bill in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
As the Committee will note, Amendment No. 93C contains a definition of "child" and "parent" by reference to Section 15 of the Scottish 1995 Act. That is the same definition which is currently provided at paragraph 20(1) of Schedule 8 and which for drafting reasons Amendment No. 93C removes.
With that explanation, I beg to move the amendment. In doing so, I should repeat the Government's great appreciation of the vigilance of the Scottish Human Rights Centre in pointing out to us the need for this change to be made. I should also commend the good intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in tabling his amendments which are undoubtedly designed to achieve a similar effect. I trust that, with that explanation, your Lordships will agree to these amendments and that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be persuaded, if he needs persuading, that the government amendments cover the same territory, perhaps in a slightly superior way, as the ones which he tabled and that he will not therefore move his amendments.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I am grateful to my noble friend. I think it has proved to be a tribute to the benefits of bicameralism that we have been able to achieve these amendments, which might not otherwise have appeared in the Bill. What my noble friend has said reflects entirely the aims of my own amendments. I presume that, technically, his approach is better than mine and therefore I shall not move my amendments. Once again, I am grateful to my noble friend for meeting the point at issue here.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister's explanation of these amendments has commended them very well. However, I hesitate to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that his drafting would inevitably prove inferior to that of the Minister. Nevertheless, on this occasion I shall of course accept his judgment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 87B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 88 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 88A and 88B not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Bachmoved Amendments Nos. 90A and 90B:
Page 117, line 15, leave out from ("consultation") to ("be") and insert ("mentioned in paragraph 17(4) shall").
Page 117, line 19, leave out from ("consultation") to ("shall") in line 20.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 91 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 91A:
Page 117, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert—
("(3) The grounds mentioned in paragraph 17(2) and (5) and in sub-paragraph (1) are—

(a) that it is in the interests of the investigation or prevention of crime;

(b) that it is in the interests of the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of offenders;

(c) that it will further the recovery of property obtained as a result of the commission of an offence or in respect of which a forfeiture order could be made under section 23;

(d) that it will further the operation of Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, Part I of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 or the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (confiscation of the proceeds of an offence).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 91B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 92 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 92A, 92B, 92C and 92D:
Page 117, line 24, at end insert—
("(3A) This sub-paragraph applies where an officer mentioned in paragraph 17(2) or (5) has reasonable grounds for believing that—

(a) the detained person has committed an offence to which Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, Part I of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 or the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (confiscation of the proceeds of an offence) applies,

(b) the detained person has benefited from the offence within the meaning of that Part or Order, and

(c) by informing the named person of the detained person's detention (in the case of an authorisation under paragraph 17(2)) or by the exercise of the entitlement under paragraph 17(4) (in the case of an authorisation under paragraph 17(5) the recovery of the value of that benefit will be hindered.").

Page 117, line 25, leave out ("or non-compliance").
Page 117, line 26, leave out from ("rights") to ("mentioned").
Page 117, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert ("paragraph 17(1) and (4) —

(a) if the authorisation is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable,

(b) the detained person shall be told the reason for the delay as soon as is reasonably practicable, and

(c) the reason shall be recorded as soon as is reasonably practicable.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 93 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 93A, 93B, 93C and Amendment No. 94:
Page 117, leave out lines 29 to 31.
Page 117, line 32, leave out ("and this paragraph").
Page 117, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) But, where a person detained under Schedule 7 or section 41 at a police station in Scotland appears to a constable to be a child—

(a) the other person named by the person detained in pursuance of paragraph 17(1) shall be that person's parent, and

(b) section 15(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 shall apply to the person detained as it applies to a person who appears to a constable to be a child who is being detained as mentioned in paragraph (b) of section 15(1) of that Act,

and in this sub-paragraph "child" and "parent" have the same meaning as in section 15(4) of that Act.").
Page 117, line 45, leave out ("section 41 or Schedule 7") and insert ("Schedule 7 or section 41 at a police station in Scotland").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 95 to 104 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 105:
Page 122, line 13, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (2A),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Lord Bachmoved Amendments Nos. 107 and 108:
Page 122, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) the recovery of property in respect of which a forfeiture order could be made under section 23 would be hindered,").
Page 122, line 27, at end insert—
("(2A) A judicial authority may also make an order under sub-paragraph (1) in relation to specified information if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that—

(a) the detained person has committed an offence to which Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Part I of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995, or the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (confiscation of the proceeds of an offence) applies,

(b) the detained person has benefited from the offence within the meaning of that Part or Order, and

(c) the recovery of the value of that benefit would be hindered, if the information were disclosed.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 109 to 113 not moved.]
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Bach: I think that this is an appropriate moment to break. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before twenty-six minutes to nine. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Iraq
7.34 p.m.
Lord Islwynasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will give further consideration to the removal of sanctions against Iraq.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, sanctions imposed on Iraq under UN Security Council Resolution 661 of 1990 constitute the most wide-ranging regime of economic sanctions ever adopted by the UN. The embargo affects the import and export of all commodities and products, including oil, weapons and other military equipment, but does not extend to supplies for medical purposes and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs. However, those are subject to scrutiny by the Security Council Resolution 661 Committee.
Draconian measures of this kind soon led to serious humanitarian problems. In 1996, the oil-for-food scheme was introduced. Later, in 1998, the amount of oil which Iraq could sell every six months was increased from 2 billion dollars' worth to 5.2 billion dollars' worth. This measure highlighted a further major difficulty. The oil industry of Iraq was in a very rundown condition and consequently the required oil capacity could not be realised. As a result, the Security Council authorised the import of oil industry spare parts. Nevertheless, there is now grave concern about the safety and working of Iraq's oil installations.
The principal concern I wish to raise is that of the humanitarian situation. Most neutral observers confirm that economic sanctions are undermining the whole fabric of Iraqi society. In October 1998, Mr Denis Halliday, the United Nations Assistant Secretary-General and Chief UN Relief Co-ordinator for Iraq, resigned. He stated:
"The sanctions were failing in the purposes they were set up for back in 1990–91. They weren't leading to disarmament and, second, the cost of sanctions was completely unacceptable—killing 6–7,000 children a month".
What an astonishing figure that is. For me, it brought back memories of the horror of Aberfan over 30 years ago. Mr Halliday went on to say that the policy was:
"Sustaining a level of malnutrition of about 30 per cent for children under five leads to physical and mental problems. It's incompatible with the UN Charter, with the Convention on Human Rights, with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and probably many other international agreements. I just found that impossible to accept as the head of the UN in Iraq".
There was more to come. In a speech at Harvard University on 5th November 1998, Mr Halliday said that,
"sanctions were causing significant disruption to Iraqi society and family life. The devaluation of the Iraqi dinar had wiped out savings and fuelled corruption and begging".
What is more, the sanctions regime is not affecting the Iraqi leadership, which remains isolated from the humanitarian plight of the general population. Sanctions have not brought about any positive change of a political nature in Iraq. However, they are isolating Iraq from the rest of the world, leading to political fanaticism and a deep-seated resentment of the west.
712
Mr Halliday stated his belief that to continue economic sanctions would be to,
"disregard the … very moral leadership and the credibility of the UN itself".
That is pretty strong language to come from a senior and impartial international civil servant.
I turn now to Hans von Sponeck, who until recently was the UN's humanitarian co-ordinator in Baghdad when he, too, resigned. According to the BBC World News on 8th February, he called for an end to UN sanctions on Iraq, saying that they have created a "true human tragedy". He said that the United Nations oil-for-food programme was not meeting the minimum requirements of the Iraqi people.
"As a UN official",
he said,
"I should not be expected to be silent to that which I recognise as a true human tragedy that needs to be ended".
Sarah Graham-Brown has reviewed the situation for Christian Aid. In an address to British parliamentarians on 29th February, she said:
"A critical factor in the impact of sanctions has been the impoverishment of large sections of the population. This has been combined with the erosion, and in some cases virtual collapse, of services on which most people depend, including water and sanitation services, healthcare and education. The living standards of the middle class have been seriously undermined, while those who were already poor live on the edge of survival".
In January 1999, the Security Council's approved panel was asked to assess the current humanitarian situation in Iraq. The panel reported on 30th March in the same year. It concluded that,
"the gravity of the humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people is indisputable and cannot be overstated".
According to the report, infant mortality rates in Iraq are now among the highest in the world. Only 41 per cent of the population have regular access to clean water. Amnesty International, commenting on the report, said that,
"the Security Council must take appropriate action … with a view to ensuring that human rights considerations are fully taken into account".
The report also noted that the population's dependence on humanitarian supplies has,
"increased government control over individual lives".
Saddam Hussein and his regime remain firmly in power.
The anomaly of the situation is that conditions are slightly more favourable in the three northern governates which are under Turkish control. But it must be taken into account that the north receives more per capita—13 per cent of the population gets 19 per cent of the aid; that the programme started earlier there; that smuggling has benefited the economy in the north much more; that the programme in the north allows for a cash component and also for training; and that the agricultural economy there is much stronger.

713
In conclusion, I have recently read the pamphlet by the writer and commentator, Geoff Simons, entitled The Scourging of Iraq, which states, at page 131:
"Women suffer, as do men, at the pain of their children. And women suffer also in unique ways. Only the desperately hungry pregnant woman can experience the anguish of knowing that her foetus is already malnourished, that her baby will stand a greater chance of being born disabled or dead, and that if it survives it is destined to suck in vain on shrivelled breasts".
That is the position of Iraqi women today. Surely it is time to end the sanctions. Then, in line with the UN's own reports, the international community should provide additional funding for humanitarian efforts in Iraq. The Government of Iraq should urgently expedite implementation of targeted nutritional programmes. All priority should be given to contracts for supplies that will have a direct impact on the wellbeing of children. This is not an issue about saving face; it is about saving lives.
7.44 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being in my place when the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, began his speech. I want to express our thanks to him for introducing this timely debate.
The Iraqi regime is an evil one, guilty of the grossest violations of human rights, of international aggression and of the use of weapons of mass destruction which are internationally unacceptable in any circumstances. It is cynical and ruthless in using the suffering of its own people as a political bargaining counter—a despicable and utterly immoral tactic. Let us be clear about that.
However, there is widespread and deep concern about the sufferings of the Iraqi people, which have been presented to us graphically by the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn. The concerns have been reinforced by the visit to Iraq earlier this month of a group of Anglican bishops and others to assess the humanitarian needs and to make contact with Christians, who make up about 5 per cent of the population of Iraq and as many as 25 per cent of teachers and doctors. The Middle East Council of Churches has been active since 1991 in many kinds of relief work, so the Churches really do know what the needs are, even making every allowance for the fact that restrictions are placed on visitors.
There is real dilemma between the arguments in favour of maintaining sanctions against this odious regime and the strong conviction of many good people that, according to any doctrine of proportionality (which has undergirded the traditional concept of the just war and ought to continue to undergird any doctrine of a just sanctions regime) the sufferings of the civilian population are disproportionate to any good purpose that the sanctions have achieved or may achieve. There has been a systematic degradation of Iraq's infrastructure and the vast majority of the population have been reduced to poverty. Meanwhile, the regime is, if anything, more firmly entrenched than at the end of the Gulf War.
714
There are those who argue for a complete separation of the sanctions policy, which has had such a devastating impact on health and welfare, from military and political considerations—in other words, the sanctions should be lifted because they have not worked and they have become ethically untenable. The overwhelming argument against such a policy is that it would in effect be saying: "If you persist in wickedness long enough, we shall give up and call it a day and let you get on with it".
I do not believe that this is an acceptable policy. I agree with the Government that the weapons inspection process under the newly constituted organisation UNMOVIC must be pursued as part of the process set in motion by UN Security Resolution 1284 of December last year. If the Iraqi Government were to comply with Resolution 1284, there could be a transition to the proper rehabilitation of the civilian infrastructure and the social and economic development of the country. The terms of the resolution are generous and reasonable and, set alongside the now unconditional oil-for-food programme under which Iraq can sell as much oil as it likes or can to meet humanitarian needs—potentially 12 billion dollars' worth this year—the way really is open for a solution to the suffering and distress among the Iraqi people, which every decent person must deplore. It is up to the Iraqi Government.
However, there are some serious questions about the way in which Resolution 1284 is working. The Church delegation was alarmed by the delays and the bureaucratic procedures that it discovered. Even allowing for the fact that it is the fault of the Iraqi Government that a quarter of the food and medical goods delivered since the start of the humanitarian programme have still not been distributed, and even allowing for the fact that there has been proper and rigorous scrutiny of dual-use goods such as chlorine, I wonder whether the figure of only 1 per cent of contracts put on hold quoted by the Minister in another place during a debate on 24th March, or 2 per cent quoted by the noble Baroness the Minister to me this afternoon in this House, is accurate.
The Board for Social Responsibility of the Church of England has information to the effect that on 14th April of this year there were 1,180 contracts on hold, together worth 1.7 billion dollars, covering such matters as water, sanitation, electricity, education and agriculture. If that is so it is a scandal. I hope that the Government will address the matter of bureaucratic delays with great urgency.
The question of proportionality, and the ethical and moral considerations which lie behind it, must be taken with the utmost seriousness. Humanitarian considerations must be central, not peripheral, to the workings of the sanctions regime. Possibilities exist to impose further financial sanctions against the Iraqi elite, who so far have escaped the effect of sanctions. Care needs to be taken to correct the imbalance between the impact of sanctions on the centre and south of Iraq compared with the north of the country. I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances on these matters.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Islwyn for tabling this Question. As noble Lords may be aware, I have asked similar Questions intermittently for the past six or seven years. My noble friend and the right reverend Prelate have spelt out the humanitarian situation. We can accept as a fact that the infant mortality rate in Iraq has greatly increased. A number of reputable international bodies, including UNICEF, confirm that the rate has approximately doubled since 1990. Malnutrition lies behind the high child death rate. Malnutrition makes them more susceptible to common illnesses, especially diarrhoea. That in turn is made worse because of damaged or obsolete sewage and water treatment plants and pumping stations, spare parts having been virtually unobtainable under the sanctions policy until very recently.
Although since last December there has been no real restriction on Iraqi oil exports, there is still a huge backlog of infrastructural repairs to be completed. There is no doubt that, if accepted, SCR 1284 will result in an improvement in the humanitarian situation, but there remain many items for civilian use which will have to be approved by the UN Sanctions Committee before they can be shipped. Many more have been put on hold than the figure of 1 or 2 per cent which has been attributed to my noble friend.
The position of the Government has always been that the humanitarian disaster in Iraq has been due more to Saddam than to sanctions. I agree that Saddam should certainly have used the oil-for-food programme earlier, but the main result of sanctions has been the undermining of the economy, with hyper-inflation, extreme poverty, high unemployment and the general collapse of civil society. As my noble friend pointed out, Saddam and his group have escaped all this. The question is whether the original aim of the sanctions has helped to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. I suggest that whatever has been achieved has been due to the work of UNSCOM before it was forced out of Iraq rather than the sanctions themselves. Most of UNSCOM's work had been done by the time it left in December 1998.
The regular bombing of installations in the no-fly zones is the only control that we now have over Saddam's weapons. According to the RAF demonstration in Church House on 28th March, those operations are 70 per cent on target. However, Russia's Ambassador to the United States, Sergei Lavrov, claimed in a debate in the Security Council on 24th March that,
"the United States and Britain, since December 1998, had invaded Iraqi airspace nearly 20.000 times, hitting food warehouses, oil pipeline stations, and last year killing 144 people and wounding 466 others".
French correspondents have come up with similar figures.
716
We need to watch and control Saddam's conventional military capacity, not only his weapons of mass destruction. I suggest that sporadic bombing from a great height is an ineffective and inhumane way to achieve that. Although SCR 1284 is likely to lead to some improvement in food and drug supplies, it is cumbersome to operate and does not allow the full funding necessary for the country's rehabilitation. There is a strong possibility that the lifting of sanctions, with the exception of military equipment, and the cessation of bombing may be matched by Saddam with the acceptance of the new UN inspection team UNMOVIC to replace UNSCOM. Perhaps my noble friend can tell us whether that commission will be able to operate in Iraq as matters stand.
With possible discussions between Iraq and Israel reported in this week's Observer, it may be that the time is ripe for further thoughts on the scrapping of the sanctions as they stand and their replacement with much more focused sanctions on arms, together with permission for UNMOVIC to operate inside Iraq. I suggest that that would result in better arms control as well as the recovery of Iraqi civil society.
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, for this opportunity to revisit the subject. In our previous debate I outlined some of the problems that faced the Iraqis and the responsibilities of the NGOs involved. I shall not repeat the details. I simply remind the Government that they have a humanitarian commitment which in some cases overrides their other objectives. Since the previous debate we have the benefit of the report of the Select Committee on International Development and the Government's response two weeks ago. That committee reached one major conclusion:
"Sanctions have clearly failed to hurt those responsible for past violations of international law. The deterioration of infrastructure, the limited supply of food, the absence of drugs all affect the poor to a disproportionate degree".
The committee went on to say:
"The responsibility for the plight of the Iraqi people must ultimately lie with the Iraqi leadership. This does not, however, entirely excuse the international community from a part in the suffering".
During evidence given to the committee by Mr Peter Hain, the late Bernie Grant, MP, put the following question to the Minister:
"Do you not think that you have some responsibility in relation to the effect of these sanctions on the people? … By pressing these sanctions you are totally ignoring the fact that Saddam Hussein cannot change and at the same time you are not taking any action to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Therefore I would say that you arc not totally, but you are partly, culpable for the situation in Iraq".
The Government must face up to this question. The mantra of "Saddam Hussein is responsible" is really not good enough considering the evidence before us. I do not deny that sanctions can work in the broadest sense of international isolation, but surely it is now beyond doubt that they hit the people hardest and even give comfort to a regime which is well placed to turn them to its advantage.

