Sitting of 2 April 2001

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

  Means-testing
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on changes to the proportion of benefits subject to means-testing since 1997. [154858]
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The proportion of spending on income-related benefits amounted to 17 per cent. in 1979. By 1996–97, it had more than doubled to 35 per cent. of benefit expenditure. This year, we expect it to be 29 per cent.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Nevertheless, will he concede that more than 50 per cent. of pensioner households depend on
  2
  means-tested state benefits for three quarters of their income? Does he accept that the position is getting substantially worse? What does he intend to do about it?
  Mr. Darling: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may have expected a different answer. The proportion of means-tested benefits is lower than it was when we took office four years ago. He asked about the pension credit. I make no apology for the fact that the credit means that, for the first time, pensioners who have saved a little money or have a modest occupational or works pension will be rewarded by the state instead of punished under the current system. I cannot understand why Conservative Members want to maintain that system, which is a disincentive to saving. We should encourage people to save for their retirement. The pension credit will ensure that those who do so are rewarded.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Have not this Government done more than any previous Government to ensure that the poorest people who are in need of most help receive it? They have done more than any previous Government to ensure that those who are entitled to benefits receive them. Is not that a good record of achievement for the Labour Government?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right. When Conservative Members say that they are against means-testing, they mean that they oppose giving more money to the people who need it most. From next week, about 2 million of the poorest pensioners will be at least £15 a week—nearly £800 a year—better off in real terms than in 1997. We should be proud of that record. We are on the way to eradicating pensioner poverty. We are rewarding saving and helping all pensioners through the benefits and tax systems.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: That is all window dressing. This week, the Government's brand new means test for incapacity benefit against occupational pensions income begins. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it

  3
  will hit up to 100,000 vulnerable people? Does not he also believe that it will send a deplorable signal to those who contemplate prudently making provision for their future?
  Mr. Darling: No, I do not. People who retire on occupational pension incomes of more than £85 a week should make a contribution towards their incomes if they have to retire early. The hon. Gentleman described the measures that I outlined to help pensioners as window dressing. That speaks volumes for the Conservative party's attitude. Does he believe that the minimum income guarantee, which gives £15 more a week to nearly 2 million pensioners, is window dressing? The winter fuel payment of £200 is paid to every pensioner household. Is that window dressing? People can see the shape of things to come. If the Conservatives were ever re-elected, they would get rid of the minimum income guarantee, the winter fuel payment and many other measures that benefit millions of pensioner households.

  Benefit Reform
  Ms Rosie Winterton: What steps he is taking to reform social security benefits in order to assist people to return to work. [154859]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The claimant count is now below 1 million for the first time since December 1975, with unemployment falling in every region. We have introduced reforms in the tax and benefit systems to make it easier to move into work and to ensure that work pays.
  We have just announced the creation of "jobcentre plus", which will unite employment services with benefits services for people of working age. There will be 50 pathfinder offices by October.
  Ms Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I know from speaking this morning to the manager of the jobcentre in Doncaster that the changes that were announced today, especially the change that enables claimants who wish to take up temporary work to return to benefits more easily, will make a genuine difference to helping to get people back to work. It will give people greater confidence about taking up temporary work and thus gaining greater experience and skills, enabling them to get a permanent job.
  If the scheme is as successful as the manager of the jobcentre in Doncaster believes that it will prove, will my hon. Friend consider extending it to other claimants such as those on incapacity benefit and income support?
  Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are more people in work than ever before—the figure has increased by 1.2 million since the election—but we want to ensure that the chance to work and the opportunity to make work pay apply to even more people. Rapid reclaim, which allows people to return to benefits more quickly if jobs do not last longer than 12 weeks, will make a good contribution to that. We will evaluate its operation and, if there is a good case for extending it, we will consider doing so.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Minister confirm that one of the biggest remaining hurdles in the way of getting young people in particular off benefit and into work is the operation of some of the housing benefit rules? Will she confirm that the Government are considering an amendment to the single room rent restriction on the level of housing benefit available to young people? Is she aware that there is some suspicion in the pressure group community that consultation on that will not be adequate, leading pressure groups to believe that relaxation of the restrictions will not amount to very much?
  Angela Eagle: I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the relaxation of the single room rent restriction, which extends it to properties that actually exist. The shared room rent provision, which we hope will be in operation by July this year, will give single under-25s having difficulty finding rented accommodation much more chance to do so.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-SavoursWhat additional guidance is being given to benefit offices in counties such as Cumbria—and, in particular, the Lake district—to deal with the very large increase in inquiries from people who own or work for businesses?
  Angela Eagle: We have issued instructions to all benefit offices in the areas affected by foot and mouth to make clear the rules for those claiming jobseeker's allowance and for the self-employed. Benefits Agency offices must also ensure that any claims made as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak are dealt with quickly, sensitively and flexibly.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: I have to tell the hon. Lady that that is not the case. When claimants make inquiries, they find that benefit offices are unaware of the flexibility rules. Will the Minister ensure that that flexibility is made known, particularly when claimants are referred by the rural hotline to local offices and receive no advice from them? Does she understand that basing this provision only in infected areas is a poor way of distributing social security benefits? A business can be greatly affected by foot and mouth but be outside the infected area: it can be a matter of just a few yards. Does the Minister regard as not particularly sensitive the advice given by local officers either to move a business into an affected area or to go bankrupt?
  Will the Minister also ensure that the Secretary of State makes representations to the Chancellor to ensure that companies paying out working families tax credit to their employees receive a quick return from the Government? The cash flow and viability of rural businesses are being adversely affected when that does not happen.
  Angela Eagle: We are certainly not issuing advice that businesses should go bankrupt to claim benefits. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring examples to my attention, I shall happily deal with them. However, I re-emphasise that special advice has been issued to officers in affected areas. We are in the middle of preparing extra information, which we shall make available, perhaps through local newspapers, about likely entitlements for people in particular circumstances, especially if they are self-employed. We believe that the most confusion

  5
  probably surrounds that category; employees who have been laid off certainly have a simpler way through the system. We shall make that information available, but if the hon. Gentleman can let me have examples of cases that have gone wrong, I shall ensure that such problems do not recur.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Phil Hope: What impact the pension credit will have on helping middle-income pensioners. [154860]
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The pension credit will provide a cash addition to reward saving for single pensioners with incomes up to £135 a week and for couples on incomes of £200 a week. The credit will ensure that it will pay to save.
  Mr. Hope: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. A number of former steelworkers in my constituency receive occupational pensions that lift their incomes above the level of the minimum income guarantee. They visited my surgery and, being good Labour supporters, they supported the work that we are doing for the poorest pensioners. However, they were concerned about the way in which the system operates at the moment, whereby they are always being penalised for having saved for their retirement while they were working. We know that the Tories' proposed tax relief on savings would not benefit them at all, but will my right hon. Friend tell us how the pension credit will help those with small occupational pensions that take their income above the level of the minimum income guarantee? Will he also tell us whether, when it is introduced, it will be simple to understand and easy to claim?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend raises a point that I suspect will be familiar to most Members of the House. We have all met people with a modest amount saved in a bank or building society and, perhaps, a small occupational or works pension who think that, under the system that we inherited, they are not being helped through the social security system. The pension credit will ensure that if people have put money by, they will not be penalised for having done so. There will be no tariff income—the notional income that the social security system assumes pensioners receive from their savings. Indeed, from April, we are increasing the capital limits as a first stage; as a result, people who are already on the minimum income guarantee will be some £6.30 a week better off.
  The object of the pension credit is to ensure that those who have saved are rewarded for their saving by receiving an additional cash top-up. As part of our proposals, some 3 million pensioners will gain because of the tax changes that we are making as we introduce the credit itself.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge no inconsistency at all between stripping £5 billion out of occupational and personal pension schemes and making such a small repayment subject to filling in a hugely complicated set of forms? Will he confirm that the savings ratio is close to a 40-year low?
  Mr. Darling: One of the consequences of making the changes to corporation tax to which the hon. Gentleman refers is that we have been able to reduce corporation tax to its lowest-ever rate and, I think, the lowest rate among all our major competitors. The Conservatives never did that.
  The credit will not be complicated. As the hon. Gentleman knows, all pensioners have to be written to when they retire to let them know how much pension they have accrued over the years. At the same time, we can calculate how much credit they are due, to reward them for their thrift. I cannot understand why he and his hon. Friends want to maintain a system under which, if people have saved and done exactly what successive Governments have told them to do over the years, they get punished for it. There cannot be any sense in that. The pension credit will mean that, for the first time, those who save money will get a cash top-up—a reward from the state—and that must be the right approach to encourage saving.
  Mr. Andy King: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has clarified the issue in relation to income from savings because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), many visitors to my surgery have said, "I have lost out time and again because I live off some capital. I am just above the social security threshold." How many additional pensioners who lose out because of the capital thresholds will benefit from the pension credit?
  Mr. Darling: More than 5 million pensioner households will gain as a result of the credit, but the issue is pretty clear. Under the system that we are introducing and under the pension credit, those who save money and who have a modest occupational pension or other income will be rewarded for their thrift; under the Conservatives, they would continue to be punished. I cannot understand the logic in the Conservative position.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: What proportion of middle income pensioners are on means-tested benefits, and what will be the proportion in 2003?
  Mr. Darling: That brings us back to the point that we have made over and over again. The Conservatives oppose means-tested benefits because people are getting more money. The minimum income guarantee would never have been introduced under a Conservative Administration. If there were to be a Conservative Government, there would be no minimum income guarantee.
  We wanted to eradicate pensioner poverty, which is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee. We also wanted to ensure that the vast majority of pensioners who had saved money and had a little in the bank were rewarded for their thrift. It is surprising that the Conservatives should find that a laughing matter. Most of us believe it to be a matter of concern. We want to reward thrift, not punish it. The divisions between the two parties are abundantly clear: if we are returned to government, pensioners will be rewarded for their thrift; if the Tories get back in, the same system will continue year after year after year.