717
I have just visited the Channel Islands and been reminded of the wartime occupation and the fear and terror which tyranny inspires. We on this island have almost no experience to help us identify with the Iraqi people today. It is only through personal stories that we can appreciate the suffering. But we add to the injustice if we do not at least admit that in our efforts to contain the regime we also indirectly harm the ordinary population and fail to make every effort to reduce the suffering through carefully targeted sanctions aimed at the political élite. I believe that the Government have tacitly admitted this. There has been some improvement under the terms of the latest resolution, but I doubt that the Iraqi people would agree with that. There are acute shortages, delays in the delivery of essential supplies and inequalities in distribution. I have said before that almost always consignments arrive incomplete and equipment is without spares or ancillary parts.
The delay in applications may be part of the normal process of sanctions, but in the case of humanitarian aid it is intolerable. I know of one charity, Medical Aid for Iraqi Children, that has had to wait several months for essential medical equipment for paediatric hospitals. For example, heart-monitoring equipment for an intensive care unit ordered last June was approved only in February. That is quite unacceptable. The DTI still routinely takes three to four months to process these applications. If this Government genuinely distinguish between political and humanitarian objectives, then they must improve the flow of humanitarian aid. They must also speed up the reform of UN committees to enable exemptions to work and, where possible, put in place pre-exemptions of individual items and bona fide charities. There also needs to be some mechanism for monitoring and assessment.
I have studied the government response to the IDC under paragraphs 39 to 40 on exemptions which sounds reasonable as policy but lacks conviction and provides no timescale for improving exemptions. Under paragraph 16 on monitoring, all the Government can do is agree. One reason given in the case of the Iraqi children's charity was that, whereas equipment came from Siemens in Germany, the fact that some components derived from the US meant that approval had to be obtained not only from the UN but from three US government departments. When are we likely to see real progress in the implementation of SCR 1284? There are still acute shortages in Baghdad.
Finally, I have three questions which are of concern to the non-governmental agencies involved such as Save the Children and Care International. Will the Government press for a more transparent procedure in the administration of sanctions? Will the Government join the new UN working group and enable NGOs to make suggestions? What were the findings of the UK mission to New York in March 1999, expressly sent with the aim of strengthening the capacity of the UN sanctions committees?
8.1 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to my noble friend for initiating this debate. It is right that we should consider the humanitarian consequences of the present situation in Iraq as none of us can feel comfortable when confronted by evidence that children are suffering and dying in that country.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Islwyn said. I read the Hansard report of a debate in another place on 24th March, initiated by Tam Dalyell MP. I was recently in the Middle East, in Jordan, as one of the UK delegates at the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference where the subject of UN sanctions against Iraq was hotly debated in the conference chamber and at fringe meetings outside. We were left in no doubt about the strength of feeling in parts of the Middle East against the sanctions policy. But missing from each consideration of the issue has been the answer to one simple question: if not sanctions, what? What is the alternative, short of simply withdrawing sanctions and abandoning the proposed arms inspection arrangements and the military activity that backs them up when necessary?
Like the right reverend Prelate, I believe that Security Council Resolution 1284, which was a British initiative, offers the way forward. It offers Iraq suspension of sanctions provided it co-operates. It also allows Iraq to pump as much oil as it likes under the oil-for-food programme—up to 10 billion dollars should be available for the humanitarian programme this year to allow food and medical supplies to get through.
Noble Lords may have seen recent television documentaries made by John Pilger or have read articles by him. He seeks to show that sanctions are responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people. Other noble Lords have made the same point in this debate. This is effective propaganda. It is hard to think of a more harrowing sight than that of children suffering in a hospital cancer ward because they are not receiving the necessary treatment. It is a scandal that doctors cannot get the drugs they need. But why is that? Earlier this year the UN Secretary-General reported that one quarter of all medical goods delivered to Iraq since the oil-for-food programme started have remained undelivered in government warehouses. Basic items such as antibiotics remain in short supply. Iraq claims that the problem is caused by lack of vehicles. But thousands of vehicles have been authorised by the Sanctions Committee since the start of oil for food. The real problem is the lack of commitment on the part of the Iraqi regime.
It is not only that. Iraq is exporting humanitarian goods. It has sold food to Syria and tried to sell food to Jordan; and several vessels exporting goods from Iraq have been intercepted in the Gulf. There is also evidence that Iraq is exporting oil outside the oil-for-food programme—oil which could and should have been exported under the oil-for-food rules. By exporting it illegally the regime is depriving the programme of revenue and thus the Iraqi people of

719
humanitarian relief. The revenue from these illegal exports goes straight into the pockets of Saddam Hussein and his friends. The Iraqi people see none of it.
Is it any wonder that there are sick and malnourished children for Mr Pilger to film? Saddam Hussein, who understands about political propaganda, will make sure that they are there in their thousands, if necessary. To argue that sanctions are not working is to deny the evidence. They have successfully contained a brutal dictator for 10 years and have significantly reduced the threat from his weapons of mass destruction. If sanctions were not making any difference, why does Iraq and its friends put so much effort into trying to have them lifted?
Resolution 1284 shows that the Security Council is prepared to look creatively at the Iraq issue. It provides for suspension of sanctions in return for progress by Iraq short of full compliance. It represents an opportunity for Iraq to make quick progress on sanctions. If Iraq has nothing to hide, as it often claims, then it has everything to gain from cooperating. The resolution also calls on Iraq to prioritise its spending under the programme in line with the needs of the Iraqi people, in particular the most vulnerable.
It may not be very palatable, but we have no choice but to stick with the United Nations policy. The alternative—to lift sanctions—would reinforce Saddam Hussein's regime and allow him again to build up a military threat against other states in the region. I do not believe that the international community could contemplate such a course of action.
8.6 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I have just returned from Baghdad after an independent assessment. Time-constrained remarks reflect my evaluation beyond distressing humanitarian issues and sensitivity to the deep concerns about the Iraqi leadership.
There will not be a comprehensive peace or stability in the Middle East without an Iraqi solution. Differing ends of the spectrum include those with a conciliatory pragmatic approach and some in Washington extolling an open-ended massive operation tied to Iraq's acceptance of unconditional international inspections. I believe that anything would be preferable to the continuing creeping strangulation of Iraq.
We are on a treadmill to nowhere and the inability to achieve policy objectives or continuing containment after 10 long years is not sustainable. Iraqi containment and the provision of humanitarian aid to the Kurds have cost the United States Defense Department about 8 billion US dollars since the war. What are the estimates of UK expenditure?
While wishing to emphasise that Kuwait's concern remains one of deep scepticism, I left Baghdad with the firm perception that we are no more likely now to achieve policy objectives than we ever were; that Saddam will not be pressurised into compliance by dangling the suspension of the sanctions carrot; but,
720
most worryingly, that the Western quandary of failure to sustain the moral high ground of ceasefire terms and Security Council resolutions will continue as a result of Iraq's continued exclusion, imposed peace and lack of sensitivity to the Arab mind-set.
The participants must urgently devise a pragmatic exit strategy to unlock the impasse beyond Resolution 1284 which, while addressing outstanding legitimate concerns and creating incentives beyond the perceived American containment-plus agenda, also offers—and here is the key—direct third-location dialogue, a device hitherto not used. A good starting point would be a discussion on the "major concerns" referred to in Resolution 1284. Discussions should extend to de-linking military embargo from economic sanctions, with Iraq reverting to a spirit of "immediate, unconditional and restricted" monitoring.
A range of confidence-building measures should also be put in place. First, there should be the removal of civilian travel restrictions, allowing medical and academic exchange. Secondly, management of and responsibility for financial resources should be returned to the Government of Iraq, a point to which I shall return. Thirdly, we should allow unfettered access to the UN and OPEC arenas. Fourthly, we should encourage the private sector to re-engage. Fifthly, we should permit an early overhaul of the oil industry. A quid pro quo should include the re-establishment of inspectors at the borders and within Iraq, implementation of a smart monitoring sanction of post-sanction racketeering and urgent rebuilding of the education system.
One essential inclusion in a compromise has to be to devise a formula to ensure that future Kurdish autonomy is not jeopardised. Iraq need not shy away from that. During discussions, however, with Tariq Aziz, he emphasised that anything short of direct financial management was an invasion of sovereignty.
I would suggest to him that an acceptable formula could be found, however, to allow Iraqis to manage their own money, ensuring responsibility yet being accountable, with control mechanisms in place not far removed from the accountable methods of the World Bank and the IMF.
Then and only then, all else failing, should default and hidden agendas result in punitive actions., but it should be remembered that the erosion of the former allied coalition constrains many further military options. I remain uncertain that the political will exists for the United States and its allies to allocate more assets, incur greater risks and so deal with further challenges by Iraq.
Opposition is too fragmented and lacking in support within the Iraqi heartland to be effective. The United States Iraqi Liberation Act has failed and generally provided insufficient support and missed key opportunities.
Arab initiatives, which are to be encouraged, include the Egyptians' call for an Arab League summit at year's end and Kuwait, Saudi and Iraq should attempt to stay the course. It also should be noted that

721
a Qatari Foreign Minister called for reconciliation in Kuwait last week, supported last Friday in Paris by the French Foreign Minister.
But what about the Iraqi leadership and its intentions? With or without Saddam—and in reality it is more likely to be with—globalisation, and with it the empowerment of the individual, would prevail. So in conclusion, while not calling for an unconditional lifting of sanctions, rather devise urgently a pragmatic package beyond Resolution 1284 whereby sanctions can indeed be dealt with, I believe a policy review could present an achievable road map. And should participants have the will, I believe that we could be out of this mess in 12 months.
8.11 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, for bring forward this serious matter and for the way in which he did so. All of us are conscious of the great strains on the policy that has been pursued. Not only has it continued for 10 years, but it is clear that there is less solid support for it among those who were involved in the Gulf War than was the case a few years ago. The United States—and increasingly Russia, France and other countries—are beginning to pull away from that policy. Another reason that I believe that the policy cannot last forever is the level of smuggling, in particular over the Russian, Turkish and Jordanian borders. That goes a long way to undermine the effect of sanctions.
I share some of the points raised about the humanitarian agony that is being suffered by the ordinary people of Iraq. It is difficult even to read the accounts of some of the dreadful things that are happening to children in hospitals and in homes. I want to associate myself with what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, about some of the unacceptable delays in making available supplies of humanitarian goods.
However, I most closely identify with the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. He put his finger on an acutely difficult moral dilemma. He pointed out that simply to walk away from the sanctions and effectively to hand a victory to Saddam Hussein would do nothing to strengthen the rule of law and the rule of morality in the world. Those who advocate, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in a powerful speech to which I shall return, the complete abandonment of sanctions must seriously consider what that could mean for the standing of the United Nations and, more broadly, for the standing of any attempt to establish a moral rule in the world.
Even while we observe that sanctions have become, to a great extent, blunted, it is also the case that without hindrance and according to the evidence of Max Van Der Stoel, the UN representative on human rights in Iraq, Saddam Hussein has continued with capricious executions, the killing of political opponents and the arbitrary imprisonment of large numbers of people. That is why the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, correctly says that one can have little
722
hope of an opposition arising in Iraq. We must be clear why. It is not because there are no opponents of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but because the terrible things that have happened to them and their families have undermined whatever moral courage those brave people have shown.
Resolution 1284 was a step forward. It would be reasonable to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that if the 120 days condition of that resolution were to be taken up—and it is open to Iraq to proceed along those lines—the lifting of sanctions that we are seeking would occur. However, the condition is the difficult issue. It is the condition of accepting that UNMOVIC can move into installations which it wants to inspect without let or hindrance from the government.
I want to ask the Minister a few questions about what might be done in this desperately stalemated position. First, can the Government consider including representatives of at least some Arab states in the inspection teams? Countries such as Jordan and Tunisia leap to mind. It is unfortunate that there is not a single Arab state among the list of representatives on the UNMOVIC group. It is vital to keep the Arabs on board.
Secondly, can the Minister tell us how far we have tried to involve Russia in making representations to the government of Iraq with regard to the possibility of being willing to accept UNMOVIC's surveillance? Russia has an important role to play.
Thirdly, it would be worth considering the postponement of reparations to Kuwait until such time as the most desperate humanitarian needs can be met. I refer not to the waiving of reparations but to a postponement of their payment.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to the long delays experienced by the sanctions committee in so far as it is consulted. It may be that only 1 or 2 per cent of the delays are caused by us. However, with respect to the Government's loyalty to the United States, is it not the case that the United States has delayed a number of the provisions which should be going to Iraq under humanitarian aid? Can the Government tell us whether the United States would be prepared to consider a more generous approach to the issue?
8.18 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, has done us all a service by raising the issue as we approach the 10th anniversary of the sanctions and embargo. The issue must be revisited again and again and it has prompted a balanced short debate. The questions are simple, but, unfortunately, the answers are complex, deep and difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, put his finger on many of them. Are the sanctions working? It depends on what one means by "working". Could they be further modified beyond the expanded oil-for-food programme and Resolution 1284, which is a generous resolution? Should they be suspended or scrapped altogether without launching Saddam on new powers of evil in

723
the region? Above all, and it is the central dilemma, how do we go about rebuilding the democratic and prosperous Iraq that could exist one day without helping this evil man, this tyrant, and his hideous little clique back to their bad ways.
What does "working" mean? I must agree that the sanctions are leaking in every direction. They are being bypassed. They have not brought Saddam down; he has stood entrenched. If the aim was to bring Saddam off his perch, the sanctions have not worked. However, I do not believe that that was the aim. Surely, the aim was always containment and the prevention of further evil. That is what we are talking about. In that sense, there is no doubt that, painful and tragic though the consequences of the sanctions regime are, it has prevented a repeat of even greater tragedies. There has been containment, or containment-plus, as the Americans say, and that has had some effect.
Therefore, could the sanctions be modified further? Tam Dalyell, the Member for Linlithgow, for whom I have enormous respect, has urged again and again that there are ways through. The matter has been raised again tonight by noble Lords of great experience. Could we do more on the health and immunisation side? Could some of the contract screening be speeded up? Could there be more intellectual and public contact with Iraqis who want to contact the outside world? And could more be done to repair the oil fields? To those who talk that language I have to say that if they had seen, with me, the Burgam oil fields in 1990 as they flamed skywards, covering the entire area with black dust, which made them look like Dante's Hell, and knowing that that was done malignly and deliberately by Iraqi troops at the orders of their masters, possibly they would believe that there is some hideous justice in the fact that Iraq's own oil fields are not in ideal shape.
The truth is that behind all the attempts to get through the problem and alleviate the suffering of the Iraqis stands Saddam Hussein. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, Saddam has the resources. The UN tells us that a quarter of all medical goods delivered are sitting in warehouses and not being distributed. The élite are obtaining vast resources from their illegal oil exports. I have seen them myself, as I have their food exports rumbling into Syria off the Euphrates road at night.
Therefore, enormous sums of money are available in Iraq and in the hands of the elite. How does one get round the fact that, so long as Saddam plays this game and pursues his evil policies, it is almost impossible to bypass him and bring alleviation to the tragic and impoverished Iraqi people? If he alone is selling outside the oil-for-food programme—approximately 60,000 barrels of oil a day—and the money goes straight into his palaces, his new cars, his armaments and his equipment, it cannot be right to say that we should do more of that in the hope that somehow he will come good and abandon his ways.
The reality is that it is probably too ambitious to talk in terms of getting rid of Saddam. What does it mean if we talk in terms of containing him? Is more evil
724
and cruelty to more children and people in Iraq being carried out by the present policy of sanctions, as the right reverend Prelate rightly mentioned? Or will more evil be unleashed if we take the containment harness away from him? What happens if he goes back to his old ways, as he has said that he will? What happens to the Kurds? What happens to the Kuwaitis, who have been so gallant? What happens to the Marsh Arabs and to the whole of the Middle East peace process if Iraq emerges, not benign and democratic, but malign and evil and, once again, led by this hideous tyrant?
That is the agonising dilemma. No doubt the noble Baroness will explain how this Government are facing it. I have no doubt myself that if there was a benign, democratic, rich Iraq, it would be of huge benefit to the entire Middle East peace process and the peace of the world. However, we have not reached that stage yet and I am not sure that removing sanctions would bring us to that point.
8.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Islwyn for allowing me this opportunity to debate the important subject of Iraq. I say straight away that I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
I fully share the concern that my noble friend Lord Islwyn set out in relation to the people of Iraq. The tenderness of that expression does him honour, as, indeed, do the sentiments expressed by all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. Would that the tenderness of those sentiments were shared by the Government of Iraq. I agree with my noble friend Lord Islwyn that it is not an issue of saving face but of saving lives. However, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, put his finger on it when he reminded us that we are talking about containment and considering which is the greater evil.
The Government of Iraq prefer—that is what we must face—to use their people's suffering for propaganda purposes. I also agree with the sentiments expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and his description of the regime. The regime knows that the pictures of malnourished children provoke our sympathy, even our outrage, as many noble Lords have already said. And rightly so.
However, it is surely an even greater outrage that the Iraqi Government wilfully deny food and medicine to those children and play politics with their suffering. They hope that by doing so they can play on our emotions and persuade us to abandon the Security Council's resolutions and lift sanctions. That would leave Saddam Hussein free to redevelop his weapons of mass destruction and, once again, threaten the region, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Howell, outlined.
It is important for us to recall why sanctions were first imposed, following Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Under Security Council Resolution 687, which Iraq accepted at the end of the Gulf War,

725
sanctions can be lifted only when Iraq complies with its obligations, including on disarmament. Iraq could have done that at once if it had chosen to do so. Instead, it chose deliberately to obstruct the efforts of UNSCOM weapons inspectors to uncover the extent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme. It chose to hinder efforts to account for the whereabouts of the 605 Kuwaitis and others who have been missing since the Gulf War. To date, Iraq has produced sufficient information to close only three files. In doing so, it has prolonged the sanctions regime for 10 years.
It would be nice to believe that Saddam Hussein wants to put the needs of his people first. However, he has never done so. In the 1980s he launched chemical attacks on his own civilians, whose only supposed crime was to be Kurdish. Thousands of civilians died in those attacks and many more still suffer from the after-effects of exposure to such weapons. He attacked his neighbours again with chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out, while his people were starving, he sold food to other countries. Surely there can be few who are now justified in believing that if sanctions were lifted Saddam Hussein would suddenly change the habit of a lifetime and start to put his people's needs first. I for one have no reason to believe that he would do so. I can only agree with the analysis set out so cogently by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester as to what the likely outcome would be.
I agree with all noble Lords who say that there is absolutely no need for the Iraqi people to suffer or starve. The importation of food and medicine into Iraq has never been prohibited under sanctions. Under the oil-for-food programme, billions of dollars have been spent on food, medicine and repairs to Iraq's infrastructure, including that of its oil industry. The UK has been at the forefront of efforts to alleviate the humanitarian situation. Since 1991 we have donated approximately £100 million in aid to Iraq. Of course, in this respect we are also grateful for the contributions made by British NGOs and religious bodies. I should tell the House that my right honourable friend Mr Hain is due to meet Churches Together in Britain and Ireland next month to discuss the whole situation in Iraq.
As many noble Lords have mentioned, our most recent initiative—SCR 1284—which was adopted in December 1999, is a very important step forward. Throughout the past year we invested huge amounts of time and energy in securing adoption of that resolution. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that the resolution provides a new platform for the UN's dealings with Iraq. All Security Council members are now working hard on its implementation.
On the humanitarian side, it provides for significant improvements to the effectiveness of the "oil for food" programme. It lifted the ceiling on the amount of oil Iraq can export to fund the purchase of humanitarian aid, and this, together with the recent recovery in
726
world oil prices, has boosted Iraq's oil revenues back to—if not above—their peak historical level of around 15 billion dollars a year.
Iraq's oil Minister has recently announced that Iraq is planning to increase its exports further by about 700,000 barrels per day, which would put Iraq among the world's top five oil exporters.
All of this means that an estimated 10 billion dollars will be available for the humanitarian programme in Iraq this year. Despite all this, the Iraqi people still do not see the full benefits.
The UN recently recommended that Iraq set aside 91 million dollars for targeted nutrition for groups such as infants and new mothers. Iraq allocated only 24 million dollars.
In 1998 the UN Secretary-General recommended a daily food ratio of 2,463 kilocalories. The Iraqi Government, however, sets the current average ration at just 1,993 kilocalories.
Kofi Annan's latest report notes that Iraq is ordering insufficient quantities of pulses and dairy products to make up the food ration and not including sufficient protein. The Iraqi Government also fail to order enough medicines and then fail to distribute them properly, as a number of noble Lords have already said. The latest UN report notes that one quarter of all medical goods delivered to Iraq since oil-for-food began have not been distributed.
Meanwhile, in the northern governorates the people are not starving. In the north, child mortality rates are actually lower than they were in 1990. Why is there such a difference? It is because in the north the United Nations implements the oil-for-food programme, and does so in a manner designed to bring maximum benefit to the people.
My noble friend Lord Islwyn was not quite right in saying the northern governorates are under Turkish control. They are not.
The government in Baghdad could do the same, if they wanted to. Some have urged here today that we lift sanctions immediately and unconditionally. I am sure my noble friends would not expect the United Kingdom, a Permanent Member of the Security Council, to decide to abandon the council's resolutions, which have the force of international law.
As I said before, there is no reason to suppose that Saddam Hussein would give any higher priority to the needs of his people than he does now.
I can assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that our policy is to expedite the supply of humanitarian goods to Iraq. Under Resolution 1284 the Sanctions Committee procedures for approving humanitarian contracts have been streamlined to ensure the contracts are processed more quickly than before. We will not overlook our responsibility, however, to ensure that Iraq does not acquire prohibited goods.
In total the United Kingdom only puts a tiny percentage of the oil-for-food contracts on hold and it is about 1 per cent overall, and I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that we will continue in our

727
efforts to improve efficiency and transparency. I shall write to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, in relation to the two other questions.
I will address some of the matters raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the question of UNMOVIC and its staff. Hans Blix, the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, is currently in the process of recruiting and training his staff in this region, and we do look to Russia, as the noble Baroness suggests, to urge Iraq to co-operate with the resolution. It is only fair to add that, during the negotiations for the resolution last year, the UK made the very proposal to postpone payments for oil-for-food to the compensation fund so that money could be used for food and medicine and unfortunately other council members rejected this proposal. We have tried very hard indeed, and we must not underestimate the success that we have had in getting this new resolution. We are trying to work with it as effectively and efficiently as we can, but we accept there is much to do and we shall continue to do all that we can in that area.
I can also assure my noble friend Lord Rea that we are not conducting a bombing campaign in Iraq. The UK and US pilots are patrolling the "no fly" zones, which were established in 1991 and 1992, in response to Iraqi oppression of the civilian population. They stop Saddam Hussein using his aircraft to attack his own people. Since late 1998 Iraq has waged a systematic campaign to shoot down our aircraft. There have been over 650 direct threats against our aircrew, including missile attacks and heavy anti-aircraft fire, and our aircraft take action only when they are forced to do so to defend themselves.
As regards the package that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for which argued in terms of confidence-building measures to persuade Iraq to resume co-operation, many of those proposals already exist the form of SCR 1284, and they offer Saddam Hussein every incentive to co-operate.
All the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, were very much to the point, and I think she was right to highlight that Saddam Hussein has continued to disregard human rights and that Resolution 1284 is a step forward.
The way ahead lies with SCR 1284. This is a real opportunity for Saddam Hussein, if he wishes to take it, but most crucially SCR 1284 marks out a clear route out of sanctions by allowing for their suspension. Under the resolution, if Iraq co-operates with the new disarmament body to a standard well short of that required for a sanctions lift then sanctions can be suspended, possibly within months.
The Iraqi Government are fond of claiming that they have given up their weapons of mass-destruction and have nothing to hide. If that is so then they have everything to gain by resuming full co-operation with the UN. Her Majesty's Government call on Iraq to do so.