  Pensioner Poverty
  Maria Eagle: What progress is being made to eradicate pensioner poverty. [154862]
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): About 2 million of the poorest pensioner households are now at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures introduced since the last election. The Pension Service, which I am announcing today, will also help the Government's drive to eradicate pensioner poverty.
  Maria Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend know how much the winter fuel payment is appreciated in my south Liverpool constituency? Unlike Conservative Members, pensioners there view it not as a gimmick or as window dressing, but as a guarantee of warmth without worry during the winter months. What assurance can my right hon. Friend give that a Labour Government will retain and build on that payment—unlike the Conservatives, who, if they were returned to power, would sneer at it and abolish it?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right: even this afternoon, the Conservatives have reminded us that they regard such measures as "window dressing" or gimmicks.
  The fact is that 11 million winter fuel payments have been made this year. The payment has proved immensely popular, which is presumably why the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), the Conservative spokesman on social security, had to revise his policy sharply. He is now in the unhappy position of finding that the pensions policy that he announced last May is in tatters, and instead is offering us a bureaucratic nightmare that would require every pensioner household to seek an accountant's advice before deciding whether to take the winter fuel payment in cash or to have it consolidated.
  We have made it clear that eradicating pensioner poverty, and dealing with pensioner fuel poverty, is of the utmost importance. That is why we introduced the winter fuel payment. I think people are pretty clear about what the Tories really think of the payment, and what would happen to it if they were returned to power.
  Mr. Steve Webb: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) called on the Secretary of State to build on the winter fuel payment. Will he confirm that his departmental expenditure plans show that spending on the payment will fall by a quarter next winter, because it will be cut from £200 to £150? Is that what he means by "building on it"?
  Mr. Darling: I never cease to be amazed by the Liberal Democrats' views on these matters. We have delivered far more for pensioners than the Liberal Democrats have ever promised, even with the extra penny on income tax that was to be spent on this, that and the other.
  The hon. Gentleman will know that every autumn we announce the uprating for pensioners, and at the same time announce the amount of the winter fuel payment. I have every confidence that pensioners who support us will have their faith in us amply rewarded yet again.
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend knows only too well how many pensioners in my constituency have been helped by the Government's initiatives, but he also knows of my concern about pensioners who are not claiming their full entitlement. How does his Department propose to ensure that there is clear, easily understood information, so that pensioners can claim what is right for them—which is an entitlement and not, as the Conservatives would suggest, a handout?
  Mr. Darling: The new Pension Service, which will be a dedicated service for pensioners, will, among other things, focus on how better to get across to people what is their entitlement. As a first step, the minimum income guarantee claim form, which was more than 40 pages long when originally introduced, has now been shortened to just 10 pages. Pensioners can also claim their entitlement by telephoning, and in future will be able to do so by other means as well.
  We are anxious for two things to happen: we want pensioners to receive their entitlement, and we want that entitlement to be there in the first place. We will ensure that both the minimum income guarantee and the winter fuel payment, as well as other measures, are available to boost pensioners' incomes in retirement. That is crucial not just to Labour Members but, I believe, to the country as a whole.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: The Government introduced stakeholder pensions to try to eradicate future pensioner poverty. Has the Secretary of State seen the Prudential's estimate that 46,000 employers are not planning to offer such pensions? What methods of persuasion does he plan to use—or will he rely entirely on the fines of up to £50,000 that would bring the Treasury between £2.3 billion and £4 billion, representing about 2p on the basic rate of tax? Who will be responsible for enforcing the fines: the Department, the Benefits Agency or the Revenue? Is this the friendly face to business of the Labour Government or is it the overweening arrogance of the state?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Lady was right on one point: stakeholder pensions will help to reduce the number of pensioners dependent on means-tested benefits at or near to retirement. I hope that she can find it in her heart to support stakeholder pensions, because they provide a very good option for people who do not at present have a funded pension option.
  The hon. Lady asked what we were doing to ensure that employers are aware of their obligations. Their obligation is straightforward: if they employ five or more people, they simply have to designate a stakeholder pension scheme. The Government have written to people and advertised, and companies have pointed out to employers the advantages of providing good-quality pension schemes. The combination of all those actions will have an effect, but the best way of selling any pensions product is for people to see that it works. As stakeholder pensions begin to be sold and people become more aware of their advantages, many more employers will want to ensure that their employees get the benefit of them.

  Benefit Take-up
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: What research he has commissioned to ascertain the reasons for the variations in take-up of targeted benefits. [154863]
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We are always doing research—the Department commissions it—to understand the reasons for non-take-up of benefits and the circumstances of those whom the benefits aim to assist.
  All findings from research undertaken by the Department are published and placed in the House of Commons Library. They have led to the redesign of forms: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the example of the income support form and the minimum income guarantee claim form, which was reduced from 40 pages to 10 in the current pilot, which will be in general use later this year.
  Mr. Prentice: I recognise that the Government have done a huge amount for pensioners, but when, as my right hon. Friend said, the MIG claim form was 40 pages long, now reduced to 10, is it any wonder that there were 500,000 pensioners out there entitled to MIG but not claiming it? After a campaign that cost an arm and a leg, and the sending out of 2.4 million letters, there is still a substantial number of poor pensioners not claiming their entitlement. Why do not we embrace what I believe is the Liberal Democrat policy of making MIG universal for the over-80s, clawing back the money from those who can afford it?
  Mr. Rooker: Tens of thousands of pensioners are better off by £20 a week following the MIG take-up campaign, although we do not have final figures and it is not always easy to disaggregate those who have walked into a Benefits Agency office or telephoned us from those who have called the hotline. We wrote to 2 million pensioners and had about 800,000 responses, so we have a database of more than 100,000 people who missed out because their capital was too great. Next week, when the capital limits change, they will be eligible for MIG. We can make direct contact with those who responded to our campaign, and we can get more money to the least well-off pensioners. That is what we intend to do. If we spread the money right across everybody, the increase would certainly not average £20 a head.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: When I tabled Question 19, asking the Government to ensure that all pensioners receive their winter fuel allowance before the end of this winter, it was before the end of the winter. Now, it is past the end of the winter. With reference to the variations in take-up of targeted benefits, what does the Minister say to all those who have yet to receive last winter's winter fuel payment? Is the hope that they will simply receive £50 less the next winter?
  Mr. Rooker: The only people who will not have received the winter fuel payments for last winter are those who had to claim.
  Mr. O'Brien: Exactly.
  Mr. Rooker: Some people choose not to claim. Some men between 60 and 64, perhaps in full-time occupations,
  10
  have chosen not to claim. Anyone who claims will be paid: 11 million were paid automatically before Christmas. We are dealing with the claims as they come in. If people choose not to claim, that is up to them.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Has any research been undertaken into how pensioners hear about the minimum income guarantee? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency I have worked with the churches and distributed 20,000 leaflets to everyone attending church over the past three weeks to make them aware of the minimum income guarantee? We have been struck by the number of pensioners who were not previously aware of the benefit. What research is he undertaking to see what role the voluntary sector can play in making pensioners more aware of these benefits?
  Mr. Rooker: I applaud the role played by the voluntary sector all over the country and by local authorities. Central Government have, for the first time ever, run a take-up campaign by writing directly to 2.3 million individual named pensioners, almost 900,000 of whom responded. In addition, along with other forms of advertising, there was the television campaign with Thora Hird, Peter Sallis and, in Wales, Nerys Hughes, which was well received. We have done our level best to reach as many pensioners as possible, which is borne out by those who have made successful claims. The average person who made a successful claim is £20 a week better off. That is the best testimony to our efforts.
  Mr. David Willetts: Will the Minister confirm that 500,000 pensioners are entitled to the minimum income guarantee on the basis of the current rules but do not take it up, 400,000 families are entitled to the working families tax credit but do not take it up and 1 million families are entitled to the children's tax credit but do not take it up? The Government have only one take-up campaign that is working—their campaign on fraud. Their own evaluation shows that it has led people to believe that benefit fraud is easy to commit. We have the scandal of decent people being put off getting benefits by the sheer complexity of the system while fraudsters exploit that very complexity, encouraged by one of the most misconceived and ineffective advertising campaigns that a Government have ever undertaken.
  Mr. Rooker: I am confirming nothing of the kind. I am not claiming that by directly contacting more than 2.3 million pensioners, we reached every pensioner who might be eligible. However, it is the first time that any Government have ever attempted to get to the poorest pensioners in that way. They are real people with names and addresses. The figure of 500,000 is an extrapolation from a 5 per cent. survey built on figures that cannot always be checked by the Department, so I am not confirming any of the hon. Gentleman's figures.
  Mr. Willetts: The Minister refuses to confirm figures that he has given to the House of Commons in written answers. Let us see whether he will confirm the following figures on the costs of his Department's advertising campaigns. He said in a written answer on 26 February that the cost of all these take-up campaigns in 2000–01 was £11 million. In another written answer on 19 March, the figure had gone up to £14 million. In the departmental

  11
  report out last Friday, the figure had risen to £21 million. Which is the correct figure? Is not the truth that not only are his take-up campaigns useless but so are his parliamentary answers on how much they cost?
  Mr. Rooker: I went back and checked the first written answer to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He did not read out the whole answer. The average cost of advertising in my Department in the four years since the Government took office is exactly the same as that spent by the previous Government in their last four years. They object to the fact that because we have got to grips with their legacy, we have needed to advertise more. We did not waste money advertising in the first couple of years. We have hardly spent a penny more than the previous Government did in their last four years of office. [Interruption.] No, I will stick to what I said. The Government contacted 2.3 million real people. Whatever the Conservatives might say, and whatever answers we might give on the best evidence that we have from statistical surveys, with the best will in the world, and without attacking the professionals, statistical surveys that have been extrapolated are exactly that—statistical surveys. They are not real people with real names and addresses. The Government went to 2.3 million real people with real names and addresses. That does not apply to the 500,000 hocus-pocus figure that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. [Interruption.]
  No; that is a statistical extrapolation. It is a legitimate figure, but it is not real people with real names and addresses.

  Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme
  Mr. Ian Stewart: What progress is being made with the implementation of changes to the vaccine damage payment scheme. [154864]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): In July 2000, we increased the amount of the vaccine damage payment to £100,000, which is a very considerable increase on the £30,000 that we inherited in 1997. Subsequently, we have made 804 top-up payments to past recipients, to a value of more than £53 million. We intend to make the remaining outstanding changes to the disability threshold and time limits for claiming a payment in a regulatory reform order that will be provided for by the Regulatory Reform Bill, which is currently before the House.
  Mr. Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It is good to hear that the Government are keeping their promise to legislate by regulation on the threshold and the time limit. Will the Government tag that regulation on to either of the two social security Bills that the House is currently considering?
  Mr. Bayley: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who led a magnificent campaign on behalf of the families of those very unfortunate people. Nothing, of course, can make up for their suffering, but we are determined to improve the payment scheme. We will get that legislation through the House using a regulatory reform order as soon as we can—subject, of course, to the House agreeing the Regulatory Reform Bill. I am confident, however, that the House will agree that measure. The official Opposition
  12
  have already made statements confirming that they will help us to pass those improvements to the scheme as quickly as possible, and I am sure that they will honour those commitments.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister accept that some of those people have been waiting some time to receive that assistance, that time is of the essence, and that it is important that payments are made as quickly as possible after the orders have been passed? Will he also give an undertaking that, despite any changes, there will be no question of compensation clawback being allowed to reduce the money that is paid?
  Mr. Bayley: On the latter point, provided that the victim of vaccine damage is still alive, it is possible to put the money into trust. If the money is put into trust, there would be no question of a consequential abatement of social security benefits. The vast majority of the higher-rate claims that we have received have been paid. There has been a delay only in cases in which we are going through the process of establishing trusts to achieve precisely the outcome that the right hon. Gentleman wants—to ensure that income support or other income-related benefits will not be abated because of capital being taken into account.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I welcome the Government's commitment—which was, and is supported by the Conservative party—to ensure that there is compensation for those who are suffering from vaccine damage. However, what action will the Government take to ensure that people are aware of the availability of compensation schemes? Will they use Thora Hird and Nerys Hughes to do that? What will the Government do to ensure that the families and individuals who have been so blighted by vaccine damage can apply for compensation?
  Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman rather undermines his argument that there is a bipartisan approach to the issue. The current Government, not the previous one, have made a very substantial improvement to the vaccine damage scheme that has been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Claims are made because people are aware of the vaccine damage payment scheme. Fortunately and thankfully, however, not many claims are made because very few people are damaged. However, when there is damage, payments can be made. Only recently, I announced to the House another extension to the scheme, in relation to vaccinations for meningitis C.

  Means-testing
  Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the means-testing of benefits. [154866]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Investment in income-related benefits such as the minimum income guarantee and the disability income guarantee has provided the most effective and immediate way of tackling poverty.
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Minister. Can he confirm that under the pension credit proposals, a person

  13
  who has saved £75,000 in a pension fund will be just £6 a week better off than somebody who has saved nothing at all?
  Mr. Bayley: That comes badly from a party that never proposed introducing pension credit, that never proposed rewarding savings and that is happy that people who pay into pension schemes and save capital should get no benefit from the state at all. We do not share the view of the Conservative party; that is why we made our proposals for pension credit—so that those who save to provide for themselves in old age see a real benefit from doing so.
  Mr. Paul Goggins: Will my hon. Friend please ignore the comments of the Opposition and their allegations about increasing means-testing? He will be aware that, since the last general election, the number of people in households forced to depend on income support and jobseeker's allowance has fallen by more than 1 million. That total includes 400,000 children. Is not that a sign that the Government are tackling poverty and that the Opposition's claims are wrong?
  Mr. Bayley: One of the real indictments of the previous Government was that the number of children living in poverty trebled. One of the things that the Labour Government will be remembered for is that our policies—not least the welfare-to-work policies, but a whole range of fiscal and benefit policies too—have meant that 1.2 million children, who under the Conservatives were living in poverty, have been removed from living in poverty. That is as a result of the work of the Government.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I get quite a lot of real people with real addresses in my surgeries. One of the things that they complain most bitterly about is that whenever they come into contact with the social security system, not only do their letters get lost but they have to deal with a different person each time they go back into the system. Are there any plans to improve the system so that people can relate to the same person each time they have a problem?
  Mr. Bayley: Yes, indeed there are—changes that the Conservatives did not make when they were in government. We are creating a working age agency to provide just such a service for clients: not just dumping them on benefits and leaving them in a labyrinthine system that provides no support, but providing personal advisers who will help clients both to deal with their benefit problems and to get back to work.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Hilary Benn: If he will make a statement on the operation of the social fund. [154867]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Our drive to modernise and improve the social fund is already benefiting those in greatest need.
  Today, I am pleased to announce that the budget for the discretionary social fund will be more than £620 million for the coming year. That is an increase of almost £25 million over last April's allocation and
  14
  includes a rise in the community care grant budget of £3 million. That will provide more help to grant applicants, especially families with children and disabled people. It contrasts with the £90 million Tory raid on the social fund that will hit hardest the poorest and most vulnerable.
  Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that the increase in resources for the social fund that she has just announced will be widely welcomed. However, she will be aware that those who cannot get help from the social fund often face extortionate rates of interest when borrowing from elsewhere. Will she look at ways in which the social fund might link with other forms of low-cost credit, so that we as a society stop placing the highest costs on those who already have least?
  Angela Eagle: I welcome my hon. Friend's observations. We believe that micro-credit, local credit unions and local exchange and trading schemes—LETS—all have a valuable role to play in assisting people on low incomes with access to borrowing small amounts. We are considering how all those provisions can interact sensibly with the benefits system.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: As the Government intend to combine the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service to provide an integrated service for working people, what will happen, in that system, to the social fund, which caters to that group and also to a wider group of people in need? What assurance can the Minister give us that the fund will not simply fall through the cracks in the benefits system?
  Angela Eagle: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the social fund will not fall through the cracks in the benefits system. I remind him that the vast majority of the discretionary social fund is spent on people of working age, and we shall certainly ensure that in changing the system and its administration—when we separate the working age agency from the pensions directorate—the social fund is adequately provided for and administered.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: Is not the social fund an example of the most basic necessary safety net that we have in our welfare system, as it provides help with furniture, cookers and even funeral payments? What does my hon. Friend think is the dogmatic motivation behind the Conservative party's proposing such an enormous cut in that benefit?
  Angela Eagle: Taking £90 million out of the social fund would undoubtedly have a devastating effect because so much less money would be available to the poorest and most vulnerable people in society. The figures show that 50 per cent. of those who claim from the discretionary social fund are lone parents with children, so it is important to realise that the Tory policy of raiding £90 million from the social fund would hit the poorest and most vulnerable people hardest.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Peter Lilley: What rebate will be payable into a stakeholder pension for an employee earning (a) £9,000 and (b) £10,000 per annum who opts out of the state second pension. [154866]
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the amount of rebate payable into a stakeholder pension that is contracted out of the state second pension will vary according to the age of the person concerned.
  Mr. Lilley: If the original purpose of the stakeholder pension was to enable those on low earnings to opt out of the state system into privately funded pensions, why does it discriminate in practice against those on low earnings? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, whereas those with earnings of more than £10,000 will receive a rebate sufficient to buy a pension equivalent to the state pension that they forgo, those with earnings of less than £10,000 will receive only a partial rebate and, therefore, will be discriminated against? Is not that unfair, unnecessary and likely to lead to the sort of mis-selling that The Sunday Times said in an article was widespread as a direct result of the Government's policy?
  Mr. Darling: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been engaging in quite a lot of revisionism recently, but he really does have a brass neck to lecture us about the mis-selling of pensions. Let me answer his question on stakeholder pensions. First, he is wrong on a fundamental point: we have always said that people on low incomes earning about £10,000 or less would do better to go into the state second pension, which doubles—and, in some cases, trebles—the amount of money that they would have received under the state earnings-related pension scheme, which we have now reformed. So low earners ought to be in the state second pension. The stakeholder pension is designed for middle and higher earners, and he is right to say that those earning approximately between £10,000 and £22,000 a year will benefit from an enhanced rebate. But it is not only on the mis-selling of pensions that he is a little forgetful, because on 21 February this year, he gave an interview to the Financial Adviser and said:
  "Stakeholder pensions should give savers more 'bang' for their buck.
  Savers should see less of their contributions absorbed by costs and more being invested in assets which, other things being equal, will mean higher pensions when they retire."
  He also said:
  "I would be more than surprised if a future Tory government even contemplated abolishing stakeholder pensions."

  Means-tested Benefits (Take-up)
  Mr. John Wilkinson: What measures he proposes to introduce to increase the take-up by those eligible for means-tested welfare benefits.[154869]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We actively encourage people to claim the benefits to which they are entitled.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Why was it then that the Minister of State gave such a disingenuous answer to the hon.
  16
  Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), when he said that his Department did not have final figures on minimum income guarantee take-up? Is it not the case that such figures were made available in an answer given to my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State on 5 March, which showed that out of the 840,000 people who made inquiries, only 82,000 were eligible and took up benefits? There was a cost of about £15 million. Is it not clear that that is a gross waste of taxpayers' money? Could not the system operate more effectively?
  Angela Eagle: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that making 82,000 people, on average, £20 a week better off—after being left in poverty as a result of the neglect of the previous Conservative Government—is not worth celebrating. Since the campaign is not yet over, the figures that we have given so far will not be the final figures. Next week, we will double the capital limit, which will ensure that more people are eligible for the minimum income guarantee. That stands in contrast with the Conservatives, who froze the capital limits for a decade when they were in office.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. John Randall: If he will make a statement on the minimum income guarantee take-up campaign. [154870]
  Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about the take-up of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. [154873]
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Two million pensioners are now £15 a week better off as a direct result of what the Government have done since 1997. The minimum income guarantee take-up campaign has encouraged thousands to claim, and resulted in significant improvements to the service delivered to pensioners.
  Mr. Randall: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the reasons for the rather disappointing take-up after the costly campaigns is that elderly people find the whole idea of means-testing extremely demeaning?
  Mr. Darling: No, I do not. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, just over 900,000 people have responded as a result of our advertising campaign. If stigma or a reluctance to claim were the problem, 900,000 people would not have responded. The facts rather contradict the argument of the hon. Gentleman. The big problem that the Conservatives have is not that they are somehow concerned about means-tested benefits, but that they do not like paying more money to people who need help and would take it away if they got back in.
  Mr. Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that around 50 per cent. of women pensioners do not get the full pension because they could not or did not pay full national insurance contributions and that the minimum income guarantee for pensioners—far from being a gimmick or window-dressing—is an important way of