Terrorism Bill
8.38 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Authorisations]:
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 114:
Page 20, line 24, after ("in") insert ("or on").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 114, which is a minor amendment to Clause 44. Its purpose is to ensure that the stop and search powers are exercisable in relation to an item carried on a vehicle.
Clause 44(1)(d) already allows the police to search an item in a vehicle, and I am sure noble Lords would not want the police to be barred from searching for items carried, for example, on a car roof-rack. I hope that this amendment is uncontroversial, even if amusing to some noble Lords. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Marlesfordmoved Amendment No. 115:
Page 20, line 29, at end insert—
("(2A) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a person for so long as is necessary to question him to ascertain his identity and movements.
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), a person required to give details of his identity to a constable in uniform must—

(a) if he is a United Kingdom citizen, provide the constable in uniform with his National Health Service number; or

(b) if he is not a United Kingdom citizen, provide the constable in uniform with—

(i) his passport details, or

(ii) details of other documentation used to gain entry to the United Kingdom,

and must also provide such other particulars as the constable may reasonably require.").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment and speak to Amendments Nos. 118, 120, 121, 122 and 161, which follow on quite neatly but rather more substantially from the amendment which the Minister has just moved. The substantial amendments are Amendments Nos. 115 and 161, the latter reproducing for England what Amendment No. 15 does for Northern Ireland. I seek to help the Government by making the provisions of the Bill more effective. However, I hope that I shall have the support of those who perhaps feel that the Bill is already too effective by assuring them that nothing that I propose in these amendments in any way infringes on civil liberties or human rights.
I start with what I hope is a common position for all of us: that if terrorism is to be combatted, the identification of those who might be terrorists should be achieved as simply, effectively and certainly as possible. It is only by doing so that the risks of inconvenience or worse to the innocent can be minimised.
At present, the only preliminary general identification available to the police who wish to question someone is the name and address. Both of

729
those are always difficult to verify rapidly and some prove impossible. Indeed, the use of false names and addresses is often the tactic of first resort for wrongdoers. Names are not enough in fighting serious crime, of which, of course, terrorism is a great example.
And yet in its dealings with citizens, every state has long used a multitude of numbering systems as a supplement and, indeed, often an alternative to names and addresses. In this country, every citizen receives a national health number at birth. Birth certificates have long been used and, indeed, required as evidence of identity for a number of purposes, both official and private. Later, everyone has a national insurance number. However, some people have numerous national insurance numbers. It has long been widely known and admitted by successive governments that there are far more current national insurance numbers than there are people entitled to them.
All taxpayers have a tax number and I believe that multiple tax numbers are rather less popular than multiple national insurance numbers.
All those who travel abroad will have passports which have a number which changes every time a new passport is issued to the same person, which is a strange system. All those authorised to drive road vehicles have a driving licence number which, itself, is a crude cryptogram of name and age. Members of Her Majesty's forces have military numbers. Civil servants will usually have passes with numbers. Members of Parliament and those who work in the Palace of Westminster will have passes of varying colour and design, each with a unique reference number. Those who go to prison have a prison number which, incidentally, varies with every prison to which a person is admitted. Those convicted of serious crimes receive a criminal record number, and so it goes on.
Ten members of the European Union—Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal—have national identity cards. A valid identity card of any EU or economic area country may be accepted as a travel document for entry into the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, a system of identity cards was introduced during the war and was scrapped in 1952.
Following the government's 1995 Green Paper, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee made an extensive study of identity cards in 1996. It concluded that a case for introducing a voluntary identity card had been made but it was opposed to the use of a unique identity number for each cardholder.
The then government, in their August 1996 reply, accepted the committee's proposal that there should be a voluntary identity card based on the new photo driving licence. They envisaged that a single national identity number might be required in the future.
I do not propose that there should be identity cards. I do not even propose that there should be any fresh, new national identity number. However, in order to make this important legislation effective, I believe that the existing National Health Service number should be
730
used as an identity reference for British citizens and, for non-British citizens, passports or other entry documents would enable the police to exercise their powers under the Bill.
Of course, that would mean that National Health Service numbers would gradually have to be made available for use by the police national computer, as driving licences already are. But I hope that I do not need to reassure the Committee that to use the same number for different purposes no more means unauthorised persons having access to information held for those different purposes than if the same information is held under different numbers.
Therefore, my amendments spell out, under the power of the stop and search provisions in Clause 44 and Clause 89 for Ireland, the power of the police to ask for National Health Service numbers which would have to be developed in the way I have described for British citizens. For others, the police would require the production of identity material which has been used for entry into the United Kingdom.
With the serious threat of the development of terrorism and the need to introduce this Bill, I believe that that will become an essential weapon to make it more effective. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I am not very happy about the arguments being put. It seems to me that this is a way of establishing an identity card system without overtly doing so. It is better to have a proper debate about the merits or demerits of ID cards rather than dealing with that issue in this particular round-about way.
Not everybody from abroad necessarily has a passport. People may come from a repressive regime which does not permit them to have passports. So it does not follow that that particular form of documentation would be available.
I am not wholly clear about how one would demonstrate that one's National Health Service number was accurate. No doubt the noble Lord knows what his number is. I know what mine is but I have no piece of paper to prove that. So it is a complicated approach. I believe that the noble Lord would do better to argue the case for ID cards, if that is what he believes.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I find myself in agreement with both noble Lords in that I agree that a national identity card would probably be the most sensible system. But I wonder whether there is not quite a lot to be said for the national insurance number. It seems to me that that is one thing which everybody in Northern Ireland—and it is Northern Ireland that I am thinking about—undoubtedly has which is probably not regarded, even by the most virulent Republican, as an admission of British citizenship or anything else. It is simply that you are part of the national health system in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it would be extraordinarily difficult not to have such a number and not to be prepared to give it. On those grounds, I suggest that there is merit in the proposal.

731
I quite see the difficulty in relation to the non-British citizen. For that reason, I agree that the best answer would be a national identity card. But that is for another debate, and quite a long one. I hope that we might consider this as a half-way house.
Lord Dubs: I should make it clear that I am not advocating identity cards. I prefaced my remarks by saying that, if that is what the noble Lord wants, then that should be debated. But I was not arguing the case for ID cards.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: First, I congratulate my noble friend on his ingenuity in raising this matter on the Bill. However, as he said, it is relevant because of the necessity properly to identify people in terrorist cases.
I find attractive the idea of a single number for all purposes rather than having a multiplicity of numbers for all the different purposes which my noble friend set out. But I cannot agree to the acceptance of the amendment.
It is difficult to justify the different personal reference numbers from different government departments. I was going to say that the NHS number, deriving, for those of us who are old enough, directly from the identity card number, as it does, seemed to have some primacy in the matter and might take preference over the others. But in response to what was said earlier, I was going to produce my NHS medical card, which I happened to have with me, to demonstrate that one could exhibit one's NHS number. But, to my astonishment, I discovered that my NHS number is not what I thought it was and it is certainly not the identity card number that I have held since my youth, dating back to the war. Perhaps that is not such a good point after all.
As far as the Bill is concerned, I believe that the present position should remain, both in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. However, it is important that we consider the matter of voluntary identity cards on another occasion. My noble friend has found an ingenious way of reminding us of the issue.
Lord Bach: I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, on his—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cope—ingenious way of bringing this debate before the Committee. On the government side, we appreciate the fact that he has brought forward these amendments aimed to assist the police and in Northern Ireland the Army to carry out their powers under Clause 44 and under Part VII, Clause 89. The Government welcome the intentions of the noble Lord, but he will not be entirely surprised to hear that I am not in a position to accept the amendments.
Amendment No. 115 would fundamentally change the nature of Clause 44. As drafted, that clause provides the police with the power, when authorised, to stop and search when expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism. The amendment would widen the scope of the authorisation to enable a constable in uniform to stop and question, as well as to search, to ascertain identity and movements. The amendment
732
would combine the current stop and search power with the Northern Ireland specific power at Clause 89(1)(a) to stop and question, usually in the wake of a terrorist incident.
Counter-terrorism provisions in Northern Ireland have traditionally included a specific stop and question power for use usually in the wake of a terrorist incident by the police and the Army. That allows the security forces to stop and question anyone about their identity and movements and makes it an offence not to answer questions.
By any standards, those are necessary but wide powers that we believe continue to be appropriate for the time being in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, but we do not believe that they should be part of the permanent United Kingdom-wide counter-terrorist powers, with which this Bill is largely concerned. We believe that it is sufficient that the police are able to stop and search people to prevent acts of terrorism. Of course, if terrorist articles are found in their possession, arrest may follow, with the right to detain and question. We do not believe that a more general stop and question power is called for and the police have not asked for such a power. In those circumstances, the Government cannot support that measure. We see the aim, but we do not believe that the case has been made for introducing a new power of this type outside Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 would, of course, be a safeguard for a person stopped under Clause 44, in that they would give him a right to ask for and to receive a written statement that he was stopped under the identity requirement provided for in Amendment No. 115. Of course, if the substantive amendment is not passed that provision is not necessary.
I now turn to the second limb of Amendment No. 115, with which we should consider Amendments Nos. 120, 121, 122 and 161. The aim is to require specific information to be provided on the exercise of the powers in Clauses 44 and 89. Before dealing with the specifics of those amendments, I say to the noble Lord that his concerns about carrying documentation for proving identity have a wider application which will be raised with the Home Secretary. I know that my noble friend Lord Bassam also is particularly interested in them.
The amendments would require a person to provide the officer with his National Health Service number—that may be a little difficult for the noble Lord, Lord Cope, if tonight's experience is anything to go by—if he is a United Kingdom citizen or with his passport or other immigration details if he is not. It would be an offence to fail to do so under the Clause 44 power, but failure would not, as I read the amendment, constitute an offence under Clause 89. Leaving that point to one side, we do not believe that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord present a practical proposition that the Government could accept.
We believe that the vast majority of United Kingdom citizens will not have with them or know their National Health Service number. I am sure that

733
the Committee will agree that a person must not be detained by the officer for the time that it would take to establish that information. Further, there is no requirement that persons visiting the United Kingdom or resident here as non-UK citizens should have their passport or immigration details with them.
As I have tried to make clear during my response, the Government will ensure that the general point made by the noble Lord previously and again tonight is carefully considered. The Government see the aim of the amendments but we believe them to be both unnecessary and impractical. We hope that they will not be pressed.
Lord Marlesford: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has replied and I am grateful to other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I must assure the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that of course one recognises that there are some people who, for the reason that he gives, do not have documents when they come to this country. However, that is a totally different problem relating to asylum seeking and so on, and the sooner such people receive whatever documents they need or whatever number they needed, the better.
The subject of an identity card is an emotive one. I would not wish people to have to carry cards or passports or any other form of documentation. However, if people find it convenient to do so, as I understand they do in most EU countries that have such systems, that would be a perfectly welcome development and it would be in accordance with the civil liberty approach that I would endorse.
I am grateful to the Minister. Of course, I intended these amendments to be probing. I had no intention of pressing them. I hope that the Government, in their internal discussions on the way forward in relation to requiring more certain forms of identification that are needed in many areas, of which terrorism is only one, will have found these few minutes of value. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 not moved.]
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Exercise of power]:
[Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 not moved.]
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Offences]:
[Amendments Nos. 120 to 122 not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Authorisations]:
[Amendment No. 123 not moved]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clauses 49 to 52 agreed to.
9 p.m.
Clause 53 [Port and border controls]:
Lord Cope of Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 124:
Page 24, line 14, leave out ("repeal") insert ("revoke an order made under").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 124, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 130 and 131. These amendments concern so-called "carding" schemes under which aircraft and other operators are required to dish out cards for completion by passengers, and then to forward them to the security authorities.
Amendment No. 124 is of limited purpose. As the Bill stands, a scheme of this character can be introduced under paragraph 16 of Schedule 7 by order of the Secretary of State who can, subsequently, under the part of the clause to which Amendment No. 124 refers, repeal that paragraph by order, thus finishing the carding scheme. But he can only do that once. Once the carding scheme has begun as a result of paragraph 16, then the Secretary of State can only repeal the whole paragraph and leave it out, thus stopping the scheme for good. That means that a carding scheme, once started, would remain permanent and be there for all time. Amendment No. 124 would enable the Secretary of State to revoke the order so that the carding scheme could be suspended for the time being but restarted if the terrorist situation altered.
Amendment No. 130 is a probing amendment to inquire what the intentions of the Government are in relation to these schemes. Will they be used relatively briefly in connection with specific counter-terrorist operations when there is a specific threat? Or is it the intention that they should become a permanent feature of travel within the United Kingdom as well as further afield? It is an important question for the operators because, to introduce such a scheme, would place them in considerable difficulty, about which they are concerned. There is also the wider question from the general civil liberties point of view as to whether or not it is intended to permanently operate these schemes.
A number of other questions arise in this regard. One is to whom responsibility is to be given for the accuracy of the information on the cards. It is difficult to expect the operators to be responsible for the accuracy of the information. They are not in a position to check it even if everybody had their passports with them. In theory it may be possible, but some people are not required to carry passports, identity cards or anything else. In those circumstances, it is difficult for the operator to be held responsible. Indeed, we know that false information is often given on passenger lists for both good reasons and bad.
Amendment No. 124 is particularly concerned to discover whether or not the schemes can be reinstated. I beg to move.
Viscount Simon: Amendment No. 131 seeks to ensure that the provisions for the supply of information contained within this paragraph take proper account of the intricate logistics of airline operations.

735
Any request for information places an additional burden upon already tight airline schedules. It is therefore vital to the integrity of the operation that airlines can ensure that complying with such a request causes minimum impact. Consequently, a request for carding to be applied to a specific flight could—if applied inconsiderately—jeopardize the schedule and punctuality of the airline concerned. And punctuality, as Members of the Committee will know, is one of the most important factors in passengers' choice of airline.
Paragraph 16(2), as it currently stands, is unclear concerning at what point in the journey any requirement for carding would be required. The simplest interpretation of the provision is that passengers would be required to complete a card on the ground, either before boarding an aircraft or ferry or, alternatively, after disembarking at their destination. Neither course would be easy to implement and both would risk compromising the punctuality of operations.
Many Members of the Committee will have experienced queues to get onto an aircraft and some may even have complained. To have to queue after getting off the aircraft would not endear the airline to its passengers, and I can well understand operators' concerns to ensure that that does not happen. And, of course, there is the physical aspect of finding a flat surface upon which to write in the cramped confines of an aircraft gate lounge.
The purpose of my amendment, therefore, is to ensure that operators have sufficient flexibility in meeting the carding requirement. It simply enables an additional option for operators to distribute cards to their captive passengers during the flight when they might complete them at their leisure and hand them in before the flight lands without any interruption to the operation. In that way, passengers will be able to embark and disembark with minimum disruption and the Home Office's requirements would be met. As that procedure already exists on international flights, it should be logical and easy to extend it to domestic flights.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I support Amendment No. 131, to which I added my name arid to which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, spoke, arid also support the amendment of my noble friend. I should declare an interest which applies also to later amendments. I was recently involved in a Channel Islands-based airline which will be affected by the Bill, along with all other airlines.
The airlines want to know when they have to produce this card. That is not at all clear in the Bill as presently drafted. Amendment No. 131 merely seeks to introduce a requirement that it should be on the arrival of the relevant voyage or flight. As the noble Viscount said, that is precisely what happens when a flight comes in from anywhere else in the world. Non-EU residents are handed cards by the flight crew during the flight and they are then completed. If that is acceptable for the Immigration Service, it should be acceptable for anybody else. The problem is that doing it in any other way could affect the punctuality of
736
flights and compromise departure times which, when running tight schedules, would be undesirable from the point of view not only of the airlines but also of passengers. I therefore support the amendment of the noble Viscount, Amendment No. 131.
Lord Greenway: I should like broadly to support the two amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and in some measure the amendment just spoken to, although, as I shall explain in a moment, I shall part company with the airline interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, was worried about the proposed use of this power, and that is a matter of some concern to the ferry industry. Ferries have used cards in the past. One particular occasion related to the Aintree incident. When there is a specific emergency, passengers are, by and large, quite willing to fill in these cards. However, if it were proposed to do so on a permanent basis, I suspect that there would a good deal of adverse passenger reaction.
As regards Amendment No. 131 tabled in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, it may be all well and good for airline passengers to be able to fill in their cards either in the terminal building or on the aircraft. After all, when some of us travel to foreign parts we are asked to fill in such cards on the aircraft, and that never seems to present too much of a problem. Indeed, everyone sits in neat little rows. However, that is totally different on a ferry where there may be 2,000 passengers milling around. Therefore, as far as concerns the ferry industry, it would be preferable to leave how the carding is done to the discretion of the operator.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: These amendments have provided us with a useful debate and have given us the opportunity to discuss the carding powers in the Bill. Such powers allow the examining officers to require people who have travelled from one part of the common travel area to another, excluding journeys within Great Britain, to complete and produce a card containing specified information about themselves. There is also the related power to require owners or agents to supply passengers with these cards. So the ultimate responsibility for the completion of the card does not lie with the carrier; that responsibility, in terms of accuracy, is a matter for the individual.
The carding power is to be found in the PTA, though not precisely in this form. The police have found it to be an extremely useful tool in tackling terrorism. It enables them quickly to obtain self-supplied details about passengers. However, as we recognised in our consultation paper, the power has been the source of some concern in certain quarters. Indeed, Members of the Committee have expressed that concern this evening. Objections have included that its use can delay journeys on occasions and that it can appear to be used disproportionately against Irish people.
Mindful of these sensitivities and the availability of passenger information provisions, the Bill provides that the carding power will have to be explicitly

737
"switched on" by the affirmative resolution procedure rather than being permanently available, as is currently the case. We envisage that one of the main factors that will be taken into account when deciding whether an order should be laid is the prevailing security situation. Even when a carding order is in force, that is not to suggest that blanket carding of all flights and sailing will take place simply as a matter of course. As now, the police will use the powers carefully and, I am sure, sensitively. But the amendments tabled seek to delineate more precisely these parameters.
Perhaps I may turn to the detail of the amendments. Amendment No. 124 seeks to delete from the face of the Bill the possibility of the repeal by order of the carding power but in its place make specific reference to the power to revoke a carding order. I take, first, the second effect, which we believe to be completely unnecessary. The Interpretation Act provides that any power to make an order includes the power to revoke. As to the proposal to delete the possibility of repeal by order altogether, we understand the concern at providing for repeal of a provision of an Act of Parliament in this manner. Such a decision would obviously not be taken lightly. In the first place, a revocation of a current order would be much more likely. But the carding power has been a long-term cause of concern for some and we think it right to provide an express provision on the face of the Bill to allow for its repeal at some point in the future, subject to Parliament's agreement via the affirmative resolution procedure.
Amendment No. 130 provides that the carding power may be used only,
"in connection with specific counter-terrorist operations".
Of course we recognise the underlying concern here—namely, to ensure that the power is not used disproportionately—but we do not think that the proposed approach would do the trick. While carding can be used in the context of what we understand by the term "specific counter-terrorist operations", it is also useful as part of the wider, ongoing intelligence gathering effort. To limit its use to specific operations would deny the police the power in circumstances where they currently find it invaluable.
Amendment No. 131 provides that carding must take place,
"prior to the arrival of the relevant voyage or flight".
We have two difficulties with this approach, which we take to be designed to deal with concerns about the delay to passengers and carriers that might arise as a result of filling in cards. The first difficulty is technical and minor in that no equivalent provision seems to be made in respect of outward journeys.
The second difficulty goes to the heart of the way the carding power is used. The approach proposed in the amendment is used very occasionally when a whole flight or sailing is "blanket" carded and passengers are asked to fill out their cards on the journey. However, this is rare. It is much more common for the police to use the carding power highly selectively in the context of their wider examination powers. In these
738
circumstances "carding in advance" could lead to an unnecessary interference in the lives of some passengers and be wasteful of their time, as the way the power would be likely to work in practice would be for the police to ask everyone to complete a card and then only collect, or study, the cards of any who, on examination, matched a particular line of inquiry they were pursuing. The amendment is, therefore, overly prescriptive and could actually work against the interests of the travelling public.
I hope that in view of the comments and the assurances that I have given, noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: I hope that I may ask the Minister a question. He said that he was not suggesting that carding would be used on all flights and sailings and that it could be applied to particular flights as the police determine is necessary. If they think that a terrorist or terrorists might embark on a particular flight, they can designate that flight as one to which carding applies.
However, the wording of paragraph 16 in Schedule 7 is general. It appears to indicate that the Secretary of State has to make an order which applies to all flights or sailings of the descriptions mentioned in subparagraph (3). How can the Minister claim that the power is selective, as he says? I wish to be assured that we shall not have blanket and unnecessary carding of all flights to or from particular destinations but that the order can be limited to those flights on which there is reasonable cause to suspect that terrorists may be carried. However, if that is the case, the order will not apply continuously over a long period but will apply only when those suspicions have arisen. One would like to see a flexible power which enables the Secretary of State to amend the order without coming back to Parliament for a second affirmative resolution to state that it now applies to certain flights rather than those which featured in the original order. Will the Minister give us an assurance on that point?
Lord Elton: I beg to interject that the idea of a terrorist revealing his profession by means of filling in a card on an aeroplane seems to me rather far-fetched. However, putting that aside, I raise a point now that I had intended to raise later. Will the Minister consider the advisability of putting on the statute book yet another item which almost invites us to be treated as a bargaining counter or a barometer of the temperature of relations between Dublin and London?
If the Bill states that we shall discard this measure when it is no longer necessary, that seems to me to put the Government in a difficult position in the future when there may appear to be no immediate prospect of the necessity for the power but the power may be needed again later and diplomatic pressure is brought to bear to discard it now for political reasons. We have frequently been in that position in the past. It seems to me rather odd gratuitously to create another such instance. I believe that my noble friend's Amendment No. 124 gets over that difficulty in a way which is

739
perfectly normal as regards every other statute. I have to welcome a Henry VIII clause which for once enables a government to discard a power rather than take it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Henry VIII had some virtues after all! I have listened to the debate with interest. First, I shall try to deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The point about the power—the noble Lord almost answered his own question—is that it is enabling. It enables the police to use the carding exercise with some precision and flexibility. That is the point of it. As I made plain earlier, the power can be used when the security situation dictates and demands.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that we are mindful of the Irish Government's view, but we also have to be mindful of security considerations and the balance in terms of benefit of having flexible measures, such as the one we are discussing, in a general enabling power. I do not share the pessimistic view of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that this will be seen as yet another bargaining counter in the "ratcheting up or down" of relations between London and Dublin. It is a responsible power and can be useful, although not all carding exercises and regimes are endless in their benefit. When I flew to the United States, the filling-in of my green card was somewhat fatuous as I was asked on it whether I was a drug dealer or a terrorist—and I could not answer either of those questions. I think the noble Lord takes the point.
We think that this power is useful; the police think that it is useful; the security situation periodically demands it; and it will be used with both precision and flexibility.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I knew that the Minister had a past slightly more chequered than many Members of the Committee, but I did not think that it would have got him banned from going to the United States.
I am reassured that the Government intend to use these powers as they have been used up to now and do not intend to use them in a blanket way—although that has been suggested occasionally to some of the operators.
I do not think that the Minister answered my question about who is responsible for the accuracy of the information given on the cards.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I apologise to the noble Lord; I thought I had responded. The accuracy of the information is the individual's responsibility. The carrier's responsibility is simply to facilitate the operation of the scheme. The carrier does not have responsibility for the accuracy of the information; that is down to the individual in each instance.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: That is a reassuring answer. In the light of the discussion we have had, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Port and Border Controls]:
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 125:
Page 104, line 41, at end insert ("and "vehicle" includes a train.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 125 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 126 to 129 and 135.
These are technical and drafting amendments to Schedule 7 of the Bill. Amendment No. 126 makes clear that the examination officer's powers extend to those entering or leaving the UK from places other than a port—for example, a person landing on a beach. Amendments Nos. 125, 127 to 129 and 135 are technical amendments to ensure that the powers conferred on an examining officer in respect of searches also apply to examinations, and that it is an offence to obstruct an examination as well as an offence to obstruct a search. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendments Nos. 126 to 129:
Page 104, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) A place shall be treated as a port for the purposes of this Schedule in relation to a person if an examining officer believes that the person—

(a) has gone there for the purpose of embarking on a ship or aircraft, or

(b) has arrived there on disembarking from a ship or aircraft.").

Page 106, line 27, after ("search") insert ("or examination").
Page 106, line 35, after ("is") insert ("searched or").
Page 107, line 36, leave out second ("the") and insert ("a").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 132:
Page 109, line 1, after ("If") insert (", in connection with specific counter-terrorist operations,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 132 I shall speak also to the other amendments grouped with it.
The amendments relate to a similar provision for the supply of passenger information under paragraph 17 of Schedule 7, whereby schemes can be introduced in which the operators of a ship or an aircraft are required to produce lists of their passengers, crew and vehicles. This provision is similar to that contained in previous legislation, but with the addition of vehicle particulars.
Amendment No. 132 seeks to probe when the Government anticipate using the power, and whether it will be used from time to time in connection with specific operations or in a more blanket manner. Amendment No. 134 seeks to ensure that only information which can reasonably be expected to be provided should be obtained by orders of this kind. Some things are inherently more difficult to obtain than others depending on the circumstances of the particular airline or shipping company.