  17
  redressing the disadvantages that women have experienced from the social security system and the labour market?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to one of the problems of the present pension system. The basic state pension has many strengths and attractions, but one of its weaknesses is that someone without the required number of contributions will not get a full pension. Many women—particularly those who did not pay the full contributions up until 1977—are retiring with pensions that are below even the basic state pension. We introduced the minimum income guarantee to make sure that all pensioners were guaranteed just that, a minimum, from next week, of more than £92 a week. The pension credit will be of great help to women who have some savings. As it will increase in line with earnings, it will benefit women significantly. All those measures are, of course, opposed by the Conservative party.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Can the Secretary of State now give us an answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) by saying what proportion of pensioners are on means-tested benefits now, and that proportion will be on such benefits in 2003?
  Mr. Darling: The answer is about 9 per cent. I make no apology for the fact that we are paying more money than ever before to pensioners whose incomes were so low that they had to depend on income support. Unlike the Conservative party, we are determined to spend more on helping the pensioners who need help most, as well as making the long-term reforms to the pension system that were long overdue. We will change the social security system so that the pension credit ensures that people who have saved or put a little money by are rewarded for their thrift. Every one of those measures has been opposed by the Conservative party.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Paul Flynn: If he will bring forward the date for the introduction of the pension credit. [154872]
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I have to say no. The introduction of the pension credit will require primary legislation; it is not possible to introduce it by order We have consulted and we shall shortly bring our proposals to the House, and we shall do so as soon as practicable. Legislation and planning will then be required. Therefore, it is not possible to introduce the pension credit before our planned date of 2003.
  Mr. Flynn: Have not the Government achieved a triple crown of improvements for pensioners? They have introduced the £200 winter fuel payment; the biggest increase in the basic pension for 25 years, which we hope will continue; and the pension credit, which will, for the first time ever, give those pensioners who have paid into private pensions all their lives real benefit from those contributions. It is marvellous that that injustice will end. In the extra time that we have in this Parliament, is it possible to get some swift legislation through?
  Mr. Rooker: That is a matter for the business managers. However, we will introduce the proposals that result from the consultation as soon as we possibly can. The introduction of the pension credit will, for the first time since 1948, ensure that it pays to save. The way that the welfare state has worked—Ministers were never honest enough to admit it—meant that it has never paid to save for people on moderate earnings and small pensions. With the pension credit, it will pay to save for the first time. That is a great tribute to the work of this Government in this Parliament.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister reflect on the fact that his initial answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) was not very convincing? Surely, if the House has the will, legislation can he passed quickly. Will the Minister therefore re-examine the possibility of introducing the credit in 2002? In addition, what is his estimate of the effect that the pension credit will have on Treasury funds, and what is that when we remember the £5 billion tax raid that the Government have perpetrated on pension funds?
  Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. The consultation has taken several months and we have received more than 400 submissions on the pension credit. We have not yet announced our final decision as to the shape of the credit. Although I would like to answer his question in detail, I cannot because the mechanics of the finances of the pension credit have to take account of the consultation and its interaction with other benefits, such as council tax benefit and housing benefit. Only after we have made our announcement on the policy can we instruct the parliamentary draftsman to get to work on drafting primary legislation. That is why we cannot do what the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  I would also caution against rushing. More than half the pensioners in this country will benefit from the pension credit. Therefore, it is crucial that, when it is delivered, it works. If we rush it and it does not work, no one will thank us.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Andrew Miller: If he will make a statement on take-up of child benefit since 1997. [154874]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Child benefit is paid to more than 7 million families: virtually all families with children receive it. Since 1997, we have increased the rate of child benefit for the first child by 26 per cent. in real terms—to £15 a week. From next week, this will increase again to £15.50 and to £10.35 for all other children.
  Mr. Miller: For the 10,500 families in Ellesmere Port and Neston who gain from child benefit, that sum represents an extra expenditure over and above inflation of more than £1.5 million since 1997. It is truly welcome. However, will my hon. Friend ensure that, when future programmes in other parts of the Department's work are considered, special attention is given to those areas of my constituency where there is still child poverty?
  Angela Eagle: It is one of the Government's aims to end child poverty within 20 years, and more than 1 million children will be lifted out of poverty in this Parliament. Therefore, we are on track to achieve our aim. The Tories tripled child poverty during their time in office, and I contrast our record on child benefit and the increase of 26 per cent. with the three-year freeze in child benefit between 1988 and 1990 that was the Tory legacy.
  Mr. John Bercow: What proportion of wealthy households do not claim child benefit?
  Angela Eagle: Child benefit claim rates are almost 100 per cent.

  Pensioner Poverty
  Mr. Brian White: What progress is being made to combat pensioner poverty. [154878]
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The answer is simple: our record speaks volumes, as the whole of the past hour has shown. More than 2 million of the poorest pensioners in this country are now at least £15 a week or £800 a year better off in real terms. People on the basic minimum income guarantee receive £78.45 this week. Next week, their income will go up to £92.15.
  Mr. White: The pension credit will bring many more people out of poverty, but will my right hon. Friend say what he is doing for those people prior to the introduction of the credit?
  Mr. Rooker: As my hon. Friend knows, there will be further increases as the transition to pension credit is effected. That is why there has been an increase in the basic state pension this year that is over and above both the earnings link and the prices link. In addition, we are in any event committed to raising the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings.

Local Elections
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the deferral of the local government elections, which were due to take place next month.
On 3 May, elections for 34 English county councils and 11 English unitary authorities were scheduled, and slightly less than a fortnight later, on Wednesday 16 May, elections for 26 district councils in Northern Ireland were also due. However, the House will be aware of the considerable scale of representations that we have received to defer those elections because of foot and mouth disease. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has now made clear, we have listened very carefully to those representations.
We judge that, in terms of practical arrangements, polling in May would be possible and would produce fair results. Following changes to the law brought into force on 16 February, postal votes in England and Wales are now available on demand to any voter. With a handful of exceptions, schools—in which many polling stations are sited—have remained open and operational in all foot and mouth disease areas. Moreover, as all of us are aware, the form of election campaigns has changed over the years: for example, telephone canvassing is now a key way in which voters in rural and urban areas are contacted by candidates and political parties.
We have also taken careful note of the impact on tourism and the message that any lengthy deferral might send out. On the other side of the equation, however, is the need for national and, in some areas, local politicians to be focused on the fight against foot and mouth disease as the necessary machinery to deal with any eventuality is put in place; and the feelings and sensitivities of people in the communities most severely affected by that dreadful disease.
Taking account of those considerations, we have decided that these local elections should be deferred for a short period: in the case of England and Wales, for five weeks, from 3 May to Thursday 7 June; and in the case of Northern Ireland, for three weeks, from 16 May to 7 June also. Some district and borough council by-elections are due on 3 May and others could be held on each Thursday thereafter before 7 June. In the circumstances, the Government believe it will be best if all by-elections in that period are also postponed until 7 June. In the time scale, however, it is not practical to defer by-elections that are due before 3 May.
A Bill to ask the House and the other place to give effect to those deferrals will be introduced as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will make a statement immediately after this one about the effect on the House's business As preparations for local elections on 3 May in England and Wales and 16 May in Northern Ireland will have to continue until and unless legislation for their deferral receives Royal Assent, it is plainly in everyone's interest that the legislation should be passed as quickly as possible. There are a number of detailed consequential matters which will have to be dealt with in the legislation. I will therefore make arrangements for the Opposition parties to have an outline of the draft legislation later today.
22
The House will be aware that the cost of administering local elections falls on the local authorities concerned. In respect of the elections that were due to take place in May, local authorities have already incurred expenditure and will be obliged to go on incurring such expenditure unless and until the new Bill receives Royal Assent. We shall accordingly take powers in the Bill to compensate local authorities for expenditure legitimately and unavoidably incurred. Although nominations for the elections due on 3 May do not close until tomorrow—and those for Northern Ireland do not close until later this month—some candidates may have incurred additional costs because of the deferral. They should be relatively small, but to cover them the maximum limit on candidates' expenses will be increased in the Bill by 50 per cent. The Bill will also provide that candidates validly nominated for elections due on 3 May will not have to resubmit their nomination papers.
Delaying elections is not a step ever to be taken lightly. Nevertheless, I hope that the House will agree with me that a relatively short postponement of the kind that I have set out is the appropriate response in the circumstances.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: May I thank the Home Secretary for his usual courtesy in providing me with a copy of his statement in advance? Conservative Members are glad about the Government's belated recognition that there really is a crisis in this country, which is affecting the countryside and farmers badly, and that local elections would have been inappropriate in those circumstances. However, it is unfortunate that the Government decided not to consult the Opposition at all prior to making their decision on an important constitutional matter. Members will be aware of the tradition that, when important constitutional matters are involved, there should be contact with the Opposition. It is regrettable that that did not happen. But, of course, we know that even Cabinet Ministers were unaware of what the Prime Minister and his spin doctors were thinking.
Are not today's developments yet another chapter in the catalogue of dithering and delay that has characterised the Government's handling of the foot and mouth crisis? It was we who called for compensation for farmers who suffered irrecoverable losses, and it took the Government two weeks to announce it. It was we who called for the Government to make use of the Army, and it took them another nine days even to begin deploying troops. It was we who called for rate relief for rural businesses, and it took the Government a week to decide to undertake that. It was we who called for legislation to allow postponement of the local elections two weeks before the legal timetable for those elections had commenced, At the time the Leader of the House said that such a move would be "catastrophically wrong". The Prime Minister's official spokesman said:
"We are not going down that road".
But now, at this late stage, the Home Secretary comes to the House and says that the elections will need to be postponed until 7 June.
If the foot and mouth outbreak is the reason for putting the elections off, how can the Government work to such an arbitrary date? What will the Government do if the crisis continues, and is not resolved at that time? What criteria will the Prime Minister use to determine whether to go ahead then—or is that date written in tablets of stone? We need answers to those important questions.

23
The Prime Minister said this morning that it was necessary to put in place immediate short and long-term strategies to ensure eradication of the disease. The Prime Minister has shown no leadership. He said that while the crisis was still going on, it would not be appropriate to hold the elections. Is it not entirely consistent with the principle of delaying those elections that while the crisis remains unresolved, until and possibly beyond 7 June, the argument stands for focusing on combating the disease rather than on the elections?
Will the Home Secretary therefore say clearly today whether it is planned that those elections will go ahead regardless of the progress and the circumstances of the current crisis—despite the fact that the Prime Minister said this morning that it would be better to focus on the fight against foot and mouth, and that one of his key criteria for deciding in favour of postponement was the feeling in local communities?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept that the Prime Minister was wrong to say that there were no practical impediments in the way of having the local elections on 3 May? Does he realise that areas such as Devon and Cumbria, which are particularly badly affected—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is entitled to be heard.
Miss Widdecombe: No wonder Labour Members do not want to hear these important questions. [Interruption.] No wonder they do not want to be challenged on the profoundly inadequate handling of a national crisis.
Will the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, who have both claimed that there are no practical impediments, recognise that in Devon and Cumbria, which are particularly badly affected, there are many candidates who are farmers? How are they supposed to press their candidature if they cannot move about?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a clear case for flexibility in the proposed legislation, and that to fix a date of 7 June in the Bill would be both inappropriate and premature? Does he accept that the legislation should be framed around taking the necessary powers to set a new date, because it is clear that it would not be responsible to fix the date now? Might it not, indeed, be right for local elections in some areas that have been particularly affected to be delayed longer than the one month that the legislation would allow—[Interruption.]
I am afraid that the attitude on the Government Benches shows how seriously Labour Members do not take what is going on in the countryside, and how little respect they have for the people who are asking these questions—the people who are affected.
As the Home Secretary will appreciate, his announcement raises several extremely important legal and practical issues. What about the closing of nominations for the local elections, which is due to take place at midday tomorrow? I understand that before the right hon. Gentleman's statement, the Home Office had been telling local authorities that the deadline would be extended into May. Do the Government intend that the deadline should be
24
so extended, and if so, for how long? How will they bring that about, given that there will be no legislation in place by tomorrow, when the deadline expires?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about literature printed in good faith by candidates who believed the Government's previous firm assurances that the elections would take place on 3 May? Will those candidates be compensated for their expenditure on that literature—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
Miss Widdecombe: The more questions we ask, the more desperate Labour Members become. All over this country, people representing all the major parties will be disgusted by the fact that these questions are being treated as trivial.
I welcome the decision to increase candidates' expenditure limits, but will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether a 50 per cent. increase is enough where candidates may have had to destroy all their election literature? I also welcome the decision to reimburse local councils that have incurred, or will incur, unavoidable expenditure because of the postponement.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there will be further special arrangements for postal voting, and especially for the delivery of election addresses, in areas that are particularly badly affected by the foot and mouth crisis? Will he comment on the legal issues resulting from the legal requirement for councils to hold annual meetings in April and May, and for the election of mayors and the commencement of new budgets in that time?
Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that these are important issues which could and should have been resolved much earlier, and that the legislation should have been produced before 26 March, as we said? Will he also comment on the rolling register, and on the extension of the deadline previously set at 12 March?
Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Too long because too much has been unattended to. If the Home Secretary had covered these matters in his statement, I would not have to ask him obvious questions now. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the disgraceful way in which the decision was announced? Will he confirm that Labour party spin doctors were authorised to leak the announcement to the press on Friday evening? Perhaps he could tell us whether the Prime Minister's official spokesman was involved in that.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that the Cabinet was kept in the dark about the Prime Minister's change of mind—so much so that the Culture Secretary embarrassed himself and the Government by making contradictory statements about the matter within a couple of hours on Saturday morning? Does the Home Secretary regret that? Did he become aware of the decision before or after the press were told? The Government have dithered and delayed on the issue for the past two weeks. Their actions to date will have inspired no confidence among the public in their ability to handle the crisis.
Mr. Straw: I will, as ever, seek to answer as many of the right hon. Lady's questions as possible and as the time allows. However, you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I observe that the right hon. Lady has only one gear—

25
a very high gear. She invited us all to accept that we were speaking of a national crisis, then treated us to a party political rant, with posturing and invective.
The gravamen of the right hon. Lady's remarks was whether it would not be better to defer the elections indefinitely. We all understand that there are some on the Conservative Benches who would like to see the local elections and any general election deferred through this year and well past May 2002. However, there are significant practical reasons why it would not be sensible to delay the unitary and county council elections beyond the date in June or thereabouts. [interruption.] I will explain why, if right hon. and hon. Members will hear me out. It is extremely important.
If we were to defer the elections indefinitely, we would have to do one of two things. We would also have to defer by-elections indefinitely as well. At each four-year cycle of any council, about a quarter of all candidates retire or resign. Most of those, we anticipate, will be willing to serve for a further three, four or, as it happens, five weeks. As they have made their own decision to retire or, in many cases, among all three parties, have been deselected, I do not believe that almost any of them could or would be willing to be nominated for those vacancies. The effect of deferring the elections indefinitely and prohibiting by-elections meanwhile—
Mr. Oliver Heald: That is not true.
Mr. Straw: It is absolutely true. Hon. Members may shake their heads, but the effect would be to leave those areas unrepresented, and also to secure a situation in which, by chance or by death, control of those councils changed. The alternative is not to defer by-elections, but that would mean ending up with a situation such as that in which the Conservatives are already complicit in the city of Carlisle. The agent of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is now standing as a candidate there in a by-election that was called by the Conservatives. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is a city."] But it is also part of the designated area for foot and mouth disease. I remind hon. Members that the whole of Cumbria is covered by foot and mouth prohibitions.
Without our decision, an increasing number of by-elections would be triggered not only in metropolitan and urban areas, but across rural areas, in place of sensible, all-out elections on 7 June. It is for that reason that the decision is supported by sensible Conservatives such as the Conservative leader of Hampshire county council. When he was asked whether he agreed with the decision that was announced this morning, it was clear that, unlike the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), he saw the sense in it. He said that he was "rather glad" about the announcement. So, we have good, thinking Conservatives on our side, even though the right hon. Lady would not claim to be a member of that tendency.
I shall now deal with the legal and practical difficulties that the right hon. Lady raised. On the close of nominations, unless and until the legislation is introduced, the arrangements for the elections on 3 May and 16 May will continue. The legislation will provide, however, that nominations for the elections in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that have been made by the due date will stay valid—unless, of course, candidates decide to withdraw them of their own volition.
26
On compensation, I am happy to talk to the Opposition parties about whether compensation to a degree can be provided to candidates or their parties. Obviously, there will have to be a separate scheme for independents. We think that 50 per cent. is enough, but we are happy to consider any evidence—[HON. MEMBERS: "50 per cent. compensation?"] Not 50 per cent. compensation, but a 50 per cent. increase in the limit on expenses. Notwithstanding our judgment that most candidates will, in practice, have spent little money, it would plainly be wrong for a candidate who had spent money in anticipation of elections on 3 May then to be outwith the limit through no fault of his or her own.
We have considered the delivery of a free post, which I think the right hon. Lady had in mind, but we do not think that it is practical in the circumstances. On the legal requirements for annual meetings, I am again happy to speak to the Opposition parties, but the proposed law will provide for the annual cycle of meetings, which would usually occur in May in respect of the affected councils, to take place in June, after the new local elections on 7 June.
I conclude by returning to the right hon. Lady's point about dithering. I can think of no greater dithering—something with which the Opposition's approach has been replete—than not deciding on a clear date that is plainly in the interests of the country as a whole. As many Opposition Members claim to represent rural areas, they should listen not only to the voices of people in the farming community, but to those of people in the tourist industry, some of whose representatives have now welcomed the decision and the certainty that it brings, but have said that on no account, in the interests of the rural economy as a whole, should the date be deferred beyond 7 June.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Although I fully understand the Opposition's strategy of wanting elections delayed until their political fortunes improve, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has any estimate of how long the elections would have to be delayed in order for that objective to be achieved?
Mr. Straw: I was thinking about the Opposition and their behaviour in recent weeks. They make the Opposition that I adorned in the early 1980s appear a paradigm of virtue.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I thought that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was trying to use up all the time between now and 7 June in asking her questions. I shall be much briefer.
The Liberal Democrats support the Bill and the change of election date, except in Northern Ireland, to which I shall revert shortly. Although we do not have a reputation for being soft on Labour or soft on the policies of Labour, we believe that it was right for the Prime Minister to wait until the weekend to make a decision. It may not be in the interests of parties or politicians to defer the election, but the decision clearly reflected a strong national mood and is in the interests of the country.
Subject to examining the fine print, we will expedite the Bill's progress so that certainty can be provided as soon as possible. The Bill has the advantage of setting a

27
definite date so that we can concentrate on foot and mouth for the next few weeks. It also enables the tourist industry to know that it will be business as usual soon, and to encourage people to go to the many places in Britain that we want them to visit.
I have two technical questions. First, will local authorities receive full compensation for all the expenses that they have incurred? Secondly, will the Home Secretary re-examine the decision to postpone the Northern Irish elections? Northern Ireland is a foot and mouth-free Province. The tradition is to hold local elections there on the third Wednesday of May. Is the Home Secretary willing to consider proceeding with them?
When will we have a guarantee that, in future, Ministers will make announcements to Parliament, not national newspapers, and when will we end the pretence that we are not considering the day of the general election as well as that of local elections?
Mr. Straw: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. [Interruption.] I believe that Conservative Members will regret their leadership's position, such as it is. The Conservative leadership is plainly devoid of the ability to rise to meet the national interest. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House for calm.
Mr. Straw: In so far as I can judge, the Conservative approach of switch and switch again to every issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh yes. The number of statements by Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, calling for the election to be held the next day if not the day before, is astonishing. I shall not bore the House by reading them out, but they are all on the record. Their policy of switch and switch again is determined by the Leader of the Opposition's approach to politics, which is to put his finger in the air every morning to ascertain which way the wind is blowing and hope that people will not notice.
I accept the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about balancing the need to take account of the sensibilities and sensitivities in rural areas and farming communities and to ensure a period when all are engaged in fighting foot and mouth against not stringing the matter out indefinitely. That would send out the wrong message, especially about tourism. All of us who know and love the countryside realise that tourism and agriculture are inextricably linked, but that for every 1 per cent. of gross domestic product that comes from agriculture, 7 per cent. of GDP, our wealth and our jobs, is generated by tourism.
We will provide full compensation for expenses that were unavoidably incurred by local authorities.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to look again at another matter, and I will be happy to discuss that with him. On the issue of general elections, he knows that the timing of any general election is a matter on which the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister alone, advises Her Majesty.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who have watched with great distress the television coverage of the immolation of
28
the carcases of the animals that have so far been killed, and those who are affected in those areas—the people who are desperately anxious about what is happening to their tourist businesses, tourist accommodation and so on—will be filled with contempt for the way in which the desperate rabble on the Conservative Benches has attempted to derive party political advantage from the distress of those people? My right hon. Friend talked about the effect of foot and mouth on tourism, but Conservative Members are most worried about the effect on Toryism. Are not Conservative Members trying to enunciate the novel doctrine that the prerogative of deciding the date of an election should lie not only with the Leader of the Opposition, but with the most unpopular Leader of the Opposition since polling began?
Mr. Straw: I agree with my right hon. Friend. As I said earlier, I think that the Conservative Opposition will come to regret the stand that they have taken.
Mr. Tim Collins: I believe that the vast majority of people of all political opinions—and of none—in Cumbria will welcome the announcement that the elections will not take place in May. However, they will wonder whether the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister are right to suggest that, in no circumstances, however bad the foot and mouth crisis becomes, would they contemplate moving the elections from June.
May I also check an important technical point with the Home Secretary? In his statement, he talked about the fact that many village schools would still be open and would therefore be able to serve as polling stations. He may know that returning officers across Cumbria have been told that village halls—which provide the bulk of polling stations in rural areas because the schools have long since closed—will not be open for an election in May, and will probably not be available to act as polling stations in June either. Will the Home Secretary please address that question, and the case that returning officers are making for universal automatic postal voting in Cumbria as the only way of ensuring a substantial voter turnout, whenever the elections take place?
Mr. Straw: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter of balance. As the Prime Minister made clear earlier today, we believe that we have got the balance right. Of course we have thought about and worked through other altenatives. However, despite the calls from some Opposition Members when I was trying to explain the issue of by-elections, it could not be right to leave whole areas—including whole areas of Cumbria—unrepresented by not holding local county council elections in the near future.
To defer those elections indefinitely could mean either that large tracts of Cumbria, for example, would have no county councillors at all—on average, a quarter of all county wards in England, all of them single-member wards, would have no representation at all—or that the object of postponement would be defeated, because there would be a continuing cycle of by-elections as the inevitable casual by vacancies caused by resignation or retirement took place. That is why we judged that certainty, in the form of a deferral of five weeks, was sensible.