741
Again, it is important to understand who is responsible for the accuracy of a list of this character. In this case, the list is being drawn up by and specifically given to the authorities by the owners or agents of the ship or aircraft, but they cannot really be held responsible for its accuracy. They will have to rely on what they are told. Even in the case of vehicle numbers, while they may take them down correctly, they are not in a position to verify whether the correct plates are on the vehicle. Dates of birth and that kind of detail are extremely difficult to verify except in the case of those who happen to be carrying their passports. Of course, there is no requirement in most of these cases to carry a passport because these are essentially internal movements of ships and aircraft, not foreign movements.
These are essentially probing amendments intended to discover the way in which these powers are going to be used and the details of them. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Greenway: I support the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, in Amendments Nos. 132 and 134. I have a number of amendments grouped with his amendments. As the noble Lord explained, the amendments relate to the provision of a passenger manifest by ferries and airlines. Providing information is not new. Under EU rules, ferry operators have to provide information regarding the name, sex and broad age group of passengers. What these new powers seek to do is extend that to include the place and date of birth.
The Bill basically repeats the powers existing in the Prevention of Terrorism Act with one or two additions. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, mentioned the addition of vehicles. There is also reference as regards ships to "expected to arrive" rather than information to be provided on ships arriving in a UK port—for example, looking to a situation prior to actual arrival in port. Operationally, this extension is very significant as the information is not easily collected on board for hand-over at port of disembarkation. It would really have to be collected prior to sailing and then transmitted independently.
The existing power in the Prevention of Terrorism Act has not been used, although a number of police forces did try to use it last summer. That led to an outcry among the ferry companies, as a result of which the police withdrew their request. This forced the ferry companies to look at the situation, certainly as is possibly envisaged in the Bill whereby the power would be continuous. The ferry companies believe that the provision would give rise to all sorts of additional costs in relation to extra staff and perhaps added technology for listing these manifests. In addition, in relation to the incident I mentioned last summer, representations were made by the diplomats in the Republic of Ireland.
The other worry is that, by forcing ferry companies to comply with these requirements, time would be lost. Modern ferry operations, particularly on the Irish Sea,
742
are carried out by high-speed ferries with a very short turn-round time—perhaps 30 minutes—and it could well be that ferry companies might lose one round trip a day, which would have serious financial implications.
I mentioned in debate on previous amendments our worry about whether the power would be used at all times or at specific times. In a way the Bill gives the police unfettered authority to use the power. Police checks, which are by no means new, have not so far given rise to such requirements. Under EU regulations, the ferry operators already provide the police with access to the information they have and they have every intention of continuing to do so.
Perhaps I may turn to the specific amendments standing in my name. Amendment No. 132A covers the point of who may invoke the power to require carriers to provide the police with passenger information. Currently, this authority is vested in any examining officer; that is, any constable, immigration or designated Customs officer in any place. The invocation of this power is fundamentally different from the examination activities of stopping, questioning, searching and detaining individuals or goods, with which the rest of Schedule 7 is concerned. While the latter functions are undoubtedly the preserve of examining officers, the invocation of this power is more truly a police management decision with consequences reaching far beyond the port of arrival.
Vesting the authority, as my amendment suggests, in the chief constable within whose area a port of arrival is located would more closely reflect the nature of a sensitive management decision being taken and would provide an assurance that a decision would be taken judiciously and based on a full and sensitive appreciation of its wider consequences and by an officer or his deputy. I note that an amendment standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, provides that an assistant chief constable should be the person mentioned. I have no particular quarrel about that. Those two people would certainly already have built up an effective working relationship with the ferry companies concerned.
Amendment No. 133A inserts at the end of subparagraph (2) the words,
"as soon as reasonably practicable".
That replicates the specification from the existing Prevention of Terrorism Act about when compliance with a police request must take place and would provide a palliative against undue disruption being caused by an unreasonable request. Carriers, especially ferries, cannot provide information at the flick of a switch. It takes time. We have already heard about the misinformation that can be provided.
The final amendment standing in my name, Amendment No. 136A, inserts a new subparagraph providing a defence for the owner or agent of a ship or aircraft charged with an offence under subparagraph (1) pursuant to paragraph 17(2). That replicates the statutory protection given in paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 6 to financial institutions when faced with a request with which they are unable to comply to supply

743
customer details to the police. That was introduced at Report stage in the Commons by the Minister after consultation with members of the financial, business and banking community.
The airline operators and ferry operators were not consulted and they would face exactly the same predicament as the financial institutions and indeed would have sought the same protection, which is what my amendment seeks to do. Of particular significance in the context of ferry operations, the amendment would also protect carriers which pass on false details that had been declared to them by their customers and which they, in the absence of any passport requirement, had no means of verifying. I believe that Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, in terms of names written down on these documents, have moved on and I understand that Tony Blair is quite a favourite at the moment.
This new measure places quite an onus—particularly the financial implications involved—on the ferry business. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Viscount Simon: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 133, 136 and 137 standing in my name, although there may be a little duplication in my remarks because several points have already been covered by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. For example, the first part of Amendment No. 133 states,
"as soon as reasonably practicable",
which the noble Lord has already discussed in detail.
The second part of that amendment seeks to establish the gravity of a request for information from a ferry or airline operator. I believe it is necessary to stress the importance of the need to ensure that such requests are not made frivolously or lightly; are made only when there is a specific need; and that officials should not see this as a power which they can invoke on a casual basis.
Airline and ferry companies understand and accept that, on matters of security, there will be occasions when police officers will need to request information from them. Their concern is that such requests invariably cause disruption and cost to their operation and that passengers do not like the additional bureaucracy. There should be in place safeguards to ensure that the authority to request information is not abused or used as a "catch all" on the basis of "better safe than sorry". Clear guidance must be provided for examining officers that they will need a specific reason for requesting passenger information and that they will need to justify that reason to a very senior officer.
By investing the overall authority in very senior officers—I have suggested that this should be at the level of assistant chief constable or above—they will, by virtue of their position, apply diligence in deciding when it may be appropriate to make such a request. This is a process which should police itself (no pun intended) and ensure that all those involved in the process approach it with appropriate seriousness.
744
On domestic journeys, albeit over water to and from our islands, passengers have the right of passage, do not require passports and are under no obligation to provide their carrier with personal information of the kind which might form the basis of a request from the authorities. On exactly the same basis, carriers have no statutory right to demand information such as the date and place of birth—available on international services through the requirements of passports—and therefore do not hold such information on their databases. That information has to be gathered on a voluntary basis and co-operation is generally much more easily achieved if individuals understand the specific reason for being asked to give personal details. It makes good sense, therefore, to ensure that the power to make such requests is exercised carefully and responsibly and only by approval of the most senior police officers in respect of the particular circumstances that will ensure the co-operation of the public.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 136 and 137. Amendment No. 137 would be required for sequencing purposes as a natural consequence of accepting Amendment No. 136, which has already been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. The intention of Amendment No. 136 is to provide a defence for airlines and shipping companies in the event that they are unable to comply with a request for information about their passengers. I am inclined to believe that the lack of such a provision in the Bill is simply an oversight. Exactly this defence is extended to financial institutions in paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 6 in circumstances where either the financial institution does not have access to the required information or it is not reasonably practicable to provide it.
It is quite possible that individual passengers, aware of their rights of passage within Great Britain, may decline to provide information to the carrier or even deliberately offer incorrect information, as happens when names such as "Tony Blair" and various others are supplied. In those circumstances it would not be right for the carrier to be held responsible for failing to provide the information required under the terms of this schedule.
There are particular reasons in respect of travellers for requesting a similar defence for ferry companies and airlines. Not least among those are the facts which I outlined in my earlier remarks about the obligation for individuals to provide information and the rights of transport operators to demand it. I believe that there is every reason to ensure that transport operators are afforded a similar defence to that offered to financial institutions.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I support these amendments and have put my name to three of them. The arguments have largely been made; however, I should like to emphasise one point to the Minister. Within the common travel area there is no requirement to carry any form of identification whatsoever. Therefore, it is hard for a shipping company or an airline to demand this information from passengers.

745
The airline or shipping company may well have the name of the passenger, and it may be the name in which the ticket was booked. But if there is also a requirement to state the date and place of birth of each passenger, the airlines and shipping companies have no means to ensure the accuracy of the information given. Therefore, it is essential that some defence should be given to the owner or agent for not providing the specified information. That is the purpose of Amendments Nos. 136 and 137.
Mention has been made of false information and false names being given, and that has happened. But when I was a Minister, on more than one occasion, for security reasons, I travelled to the Republic of Ireland on a ticket booked by my officials deliberately using a false name. I do not know whether it still happens, nor do I know whether the Minister has been to the Republic of Ireland on official business, but it certainly applied 10 or so years ago. Would the airline be blamed for the fact that my officials had booked my ticket in a false name or should I be blamed? Who would be blamed? Under this provision, will an airline be held responsible if a ticket is deliberately booked in a false name?
There is a further problem. While in many cases passengers start their journey in this country or in the Channel Islands, for example, they check in, and the airline or shipping company has an opportunity to ascertain the person's name and possibly even the other information—as I said, there is no guarantee that the information will be accurate—many passengers come into Heathrow from further afield, from America, for example. They come in through immigration and then go straight to the gate of the flight that will take them to the Isle of Man or wherever it happens to be. The first the airline sees of the passenger is at the check-in gate. If the airline then has to find out the information that might be required of that passenger, it could result in endless delays. Imagine someone being asked to fill in a form, with 20 or 30 people standing behind him and with the aeroplane about to depart in 20 minutes' time.
The industry has no problem with being as helpful as it possibly can. All that these amendments do is to try to be practical about this requirement and to give the industry some defence against providing information which, although it is thought to be perfectly accurate, may not necessarily be so. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to look with some sympathy at the arguments that have been made.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. The quality and content of the debate reflect well on the operators, with whom we have continued to have a constructive and valuable dialogue.
The amendments focus on the passenger information that the police may require owners or agents of ships or aircraft to provide. Requiring
746
carriers to provide information about passengers and crew is, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, rightly observed, not new. The current Prevention of Terrorism Act already requires carriers to provide the police with a list of the names, dates and places of birth of passengers and crew, unless there is a dispensation given by the police. So there is already an existing power.
This is one of those situations where the price of peace and freedom is eternal vigilance. That lies very much at the heart of the debate. We must all pull together to ensure that we are vigilant.
It is perhaps worth reminding the Committee of the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. In his report he commented that,
"there are sound strategic reasons for an island nation to carry out … checks at ports".
The provision of passenger and crew details is a very important part of that process, and I do not believe that any noble Lord argued against that. The Government recognise that requirements on carriers to co-operate must be reasonable and must be conducted sensitively and proportionately so that the impact on the travelling public and business in cost and disruption is kept to the minimum. We also realise that we must work closely with carriers and operators at ports and airports to achieve that. A partnership approach is required.
One of the reasons we have moved from listing on the face of the Bill the types of passenger information that the police will be able to require is our recognition that if we are to go beyond the present requirements we must consult the industry even more fully, and we have already begun that process. I can assure the Committee that in drawing up any orders we shall take careful account of the views of industry and the requirements of the police. For that reason, I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have contributed to the debate.
The amendments before us this evening narrow down the circumstances in which passenger information must be provided by the owners or agents of ships or aircraft. No doubt in each case the concern is the effect that the requirements could have on the operations and costs of the carrying companies and, understandably, the practicality of carrying them out. As I hope I have already indicated, we understand the underlying concerns and shall work with the industry to minimise any unnecessary burdens and disruption.
I turn to the detail of the amendments. Amendment No. 132 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, provides that information may be requested only in connection with specific counter-terrorist operations. While I recognise the underlying reason for the amendment, I must advise the Committee that such an approach will constrain the ability of the police to obtain the information which, understandably and rightly, they require. The gathering of such information from carriers may not always be confined to a specific investigation but form part of ongoing police activity at ports that is intended to disrupt terrorist movements and help prevent terrorist outrages.

747
As the Committee appreciates, police work does not always fall into neat little compartments of specific investigation, and that is precisely so in the case of preventive and intelligence-led policing. Although it is perhaps a technical point, for security purposes it may not always he possible for the police to disclose the reasons why information is requested. In short, police operations would be damaged if the limitation imposed by this amendment applied. I am sure that that is not what the amendment seeks to achieve but that may be its unintended effect.
I turn to Amendment No. 133 in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. The amendment introduces two additional concepts and also reiterates the link between a request for information and the existence of a specific terrorist investigation, which I have already discussed. The first point is that owners and agents should comply with requests "as soon as reasonably practicable", and the second is that such a request may be made only after consultation with a police officer of at least the rank of assistant chief constable. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has tabled amendments similar to Amendment No. 133. However, the noble Lord proposes that consultation should be at the level of chief constable.
On the first point, we recognise that that part of the amendment picks up the current language of the PTA. It is not envisaged that carriers will be asked to provide information to an unreasonable timescale. Even if such a request was made the courts would be unlikely to have sympathy with any ensuing prosecution. We therefore took the view that it was unnecessary to carry over that part of the provision from the existing legislation. I note the view that the industry may derive some comfort from an explicit provision to that effect, and I shall take away that particular point and give it more detailed consideration.
On the second point, the Government are not attracted to the proposition that very senior police officers should be drawn into the decision-making process about what passenger information should be requested from whom, when and in what circumstances. These are operational decisions which, rightly in my view, rest with those officers at the ports in the front line of counter terrorist operations—as is the case now under the existing PTA. It would inhibit and hinder the police operation if each time they felt they needed information it were necessary for the operational officers at the port to seek higher authority from their headquarters and to request it—particularly if it were information needed quickly. What is important of course is that good relationships are built up and maintained at ports, with the police and the carriers working together. Each must recognise their responsibilities to the other in the wider interests of all. To add layers of bureaucracy—I fear that seeking the permission of a senior officer would do so—is not, we believe, the answer.
Amendment No. 134 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, focuses on the information that may be specified in any order under this provision. There is still a debate to be had at Clause 122 about whether
748
only the first such order should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as recommended by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and reflected in government Amendment No. 185; or whether, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, the affirmative resolution procedure should apply for all such orders. We shall listen carefully to the points made on this issue.
In this amendment the noble Lord proposes that the order may only specify information which the owners or agents have in their possession or may be reasonably be expected to obtain. I understand the concern which carriers may well have about the difficulties which they might encounter if they are asked to provide information not already in their record systems; or if unreasonable demands for other information are made of them. Currently we have no plans to specify by order anything which is not already contained within the present legislation; that is to say, the name, date and place of birth. As I have said, that has potentially been a requirement on carriers for many years now and it is important that the police should be able to continue to obtain that information. We would only envisage specifying information above and beyond that in any order after close consultation with all parts of the industry. Let me stress, therefore, that we shall not specify in an order passenger information beyond that already required under the PTA without consulting the industry on its availability. Furthermore, there will be an additional opportunity for your Lordships' House to consider the requirements in the order when it is laid. For those reasons we think the amendment unnecessary and we hope it will not be pressed.
Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon., and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and Amendment No. 136A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, create a statutory defence for use if charged with failing to provide specified information. This ties in with the earlier amendment suggesting that information should be requested only if it is in the possession of the carriers, or they may be reasonably expected to obtain it. I have stressed already that we shall not add to the present requirements without taking account of the views of the industry. Equally, I should stress the importance of maintaining the ability of the police to secure the information which is already specified under the PTA. We believe that it is the responsibility of carriers to obtain such information if it is requested, but equally it is the responsibility of the police to act reasonably and recognise the practicalities which carriers face from time to time when a request is made. As we have already said, a partnership approach is required enabling the law enforcement authority's own carriers to work together to combat the threat of terrorism. A prosecution under this part of the Bill would only be as a last resort where a particular company was wilfully or persistently failing to co-operate; and any order or request for information by the police could, of course, be the subject of judicial review proceedings, which after 2nd October of this year should take into account whether convention rights have been observed. We