29
I shall be happy to discuss the hon. Gentleman's point about village halls with him, and also to ensure that discussions on the matter take place with the returning officers and, of course, with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. We have considered universal automatic postal votes, but we judged that they were not necessary. They might well have been necessary—as might emergency legislation to that effect—had we not already had provisions in force from in 16 February for everyone to obtain a postal vote on demand.
The hon. Gentleman may not be aware—because it has not yet been formally announced—that we have also put in place an increase in the advertising campaign run by the electoral registration officers, the better to provide information about how to apply for a form. The forms will be very easily available, including on the internet.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to those of us who have argued that politicians should be fighting foot and mouth, not each other, in May. Did not the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) exceed even herself in her misjudgment of the mood of the House and the country? Is he aware that the chief of tourism in the south-west of England, Malcolm Bell, said today that he warmly welcomes the postponement of the local elections to June, although he added that the open-ended postponement advocated by the Conservative party would be absolutely disastrous for the British tourism industry?
Mr. Straw: I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the statement: because he represents an area that is one of those worst affected by foot and mouth disease and one of the most important for tourism in the country, he is also one of those to whom my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and I have listened carefully. I am aware of Mr. Bell's comments welcoming the decision to defer until 7 June, but no further. I have also had drawn to my attention, for example, comments by Carole Hutchings of the South Devon tourist association, who describes herself as a farmer on Dartmoor as well as someone who runs tourist attractions. She says that she too, is glad of the deferment—but again, not beyond that date.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does the Home Secretary recognise that in Northern Ireland farming represents a much larger percentage of gross domestic product than in the rest of the United Kingdom? Hence there has been huge anxiety about whether an election would be held, as had been forecast, on 3 May. I welcome the Government's decision, although given the veterinary advice that was available I am puzzled as to why it was not made sooner.
Like most Members and the Government, I hope that, by 7 June, the crisis will have begun to ease. There is a crisis today and we do not want it to become a catastrophe. Can the Home Secretary reassure me that compensation due to Northern Ireland local authorities will not come out of the very hard-pressed block grant, but will be new money to replace that already expended?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the decision. The explanation for why it was not made sooner is straightforward—
Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Government had told The Sun.
Mr. Straw: The decision was very difficult; it is not a laughing matter. It is unusual in peacetime for elections to be deferred, even for a short while. The most careful consideration was thus required. [Interruption.] Again, I hear sedentary comments from Conservatives; they have never deferred elections. Of course, they have abolished them altogether, however, as some of us remember. We are not going down that path.
Of course, I recognise the huge importance of farming to the economy and society of Northern Ireland; it is even greater than in many rural areas of the rest of the United Kingdom, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland loses no opportunity to remind the rest of the Cabinet of that fact. On compensation, I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman to give a detailed answer.
Mr. Robin Corbett: I welcome the sensible decision to postpone the local government elections, but will my right hon. Friend consider again—in these exceptional circumstances—allowing candidates one free mail shot to each elector, as foot and mouth may still be causing trouble?
May I also make a personal request? Speaking as one of those who will not be standing at the general election, may I ask my right hon. Friend in no circumstances to postpone these elections any further—certainly not for the 10 years, at least, that will pass before the Conservatives again become remotely electable?
Mr. Straw: I remind my hon. Friend that my announcement concerned only the postponement of local elections, rather than any other kind.
I shall be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about free mail shots, but when we have considered the matter in the recent past we have not been convinced that the cost and complexity involved would not outweigh the perceived advantages. There is no legislative cover, which would make the procedure particularly complicated and detailed.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, but will he give an assurance that if foot and mouth is not under control on 7 June—which, sadly, is possible—he will draft the Bill in a way that would allow elections in at least some parts of the country to be delayed beyond that date?
Mr. Straw: I regret to say that that is not possible. Our experience of the 1967 outbreak suggests that foot and mouth is likely to be with us for some time, although I shall not enter the realms of predicting the path of the disease. We have considered carefully whether it would be possible to tell one group of electors, but not another, that their elections would be deferred; but given the questions of where to draw the line and the criteria on which to draw it, and of fairness to one group of electors in relation to another, we have judged the idea to be wholly impractical.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The Home Secretary has referred to the serious consequences of foot and mouth for the tourist trade, but is it not also having a severe impact on our meat exporting trade? Middlesbrough contains a meat-processing factory with 40 workers, exporting to Belgium and Holland. It has been seriously affected by the crisis.

31
The Home Secretary has told the House twice that a quarter of our councillors are chosen at local elections each year, and that there is a series of by-elections. Will he confirm that the budget cycle will begin in September? There is constant interaction between Government and local councils, and local council elections are as important to our democracy as national elections. Would not deferring local elections indefinitely deal a destabilising and detrimental blow to our local democracy?
Mr. Straw: Of course I understand the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed so eloquently on behalf of those in his area who work in the meat export trade.
The House may be interested to hear some figures. In 1999, of 11,380 councillors who were due for election, 2,695–24 per cent.—stood down. The proportion was similar last year, although fewer electoral wards and fewer councillors were involved.
My hon. Friend is right: to postpone the elections indefinitely and not to hold by-elections would cause local democracy to grind to a halt. It would plainly be unacceptable for the control of councils to pass randomly from one party to another, with no reference to the electors, as a result of acts of God or chance retirements.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Delaying the local elections only until 7 June is gesture politics at its most obvious. Will the Home Secretary confirm that foot and mouth will still be with us on 7 June? Indeed, it might even be worse. If the Prime Minister had wanted to do what was right for the country, rather than convenient for him, he would have initiated a real delay in the elections. Will the Home Secretary confirm that there is a precedent for delaying local elections by a year? Incidentally, what does he intend to do about the census on 29 April, for which people will have to visit all homes personally in order to gather information?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman may not accept this—I doubt that he will—but I know for certain that the Prime Minister has taken this decision in the national interest: there is nobody more concerned about foot and mouth or anxious to ensure that it is brought properly under control, however long that takes.
There is a precedent for a delay of a week in the local elections. It occurred in 1986, when it transpired that the first Thursday in May would have coincided with the Jewish festival of Passover. Local elections were also deferred in wartime. There are no other precedents, except that elections have sometimes been abolished, as they were by the Conservatives when they got rid of the GLC.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the census. Len Cook, as the national statistician—the Office for National Statistics is responsible for conducting the census—has already issued a public statement, last week I think, drawing attention to the detailed arrangements that he is making for the canvassing, as it is called, of returns under the census, and he has made it clear that in farming areas that will be done by post.
Mr. Russell Brown: I warmly welcome today's announcement and the decision that has been taken—after long deliberation, some would say,
32
but certainly after careful thought by the Prime Minister. We are talking about local elections in England and Wales, and the Conservatives have said clearly over the past two weeks that all elections should be delayed, but that has not stopped the Tories in my area issuing election literature. In addition—to show how well organised the Conservatives are—they were leafleting in the wrong constituency. More importantly, my right hon. Friend should be aware that those same people have been campaigning in badly infected areas. I hope that he will investigate that. The only election that the Conservatives are really concerned about is the election of a new leader following their defeat in the general election.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend makes a sage observation. The problem is that we have seen no credible candidates for the leadership of the Tory party on display today. It is true that we have received reports of local Conservatives associations taking an unexpectedly active part in local politics in foot and mouth disease areas. My hon. Friend mentioned one such incident, and I have already mentioned the activities of the Conservatives in the city of Carlisle, where the agent to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is a candidate.
Mr. James Gray: Toby Sturgis and Jane Scott, who are livestock farmers in my constituency and candidates in the forthcoming local government elections, will understand and be grateful for the Home Secretary's announcement that the elections are to be deferred. They are in a restricted area and cannot currently campaign. If, God forbid, ours remains a restricted area on 7 June, how am I to explain to them that last month the election was deferred because they could not campaign, whereas this month, with conditions no better, it is suddenly all right? I cannot fob them off with an obscure point about a by-election in Carlisle—they simply will not wear it.
Mr. Straw: I have already made it clear that our judgment is that there were no practical impediments in the way of elections going ahead all over the country on 3 May, so the assumption behind the hon. Gentleman's question does not arise. As we all know, electoral and campaigning methods have changed over the years. There is much greater use of telephone canvassing in rural as well as urban areas, postal voting is available on demand and the public highways are open in all areas.
Mr. Martin Salter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, on foot and mouth and the election date, all we have seen from the Conservatives are crocodile tears for the farmers and those employed in the tourist trade? If the Conservatives really believe that delaying the local elections is in the national interest, why, on Wednesday of last week, did the Conservative party launch its local election manifesto in Berkshire? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, on this issue, the Conservatives stand condemned as nothing more than a bunch of opportunistic hypocrites?
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for the Home Secretary to answer that question.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: As a Member who represents a constituency in which foot and mouth

33
restrictions apply, may I ask the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister to accept my thanks for this delay? It was clearly a difficult decision to make. Will the Home Secretary clarify one point with regard to the postponement of local by-elections? There are no county elections in Wales, but I believe that some by-elections are scheduled for 3 May. The rationale that the right hon. Gentleman gave for not going ahead with by-elections in England does not, therefore, apply in Wales. Will he also tell the House that it is open for tourists to come to the country areas and enjoy what they can, bearing in mind the restrictions?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, which I will pass on to the Prime Minister. On the postponement of local by-elections, I should have made it clear—and I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and other Members representing Welsh constituencies for not doing so—that the arrangements will apply to districts in Wales as well as to counties and districts in England. There will be the same arrangements for the postponement of by-elections which would otherwise be due or have been called in respect of dates from and including 3 May. As I previously explained, for practical reasons, we cannot defer by-elections that are due on the Thursdays between now and the Thursday immediately before 3 May—that is just one of those things.
Wales is a beautiful country; a huge number of tourist opportunities are still open. I know, as someone who loves walking in the countryside, that although it is not quite as enjoyable to walk along open public highways, the walks are still very enjoyable, and the views in Wales are unsurpassed.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not a fact that to go for an indefinite delay would have been totally irresponsible and caused many problems to many local authorities in planning their annual council meetings and making the structural changes needed to comply with last year's local government legislation? Is it not also clear from the tirade from the Conservative Front Bench that, having demanded a change in the date of the elections, the Tories have not thought through the complexities of delay?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is absolutely clear from the rant of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that she and her colleagues on the Front Bench have simply failed to understand the consequences of indefinite referral. If anything were to lead to uncertainty in the countryside, an indefinite referral would.
Mr. John Redwood: Given the Government's wish to help the tourist industry, does the Home Secretary think that the Prime Minister helped when he chose, for a recent photo opportunity, a visit to the countryside covered from head to foot in protective clothing, accompanied by soldiers similarly attired for a crisis? How can we believe that the Government are serious about the tourist industry when that is the image they send out to the world?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman would have had greater cause for complaint if my right hon. Friend had gone into an infected area without protective clothing.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister on this timely and wise decision. Does it not show a proper balancing of fundamental respect for democracy with accurately listening to the views of people such as my constituents in Lancaster and Wyre? Is it not the essence of good government? Does it not contrast markedly with the squalid self-interest displayed by Opposition Front Benchers? Is not one bright lining to this cloud the fact that, rather than campaigning on Friday for a resounding Labour victory in the county council elections, Labour Members will be able to turn their attention to supporting the Children's Rights Commissioner Bill, which will be debated on that day?
Mr. Straw: I commend my hon. Friend's Bill. I am also grateful to him—as someone who represents a constituency that contains a great many farms and rural representatives—for the points that he has made to me and to others on the need for us to take properly on board the concerns of rural areas.
Mr. James Paice: If it is sensible to delay the elections from the beginning of May to the beginning of June, but not possible or sensible to delay them any longer than that, presumably there is an advantage in that first delay. Given that the Home Secretary has already told the House that, in the Government's view, there is nothing to stop traditional and more modern methods of canvassing, presumably that advantage relates to the control of foot and mouth. Can he therefore tell us what assessment the Government have made of the likely status on 7 June of the foot and mouth outbreak—an assessment which has enabled them to believe that an election can be held on that date?
Mr. Straw: I take it from the hon. Gentleman's comments that he is against a deferral until 7 June. I set out very clearly the considerations that we have taken into account. As I made clear, we do not believe that polling would not be possible on 3 May; we think that it would be practically possible. However, we have also taken into account the sensibilities of people in the rural areas, as well as—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier today—the immediate and short-term need for a focus by national and some local politicians on the issue of foot and mouth.
Mr. Phil Hope: My right hon. Friend has already mentioned compensation for local authorities because of the deferral of the county council elections. However, there will be a considerable impact on returning officers and their staff who have to perform the urgent logistical task of transferring bookings and making other arrangements for the new elections date. Does my right hon. Friend recognise the extra work that will have to be done by returning officers and their council staff? Will he ensure that there is effective communication between the Home Department and returning officers so that, if there is confusion at any point, it can be cleared up as speedily as possible?
Mr. Straw: Of course I accept that there will be extra work. We are well aware of that, and we are extremely grateful to the staff of electoral registration officers and to the officers themselves for the extremely high standards

35
of administration and integrity that they bring to all elections. As I have made clear, we shall provide for compensation to local authorities for the unavoidable extra costs that they incur; and of course the Home Office wants to ensure that we have in place the most effective communications possible.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Home Secretary, please, now respond to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on the closing date for nomination of candidates in county council elections who have not yet submitted a claim? Today's announcement on delaying the county council elections will be most welcome in the Vale of York. However, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is estimated that the disease will peak, and that cases will quadruple, in the run-up to June? If that estimate turns out to be accurate, will he review the date?
Mr. Straw: I am sorry that I did not earlier address the nomination issue. Subject to the Bill's being acceptable to the House and to the other place, and to its receiving Royal Assent, the law will provide for the normal electoral cycle to operate. In normal local elections, the cycle of nominations being invited and closed and the other key events prior to polling day occur over 25 working days. That cycle will simply be replicated for a 7 June polling day. As I have already made clear, anybody who is validly nominated when nominations close tomorrow for the elections that were due on 3 May will be able to maintain their nomination and do no other work. Those nominations will carry forward into the new elections if the Bill receives Royal Assent.
36
On the disease and its peaking, obviously, when making our judgments, we have taken account of various possibilities in respect of foot and mouth. However, I am afraid that I can hold out no prospect to the hon. Lady of further review of the progress of the disease and then of the date. We judge that it is sensible, for all the reasons that I spelled out, to defer the elections for five weeks until 7 June, but not to defer them further.
Mr. William Ross: Will the Home Secretary confirm that the chief executives of councils in Northern Ireland recently held discussions at the Northern Ireland Office on holding the council elections and the general election on the same day? Will he also confirm that there was universal opposition to that, on the grounds that in Northern Ireland we have two different electoral systems, that the council and parliamentary boundaries do not coincide, and that there will thus be extreme difficulty in getting people's votes counted, even with the proposed delay for council elections until the following week? In those circumstances, why did the Northern Ireland authorities go ahead and order 1,000 new ballot boxes so that the two elections could be held on the same day? It will cause absolute mayhem for the electorate.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman will understand that although I brief myself as much as possible for these events, I am not aware of the ordering of ballot boxes by chief executives and district councils in Northern Ireland.
On the other point the hon. Gentleman makes, I understand from the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), that the chief executives said that it was practical to hold the local elections and a general election on the same day—whether it is desirable to do so is obviously a matter for debate.

Business Statement
4.32 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for the rest of this week.
TUESDAY 3 APRIL—Second Reading of the International Criminal Court Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 4 APRIL—Allocation of time motion relating to the Elections Bill and the Election Publications Bill [Lords].
Proceedings on the Elections Bill and the Election Publications Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 5 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 6 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will now include:
MONDAY 9 APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 10 APRIL—Remaining stages of the International Development Bill.
Motion on the Easter recess Adjournment debate.
It may be convenient for the House to know that the Government will propose that on Tuesday 10 April, we have Thursday sitting hours and that, in consequence, the Westminster Hall debates scheduled for that day will not take place.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I wonder whether the Leader of the House could explain why the Election Publications Bill [Lords]—a measure introduced only because an Act passed during the previous Session of this Parliament was so badly flawed that it needs change and amendment before the coming elections—will be subject to an allocation of time. The reason for the flaws in the original Act was that the measure was guillotined; a specific part of the then Bill, which was so flawed that it is the subject of the new Bill, was guillotined such that the House gave it no scrutiny whatever. Given that fact, it seems wrong that the Leader of the House should propose that the, Bill be guillotined under an allocation of time motion.
On the Elections Bill, which has just been the subject of discussion in the House, the Leader of the House will know that although we can understand why it needs to be processed reasonably quickly given the deferred date of the local elections, a lot of questions remain and it needs proper scrutiny none the less. When denying that there was a need to defer the date of the local elections, she referred to the seriousness of such an action. That is on the record of the House, so I hope that she accepts that the Elections Bill needs proper scrutiny and debate, otherwise we shall be in the same position as we were with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which was an absolute mess.
Mrs. Beckett: Opposition Members sometimes ought to give a little more thought to the words that they use. That Act was not badly drafted—that would be an insult to parliamentary draftsmen. Indeed, the issue is one not
38
of the Act, but of the commencement order, which the House must now consider. There was consultation on the handling of the Act and, in particular, on the order. Perhaps Opposition Members did not take part in it, but those who do not take part in the consultation cannot complain about the outcome.
This must be certainly the third time, if not the fourth, in this Parliament that, yet again, on legislation that the Opposition said they would facilitate through the House—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act and its order—there appears to be a wish to impede it when it is introduced. Finally, the hon. Lady draws attention to my remarks on the seriousness of the decision that has now been announced. She will remember, if she casts her mind back, that I have always referred at the Dispatch Box to the different voices and the different opinions that were being given to the Government and the need to weigh seriously all those voices and opinions, one set of which were not often represented from the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Leader of the House recall that, on 22 March, I asked her whether she would find time to consider the Review Body on Senior Salaries report on the office costs allowance? At that time, she rightly reminded me that the report had been available only for a short period, but that was a fortnight ago and we now have some extra time in which the House could consider such matters. If the House were to accept the main body of the report, the officers of the House could prepare themselves for the new intake and, if there were to be a general election sometime in June, they could get the procedures ready to induct new Members in the measures on the office costs allowance contained in the report.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He has, of course, made that point to me on a previous occasion, and I fully understand his concern for the staff of the House. However, all I can say is that, although I hear the case that he makes, I cannot anticipate a further business statement.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I think that we all recognise that this business statement is an inevitable consequence of the Home Secretary's statement, but we also recognise that the real implication of that statement is that the general election will not now be held any sooner than 7 June. We may or may not be allowed to say that in good order, but that is the fact of the matter. Does the right hon. Lady accept that there are now increased opportunities for the House to consider matters that might otherwise have escaped its notice? Will she give an undertaking that several of the measures that are currently shuttling between this House and the other place will now have an opportunity for debate and resolution, including the Hunting Bill, the Health and Social Care Bill and—perhaps closest to my heart—the Adoption and Children Bill? Such legislation is long outstanding, but the House may now be able to deal with it effectively.
Mrs. Beckett: Although the hon. Gentleman talks about Bills shuttling between the House and the upper Chamber, certainly at least one of those that he