749
believe that our focus should be on getting the information right in any order we make after careful consultation with the industry. As such we do not believe that the inclusion of a statutory defence is the right way to proceed.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked specifically about the responsibility for information and its accuracy. It is the carriers' responsibility to pass on accurately information provided to them, but it is not their responsibility to verify the accuracy of the information itself. I hope that that clarifies the point he raised.
I trust that Members of the Committee will want to reflect carefully on the points I have made in response to their considered amendments. I am sure that they will take note of the matter which I said I would take away and consider further. I trust that in the light of the explanations I have given they will not pursue their amendments.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Before my noble friend decides what to do with his amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify a point which I raised. What happens if a passenger deliberately gives a false name? Is the carrier responsible for passing that information on? Will he be responsible for the fact that the name is false, or will it be the responsibility of the passenger?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand that the carrier can pass on only that information which he has reasonably obtained in an accurate form based on such information. It is not for the carrier to verify the quality or veracity of that information and it would be unreasonable to expect him to do so. He can only act reasonably in the circumstances.
If the carrier is told something and he believes it to be the case, and if he passes that information on in an accurate form, one would not want to hold him to account for any inaccuracies which were not in any way, shape or form his responsibility.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: We have had an interesting and slightly longer debate than anticipated. The Minister said a great deal that will be reassuring and we shall study his words carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 132A to 134 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 135:
Page 109, line 26, after ("search") insert ("or examination").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 136 to 137 not moved.]
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
10 p.m.
Clause 54 [Weapons training]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 138:
Page 24, line 22, after ("if") insert ("for the purpose of assisting, preparing for or participating in terrorism").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 138, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 139, 140, 146, 151 and 159. A common thread runs through all the amendments in the group.
Although Clause 54 is based on existing legislation applying only to Northern Ireland, the clause will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. Under Clause 54,
"a person commits an offence if he provides or receives instruction or training in the making or use of … firearms … explosives, or … chemical, biological or nuclear weapons".
Perhaps we can leave out of the debate chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and concentrate on more ordinary firearms.
On the face of it, Clause 54(1) and (2) extend to weapons training in the Army, the police or the cadet force. The subsections extend to and criminalise a farmer teaching his son to shoot rabbits or pigeons. They also extend to and criminalise training provided to employees of a legitimate armaments business.
Clause 54(5) states:
"It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in relation to instruction or training to prove that his action or involvement was wholly for a purpose other than assisting, preparing for or participating in terrorism".
However, it is wholly wrong to go about this in a back-to-front way which initially criminalises perfectly legitimate, and indeed often necessary, activities and then provides an excuse if anyone who legitimately follows those activities is charged. This is not a case of a special defence to a general crime. It is, for example, different from making exceeding a speed limit an offence and then allowing specific exemptions from that, such as fire service vehicles in the course of their duties. In a case of that kind, it is legitimate to place on the defendant the burden of proving a special defence—the standard of proof in such a case being the civil standard of balance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
It is absurd to say that training in the use or making of weapons is itself a general offence. As I have already indicated, such training is often not only legitimate but necessary. The gist of the offence here is not providing weapons training per se, but providing weapons training for purposes of terrorism. Indeed, that is how the offence itself should be defined. If that is so, then subsection (5) would need to be deleted, as we have provided.
Of course, if terrorist purposes are part of the definition of the offence, then that is a necessary element for the prosecution to prove. If the defendant raises a reasonable doubt in the mind of a jury or, in the case of the Diplock courts, the mind of a judge as to the purposes for which he is providing weapons training then, of course, he would be entitled to be acquitted. That is as it should be. It is contrary to the

751
principles of British law to require a defendant to disprove the existence of an essential element in the case.
I move on to Amendments Nos. 146 and 151 in relation to Clause 57 of the Bill. That clause provides that possession of an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that possession is connected with terrorism is an offence. Clause 57(2) requires a defendant to prove that possession is not for terrorist purposes. Again, that is too high a standard. Conviction can be on the basis of reasonable suspicion. Certainly, it should be enough for the defendant to show that there are reasonable grounds for believing that possession may not be for terrorist purposes; in other words, that the suspicion does not exclude reasonable doubt.
Clause 57(3) imposes a wholly artificial test of possession, where the mere fact that property is found on premises at the same time as the defendant creates a presumption of possession which the defendant has to disprove. That means that if terrorist equipment is found, let us say, in the back of a pub, anyone who is in the pub at any time when the equipment was there is deemed to be in possession of that equipment unless they can prove that they did not know or were not in control of it. Therefore, in our amendments we propose to delete Clause 57(3) altogether on the grounds that it provides a wholly artificial test of possession.
Amendment No. 159 deals with Clause 58, which makes it a crime to possess information which is likely to be useful to a terrorist. That could extend to possession of a copy of Who's Who. Certainly that is a document that at one time the IRA appear to have used for the purposes of identifying potential victims. However, they seem to have made the mistake of using out-of-date copies of Who's Who and putting bombs outside houses which formerly had been occupied by a target hut, at the time of the bombing, were occupied by someone else. Again, this is a case where under the Bill as it now stands a reasonable excuse for possession has to be proved. We think that is inappropriate. It is putting it back to front. What Clause 58 should require is for a crime of possession with a view to the article's use by a terrorist.
The common factor which lies behind the way all these clauses are drafted is an attempt, I believe, to make it easier to obtain convictions. That, some people might say, is a legitimate aim. If it was done properly, of course, I would agree it was a legitimate aim, but it cannot be done in the way that it is being done here.
What is happening here is that offences are being artificially subdivided and some elements then have to be disproved by the defendant rather than proved by the prosecution. The artificiality is shown, for example, by the absurdity of treating training in the use or manufacture of firearms as an offence in itself.
I believe that these clauses as they now stand do not adequately comply with the presumption of innocence. Someone charged with terrorist offences is entitled to rely on the presumption of innocence just as
752
much as someone charged with other offences. An attempt to get round this by presuming some of the elements of the offence and requiring the defendant to disprove them is not only wrong in itself but likely to be counter-productive. It is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence and likely to conflict with the Human Rights Act as well as with the ancient traditions of British justice. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has given very ably the thinking behind his amendments, which is also the thinking behind a number of mine.
Terrorism is not what it once was. Some of your Lordships will have seen the very good film about the Irish ascendancy in Cork during the remaining years of the British rule in Ireland. A friend of mine, who is a member of the Irish ascendancy, says she remembers her uncle who when he was a schoolboy had his shotgun stolen by the IRA while he was away at school. When he came back he found it on the hall table, complete with cartridges, for him to use during the holidays, and when he left for school again he left it on the hall table and it disappeared the same day.
There are all sorts of problems where there is an uncertain support for terrorists in a particular area, and it is very important in that area that we should put up a situation where people cannot be automatically thought guilty and should be able to follow the perfectly normal British practice of being considered innocent until they are proved guilty.
It is a difficult path to tread, but I am sure the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and my amendments to a certain extent come from very much the same stable. We are on the right track and I hope that the Government will pay attention to what we are saying.
Lord Marlesford: I find myself in almost total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. These clauses, as drafted, are extremely objectionable. Of course, I see the purpose of them but they would be subject to misuse; they give the wrong impression; and they are not in accordance with our traditions.
I shall give two examples, one of which is farcical and the other less farcical. When I was a small boy aged about eight and interested in chemistry, I remember being shown how, if you put iodine crystals in ammonia and left them for half an hour or so and then poured them away, there was a black sludge. When the black sludge dried, you could scatter it on the ground and if people walked on it, it made a most satisfactory, although quite harmless, bang. That particular experiment came to an end when I had a matchbox of the stuff in the pocket of my shorts on a very hot day; unfortunately, it dried without me realising it and I had a large violet stain on my thigh for many months. I have never been quite the same since.
I take another more sensible and serious example. The Committee will be aware that in certain eastern European countries, there was a time when the possession of a typewriter was seen as unacceptable

753
because it could be used for subversive purposes. Typewriters had to be registered and the print had to be recorded so it could, if necessary, be linked with any subversive literature which appeared. People who were regarded as unsuitable were not allowed to have them. I remember that that applied particularly in Romania.
I ask the Government to reshape those clauses, roughly on the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I say happily that I yield to no one in my desire to have effective opposition to terrorism, but we must be extremely careful that we do not use methods which are unacceptable to the great majority of people in this country.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: When I looked at Amendment No. 138 before the debate, it did not seem to me that the effect was very different. The effect of Clause 54(5) is to provide a defence for anyone who has a legitimate use for instruction or training and so on, other than for the purposes of terrorism. But listening to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I thought that his drafting was mildly to be preferred in having the full offence rather than having a very wide offence and then providing a defence for it.
But I take a different view of the amendments to Clauses 57 and 58 dealt with by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Beaumont of Whitley. It is difficult to express a view on this without referring back to my own experience, because that colours everything that I think on this matter.
The experience I have of this matter leads me to the view that it is extremely difficult for the police in Northern Ireland to prove terrorist offences. Perfectly ordinary articles can be used as absolutely deadly weapons. There are many examples, one of which is the coffee-jar bomb. A large number of our fellow citizens have been killed by coffee-jar bombs.
At the same time, one of the features of organised terrorism is that the people involved are extremely disciplined. They learn carefully from any conviction which is achieved. They review it extremely carefully afterwards and then send out instructions to all their people in order to avoid anybody else being convicted in the same way.
In those circumstances, in my view, the law has necessarily had to become more draconian. I accept that these provisions are more draconian than ideally we should wish. But in facing terrorism, we are not in an ideal situation.
As I said in relation to an earlier amendment, we all hope that this long phase of terrorism in Northern Ireland is coming to an end. However, it has not yet come to an end; we are not legislating on the basis that it is over and nor should we. We hope that we shall arrive at that point before long, but we are not there yet, and that is not the basis of this legislation.
In looking at the record of Northern Ireland one sees an appallingly low record of convictions in comparison with the number of ghastly offences that have taken place. The reason is the expertise of the terrorist in avoiding conviction, often due to the
754
ordinary articles that they use to carry out their evil operations. I would not go to the stake over every word in the drafting of these clauses, but clauses such as these that place the onus of proof, as Clauses 57 and 58 do, are, I believe, a necessary part of our defence against terrorism now and for the foreseeable future. Therefore, I do not support the amendments to Clauses 57 and 58.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his last contribution. He speaks on this subject with the kind of wisdom that I do not have, as he served honourably in the Northern Ireland Office. I listened carefully to what he had to say on all these matters.
I am also grateful to the other Members of the Committee who contributed to the debate on what is a difficult subject. I am a little worried about the pockets of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the explosive devices that they have contained in the past. I am sure that they did not have a host of other ghastly things in them as well, as boys' pockets tend to.
I am particularly grateful to the missing noble and learned Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who gave me advance warning of his concerns when we discussed these aspects of the Bill some two months ago. That was a helpful and instructive discussion.
It may help if I set out the position of the Government in this area. As your Lordships know, the Government's view is that the Bill, as introduced, is already compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. However we accept, especially in the light of the Kebilene case, that it would be helpful to make express provision for the burdens placed on the defendant in the Kebilene provisions to be evidential rather than persuasive or legal burdens.
I have spent some time with my partner, who is a lawyer, learning the difference between "evidential" and "persuasive". We had a most instructive discussion between the cornflakes and the toast.
As can be seen from Amendment No. 176A, this new provision is to apply not only to the Kebilene offence in Clause 57, but also to the similar provisions in Clauses 39(5)(a), 54, 58, 77 and 103, together with their equivalents in the "transitional EPA" which are kept alive under Schedule 1 to the Bill.
Amendment No. 207A ensures that Amendment No. 176A will come into effect immediately on Royal Assent.
I want to explain how we have arrived at the list of provisions in subsection (5) of Amendment No. 176A. Those are provisions where to put a persuasive burden on the accused would amount, or come close, to making him disprove an essential element of the case.
I should also say a word about all the other so-called "reverse burdens" in the Bill—those not listed in subsection (5) of the amendment. It is, of course, for the courts to interpret the statute, but the Government's view is that it is right for the other burdens that the Bill places on defendants to be persuasive burdens.

755
I must stress that these amendments are not intended to alter the effect of the provisions in question. They merely set out on the face of the Bill what we believe would in any case have been the effect of the provisions as originally drafted. Nevertheless, I hope that your Lordships will welcome this clarification.
I now turn to the amendments that have been tabled by other noble Lords. Perhaps I may begin with Amendments Nos. 138 to 140, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and his noble friends. They would remove completely the "reverse burden" construction of the offences in Clause 54. These offences are based on those in Section 34 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and are modelled closely on that section. The noble Lord made a number of respectable points in going over the issues that the amendments cover. The Government believe that, while it is not necessary to restructure the provision as fundamentally as Amendments Nos. 138 to 140 propose, we feel that, by including Clause 54 among the offences dealt with in Amendment No. 176A, we have struck the right balance.
Having reflected on the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the careful arguments he advanced, I shall give an undertaking this evening to look again at Clause 54 and give it more detailed consideration. I make no commitments or promises in saying that, but I shall certainly take away the points raised by the noble Lord and give them further thought.
I turn now to Clause 57. Amendments Nos. 146 and 159, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would, we hope, have a similar effect to the Government's in terms of the burdens of proof in Clauses 57(2) and 58. So, too, would the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. However, the Government's approach is simpler in so far as it sets out clearly on the face of the Bill that an evidential burden is intended. Amendment No. 176A is also more comprehensive in that it deals with other similar burdens elsewhere in the Bill.
Finally, Amendment No. 151 would dispense completely with Clause 57(3), while the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont—Amendment No. 152—proposes deleting only Clause 57(3)(a). The Government cannot accept those amendments. We believe that all of subsection (3) is essential to the effective operation of the provision. With that explanation, I trust that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Before concluding, I must say a word about government Amendment No. 141 to Clause 54, which is also part of this group. This amendment gives third parties the right to be heard before any forfeiture is made under Clause 54, and ensures property is not forfeited until the end of any appeal process. This additional protection for individuals is in line with our approach in Clauses 23 and 58. I trust that the Committee will welcome it.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister. I saw a copy of the letter to him from my noble friend Lord
756
Lester of Herne Hill and am aware that my noble friend is happy with the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 176A, which the Government will bring forward on the final clay of Committee stage.
Having made my points on the Bill as now drafted, I am happy to acknowledge that most of them will be dealt with if Amendment No. 176A is incorporated into the Bill. It represents a substantial step forward and I am particularly grateful to the Minister for agreeing to look specifically at the problems of Clause 54, on which I was pleased to have not only the wholehearted support of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, but also the qualified support of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. In those circumstances I am happy not to press my amendment. Frankly, if things go according to plan, it is unlikely that I shall wish to bring any of these amendments back at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 141:
Page 25, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) Before making an order under subsection (7) a court must give an opportunity to be heard to any person, other than the convicted person, who claims to be the owner of or otherwise interested in anything which can be forfeited under that subsection.
( ) An order under subsection (7) shall not come into force until there is no further possibility of it being varied, or set aside, on appeal (disregarding any power of a court to grant leave to appeal out of time).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Directing terrorist organization]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitleymoved Amendment No. 142:
Page 25, line 25, leave out (", at any level,").
The noble Lord said: Members of the Committee will have noticed that I stayed quiet during the whole of this afternoon and evening until the last set of amendments was called. Now I come into my own with the final amendment of the day. It is very simple and it will take only a very short time to deal with it. I did not intervene when the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, semi-facetiously, that he did not think that terrorists would enter on such cards the fact that they were terrorists. As the noble Lord is no longer in the Chamber, I must tell him through Hansard about my grandfather who was a Member of the British Parliament and married to an American. When he arrived in New York and was asked whether he intended to subvert the constitution of the United States by force, he said, "Yes, of course". He was noted for having a rather bizarre sense of humour and also for being an extreme radical. No one quite knows to this day which of those two qualities was actually in force at that particular time—
Lord Avebury: I trust my noble friend will allow me to intervene. During the McCarthy era, when my uncle

757
was asked a similar question, "Do you intend, while in the United States, to commit any immoral, sexual offence?" he replied on the form, "Yes, I do—with Senator McCarthy".
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I do not know what happened to my noble friend's relative, but my grandfather spent the night on Ellis Island until his wife's uncle—who just happened to Mayor of New York at the time—managed to spring him the next morning.
My amendment takes a few words for the purpose of asking what on earth they are meant to convey and what they are meant to do. They appear to be rather unnecessary. I do not know what they mean, or why they are in the provision. No doubt the Minister will tell me. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: Having just heard about the ancestors of two noble Lords, I think that that is probably enough for this hour of the night. Therefore, I shall not try to top their stories. With permission, I shall speak to the amendment on the Marshalled List. The "directing" offence in Clause 56 is based on an existing Northern Ireland offence under Section 29 of the EPA. It is aimed at those who direct the activities of organisations without committing acts of terrorism themselves.
Such persons may be active at the very top of terrorist organisations. We said in the consultation paper Legislation against Terrorism that the offence was aimed at "the strategists"; indeed, the two men who have been convicted of the offence in Northern Ireland are so-called "Mr Bigs", which is not, I believe, an expression used very often in this place. But the offence can also be committed by those who direct the organisation's activities at other levels: the organisation's "middle management", so to speak. It is surely right that they, too, should be guilty of an offence.
The maximum sentence of life imprisonment provides an appropriate penalty for those at the very top of such organisations, while at the same time allowing a court to give a lower sentence for those lower down the scale. By deleting the expression "at any level", the noble Lord's amendment would appear to focus the offence more directly on the "Mr Bigs" at the expense of middle management. If that is not the intention, a defendant, however highly placed, might still argue that he had not "directed" the activities of the organisation because he was responsible to another director at a higher level. There would be arguments about whether, because he answered to a superior, he could really be said to be "directing".
We do not think that making such an amendment would send the right signals to terrorist organisations about society's abhorrence for their actions. It is fundamental to this Bill that terrorism of any kind is terrorism and must be treated as such. By the same token, directing terrorism at any level is directing terrorism and must be treated as such. I hope that
758
explains to some extent why the phrase that the noble Lord complains about, "at any level", is to be found in the Bill.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The noble Lord has explained the position to a certain extent, but I find the explanation not the slightest bit persuasive. It seems to me that to leave out those three words would not in any way detract from the purposes which the noble Lord so rightly tries to achieve. It would not send any negative signal, unless people read Hansard rather carefully and noted that the words had been removed from the original text. If those words are removed from the Bill, I do not believe that any bad signal would be sent out. Terrorists would be just as easily convicted. However, this is a probing amendment; it is not an important point. I certainly do not intend to bring it back at any other stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 142A not moved.]
Clause 57 [Possession for terrorist purposes]:
[Amendments Nos. 143 to 156 not moved.]
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Collection of information]:
[Amendments Nos. 157 to 159 not moved.]
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clauses 59 and 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Scotland]:
On Question, Whether Clause 61 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Committee will have noted from the Marshalled List that I intend to oppose the Question that Clause 61 stand part of the Bill in order to press once again a point I have made at intervals during our debates concerning the extent of consultation with the Scottish Parliament on certain matters. I have elicited the information that the Government did not consult the Scottish Parliament but they did consult the Scottish Executive. That does not seem to me an acceptable substitute given that the Scottish Parliament has authority—given to it by this Chamber and this Parliament—over matters of Scottish law. I have received that explanation on several occasions and no doubt I shall hear it again. I do not intend to press the matter this evening.
Lord Bach: I am not entirely surprised that the noble Lord opposes the Question that Clause 61 stand part of the Bill. He was good enough to give notice of his intention. He may be pleasantly surprised to hear that I shall not dismiss his arguments in a sentence or two. I shall take my time over this.
This clause applies to Scotland the England-and-Wales incitement provision in Clause 59. The only difference is that Clause 61 reflects the position of the Scottish criminal law. In Scotland, the relevant

759
offences are covered by the common law, whereas in England and Wales they are dealt with by common law and statute. Clause 61 therefore keeps the law throughout the UK on an even footing when dealing with incitement to commit terrorism.
I invite the noble Lord to consider Clause 60 which deals with exactly this situation as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. There is nothing special about Clause 61, except that it deals with Scotland.
As I explained when we were considering Clause 8 of the Bill last week, terrorism is a matter reserved to the Westminster Parliament under Head B8 to Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. Under the devolution settlement at Section 29 and, paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Scotland Act, as the noble Lord will know, the Scottish Parliament is not competent to legislate on a reserved matter or to modify the law on reserved matters. Under Section 29 also, it is provided that where legislation of the Westminster Parliament deals with a reserved matter—in this case terrorism—the legislation may modify Scots criminal law as it applies to that reserved matter of terrorism.
That is precisely what Clause 61 does: it creates a new criminal offence and penalties, and thereafter leaves to the general criminal law of Scotland the process by which a person is tried and convicted for the offence. If I may set it out as clearly as I can for the noble Lord, as I am sure this will be the last time that he raises this matter in the course of the Bill's passage through the House—at least I hope so—the Government are clear, first, that Clause 61 deals with a reserved matter; secondly, that, as a result, the Scottish Parliament would not be competent to legislate on this matter; and, thirdly, that Clause 61—as does the rest of the Bill in its application to Scotland—makes provision in respect of Scots law that is specific to this subject matter of terrorism.
Lord Avebury: Why is it then that there is no equivalent in Clause 61 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 in England or its equivalent in Northern Ireland? Apparently in Scotland a person can incite to commit damage to property, even if it endangers life, whereas he cannot do so either in England and Wales or Northern Ireland. That seems to be a difference between the jurisdictions which is not justified by any objective considerations.
Lord Bach: I hope to be able to answer the noble Lord before I sit down. Let me continue with what I was saying. The Committee will appreciate that if Clause 61 was not part of the Bill there would be a gap which it would not be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to fill, even if the Scottish Parliament were otherwise minded to do so.
That is not to say that we will not continue to work together with the Scottish Executive on the details of how the provision in the Terrorism Bill will work in practice. Officials have been working very closely before introduction and at every stage of the passage of the Bill. Regular meetings and discussions have taken place. It is important that those responsible for
760
policing and the criminal justice system in Scotland are fully aware of, and have been consulted on, the way that the provisions in the Bill will affect them.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asks why we have a different definition for violence against property in Clause 59 to that contained in Clause 61. I believe that that is the purpose of his question. We have always said that the incitement provision its specifically focused on the most serious offences in this area which do not already—that is the key word—attract the incitement offence by virtue of the extra-territorial applications of existing legislation. Our intention in this provision, which essentially fills in gaps in UK law, is to outlaw the incitement here of very serious acts with a terrorist motive overseas. So, in relation to property crime, the relevant offence is to incite the endangering of life by damaging property. It is not a case of one definition of "terrorism" for here and a narrower one for abroad; it is the same definition for all acts, whether here or abroad. We are applying the definition in Clause 1 to specify existing offences, to ensure that incitement here to commit certain acts abroad—which, if committed here, would constitute one of those specified offences—will be caught. There is a difficult balance to be struck. We rightly cherish our long-held traditions of freedom of speech, and we only limit it in the most serious of circumstances.
We are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for having directed our minds towards this question of the effect that this legislation has on Scotland. He has quite rightly asked these questions on a number of occasions. I hope that the answer I have attempted to give at this last moment of today's Sitting may be of some help to him. We look forward to hearing what has to say.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I hesitate to work too hard in the interests of Scotland, not least because those of your Lordships who come from England or Wales, or for that matter Northern Ireland, may not realise that the only chap Bonnie Prince Charlie beat in the course of the 1745 rebellion was General Sir John Cope—no relation of mine as far as I am aware!
Lord Bach: He was not perhaps the noble Lord's grandfather or some other such relation? As we have been talking about relations in general, I wonder whether the noble Lord is quite sure about that.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: He certainly was not my grandfather; it was 1745! But I cannot be entirely certain as to whether he was a more distant relation. I am not sure of all my relations that far back, but, as far as I know, he was no relation. The Scots, having defeated him, wrote a rude song and a pipe tune to match. It has been my experience in life that, whenever I am within range of a piper who discovers my name,

761
he is likely to start pumping up his equipment. Thus I am not inclined to work too hard for the Scottish interest.
Lord Carter: Is the noble Lord aware that at this time of the evening the debate should be addressed to the question before the Committee?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I did realise that. I also realised the confusion there would be if both the Scottish Parliament and ourselves were attempting to legislate in the same jurisdiction on these matters. It is certainly not my wish that we should get into a situation where to incite terrorism of a particular kind in one part of the United Kingdom was legal whereas in other parts it was illegal. Therefore, all those inciting
762
terrorism went to one particular part of the United Kingdom to do it. That would be the effect if we did not carry Clause 61 as it stands now or something very like it, so I do not intend to pursue my opposition to Clause 61.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clauses 62 to 64 agreed to.
Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Western Sahara
  Western Sahara
  Blantyre House: Move of Governor
  Blantyre House: Move of Governor
  Blantyre House: Prison Search
  Blantyre House: Prison Search
  Blantyre House: Reconviction Rates
  Blantyre House: Reconviction Rates
  Involuntary Manslaughter
  Involuntary Manslaughter
  Financial Bonds: Pilot Study
  Financial Bonds: Pilot Study
  Criminal Justice System Business Plan
  Criminal Justice System Business Plan
  Financial Services Authority: Parliamentary Accountability
  Financial Services Authority: Parliamentary Accountability
  Economic Cycle
  Economic Cycle
  Sunday Working
  Sunday Working
  Stamp Programme
  Stamp Programme
  Wireless Telegraphy Act Licences: Auction
  Wireless Telegraphy Act Licences: Auction
  UK Oil Reserves and the EU
  UK Oil Reserves and the EU
  Payments for Bronchitis and Emphysema to Miners
  Payments for Bronchitis and Emphysema to Miners
  Act of Union Bicentenary: Post Office Decision on Stamp Issue
  Act of Union Bicentenary: Post Office Decision on Stamp Issue
  Lead Shot Working Group
  Lead Shot Working Group
  Animal and Bird Carcasses: Disposal in Small Incinerators
  Animal and Bird Carcasses: Disposal in Small Incinerators
  Wales: Task Forces
  Wales: Task Forces
  Wales: Special Advisers
  Wales: Special Advisers
  Committee on Standards in Public Life: Conduct in the House of Lords
  Committee on Standards in Public Life: Conduct in the House of Lords