39
mentions—the Hunting Bill—is still in the upper Chamber, and I cannot quite recall where we are with the others, but they are still in the upper Chamber.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I spent all weekend talking to farmers and people in the tourism industry in my constituency, and I have to report that the situation is utterly desperate, especially in the tourism industry. Now that we have all these extra days and, indeed, weeks before the great day, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether we can have a debate on that as a matter of great urgency, because many Members of Parliament are affected? May I suggest that a Treasury Minister be asked to attend that debate?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will have heard me say that I am not in a position to anticipate the content of further business statements, nor would he expect me to do so. I shall, as ever, take heed of his remarks.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am stunned that the Leader of the House did not use the business statement as an opportunity to announce that there would be a full day's debate in Government time on foot and mouth, at which the Minister of Agriculture, the taskforce Minister—the Minister for the Environment—and a Treasury Minister would be available to answer questions. There is an opportunity now for the Leader to look at the business and announce such a debate. A national crisis is taking place and the general public will be staggered to learn that we shall go into recess from 11 April until 23 April and will not be here. Will she look at opportunities and procedures so that the House can be recalled at short notice to continue to look at ways of ameliorating the awful situation throughout the country?
Mrs. Beckett: I have taken heed of the remarks about subjects that Members wish to debate. However, I announced last week that the recess would commence on 10 April and I made it plain that that was in consideration of the dates of school holidays. If Conservative Members did not take that seriously, I cannot help that.
Mr. Mike Gapes: In view of the serious problems in agriculture, can we have an early debate on the concept of set-aside, in which we could deal with that issue, the subsidy from urban areas to rural areas and those people who seem to be advocating the set-aside of democracy in this country indefinitely?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend asks for a number of issues to be discussed, certainly in his final remarks. I have taken heed of the pressing demand from the Leader of the Opposition that we should postpone an election without coming to the House to tell hon. Members when that election might take place. That is an interesting insight into his view of what is constitutionally proper. I shall take heed of my hon. Friend's request for a debate on these fundamental issues, but I cannot undertake to find time for one in the near future.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Lady allow time for a debate on the
40
increasing contempt that the present Government show for the House of Commons? A perfect example of this is the handling of the terribly important constitutional issue of the date of the local government elections, news of which was first leaked to The Sun and then to the BBC. We then had the Prime Minister making a statement at No. 10 and answering questions from newspaper reporters only. Is not that insulting to democracy and to the Home Secretary, who had to come here today to make a statement that has been announced three times before?
Mrs. Beckett: As I have just reminded the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), I made the point at last week's Business questions—I know that the hon. Gentleman was not able to be with us for that—that there would be an Easter recess and that it would begin on 10 April, and no Opposition Member queried that.
Dr. Julian Lewis: As I recall, the High Hedges Bill—which deals with leylandii, in particular—has been racing against time to reach its completion. It has had strong Government and all-party support until now and addresses a problem that causes serious distress to a great many people. Will the Leader of the House kindly take a close look at the possibility of furthering progress on that Bill in the extra time that is now available?
Mrs. Beckett: I am mindful of the cross-party support for the Bill. My recollection is that it is presently in Committee, but I am afraid that I am not familiar with how close it is to emerging. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but he may find that the answer to his question is on his own party's Benches.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Now that we have some more time, can the Leader of the House bring the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to the House to make inside the House the statement that was made in the press over the weekend about the future of the railways? That has major importance, not least in terms of the deferral of the decision on who is to get the franchise for the east coast main line.
Mrs. Beckett: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered a parliamentary question today. I understand and sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's request for a statement—Members often want statements on matters of interest—but I am not entirely sure whether he would have welcomed a third statement today.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In view of what members of the lobby are saying, will the right hon. Lady confirm that there will be no provision in the Elections Bill for a further deferment from 7 June? If that is so, how will she deal with the matter? At present, foot and mouth is bad enough to justify the suspension of elections, but if it is the same or even worse on 7 June, it appears that those circumstances will not justify a further suspension.
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, it is my understanding that the legislation will provide for a firm date, and I think that hon. Members would expect that. I shudder to think what

41
Conservative Members would say if, as the Leader of the Opposition asked, the Government introduced legislation that did not contain a date. As to the notion that, in some way, all elections must be deferred until we can be absolutely clear that the crisis is totally at an end, I remind the hon. Gentleman that I think that I am right in saying that, in 1967, a rather smaller scale crisis lasted for eight months. I doubt very much that even Conservative Members would wish us to postpone elections beyond the termination of this Parliament.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady tell us precisely how long the House will have to debate the Elections Bill on Wednesday? Will she also reconsider the plea from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and change the business for next Tuesday so that, before we rise for the Easter recess, we have an opportunity to debate these grave matters?
Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to debate the Easter Adjournment and I am not able to change that. I have taken seriously the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), but I fear that, at present, I am not in a position to change the business that is before us. I am also not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman the precise answer that he seeks about the time available for the Elections Bill. That matter is still under consideration.
Mr. Robert MaclennanIn view of the statement made by Mr. Gerry Robinson, the chairman of the Arts Council of England, that he proposes to wind up the regional arts boards this month—a statement that was made without consulting the boards—will the right hon. Lady suggest to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that he makes a statement to the House? That would enable us to hear more about how regional accountability is to be retained. It is appropriate that we know soon in view of the statement made by Mr. Robinson.
Mrs. Beckett: My recollection is that that statement was made some little time ago. I cannot promise the right hon. Gentleman a statement, but I shall draw his remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Given that the Prime Minister has said that he is taking personal control of the foot and mouth crisis in an attempt to stop it spiralling further out of control, and given that the current circumstances of the crisis, the epidemiological advice and the prognosis rightly justify in the eyes of my constituents the deferral of the local elections that were due on 3 May, what precise elements of the advice, crisis and prognosis have to be different in a month's time to justify proceeding with elections on 7 June?
Mrs. Beckett: I am being asked the same question repeatedly, as was my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that it has been clear latterly that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister identified last week, the scale of movement of animals before any sign of the disease manifested itself publicly or had been detected was much more than anyone had understood. Consequently, the scale of the difficulties
42
is greater than had originally been anticipated. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have taken account of issues such as the need to put in place the full machinery to deal with the scale of the crisis as we now appreciate it, but it may well be that all those matters can be dealt with in the time scale that we are discussing.
Sir Michael Spicer: When can we expect a decision and, therefore, a statement on vaccination against foot and mouth?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will know that that issue is and has been under active consideration. It is much debated and is very controversial, and he will also know that it does not offer, as media reports sometimes seem to suggest, a simple answer. All that I can say is that that option remains under active consideration and discussion.
Mr. William Ross: Can the right hon. Lady tell us when the Elections Bill will be available? So that such important matters are adequately discussed, can she assure me that the Government will not shrink from an all-night sitting if necessary?
Mrs. Beckett: I believe that I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary hopes to have something for consultation later today. As for how late the House sits, that is a matter for the House as a whole. Although I have long experience of sitting late into the night in the House, I am rarely willing to do so unnecessarily.
Mr. Derek Foster rose—
Mr. Eric Forth rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) that I can call only those who were present for the statement.
Mr. Forth: The Home Secretary's comments make it obvious that the Elections Bill will, of necessity, be large and complex, as it will cover many contingencies and possibilities. It will, therefore, require proper scrutiny. It might even require considerable amendment, given that the Government's track record of getting things right the first time is extremely poor. The Leader of the House has helpfully told us that we might have sight of the Bill later today, which is generous of her, and that the Bill is expected to pass through all its stages on Wednesday. Will she be even more helpful and tell us how it will be possible to table amendments at each stage, given that we have not yet seen the Bill, it is to be before the House the day after tomorrow, and it looks as though the Government will try to shove it through in one sitting?
Mrs. Beckett: It just goes to show how different people's reactions and perceptions differ. The right hon. Gentleman says that he anticipates the Bill being large and complex, but it sounds to me as though it will be a small and simple Bill—clearly, there is a difference in our perceptions. As for the way in which amendments will be tabled, it will be done in accordance with the usual

43
procedures of the House. The Government believe that the issues that need to be dealt with in connection with the Bill can be dealt with efficiently and expeditiously.
Dr. Peter Brand: I strongly support the calls for a full debate on foot and mouth disease, but I hope that the Leader of the House will make time available for a MAFF Minister to answer hon. Members' urgent questions. It has come to my notice that consideration is now being given to movement orders to allow livestock to be imported to the Isle of Wight. We are grateful to have been without foot and mouth and we have been careful to maintain disinfectant barriers at all our ferries. It would be wholly disastrous if livestock were allowed to move into an area that is the best protected in England.
Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware of any such proposals, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: This morning, I accompanied Mr. and Mrs. Hobbs to No. 10 Downing street to present a petition. Just before Christmas, their eight-year-old daughter and her grandmother were killed on the A249, which is a notoriously dreadful road. The county council has finally agreed to build a bridge to join the two halves of their village, and the petition asks the Government for financial assistance. Given that today the Deputy Prime Minister said on the radio that he is commissioning the second half of the channel tunnel rail link—a project that, as far as one can tell, will cost £70 per passenger in subsidy—will he come to the House and explain the Government's transport priorities?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman, perfectly properly, makes a strong case on his constituents' behalf, and I am
44
sure that the whole House sympathises with them in the terrible tragedy that they have suffered. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. However, while there are always many desirable improvements to be made, the fundamental infrastructure, of which the channel tunnel rail link is a part, must also be taken into account. The balance is sometimes difficult to weigh.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Leader of the House believe that the way in which the serious announcement that has led to her statement today was made first to The Sun, before being made to the Cabinet and Parliament, is satisfactory?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an assertion, but as a member of the Cabinet I have no complaints.
Mr. John Bercow: Given that consideration of the remaining stages of the International Development Bill has been deferred from this week to next and that an opportunity has thus inadvertently been created for sober reflection, will the right hon. Lady undertake to speak to the Secretary of State for International Development and then to guarantee that there will be adequate time in next week's consideration fully to debate the issue of whether to incorporate into that Bill the OECD convention against international bribery in business dealings?
Mrs. Beckett: I certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. However, as the Bill is well prepared and has already had a great deal of sober reflection, I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will share the hon. Gentleman's view that it should be amended. As someone who wishes legislation to go through the House in good order, I do not seek to encourage people to amend legislation.

Marks and Spencer
4.55 pm
Helen Jones: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration.
Last Thursday, Marks and Spencer announced a restructuring programme, including the closure of its direct catalogue business. That closure will have more impact on my constituency than on any other, as both the call centre and the fulfilment business in Warrington, North will close with the loss of 686 jobs. Most of the staff who work in those operations are recruited locally. In view of the impact that that will have, it is important to have an urgent debate on the matter in the House so that we can hear from Ministers what consultations they have been able to have with the company, and discuss how to mitigate the impact on Warrington, North.
The implications for the local area are serious, so it is vital that we have an opportunity to discuss what assistance can be given to find alternative jobs for those staff and the possibilities of bringing into the area another firm or firms that can make use of the premises and find employment for those who are already well trained and well motivated. The matter is urgent, if we act quickly, we have a very good chance of finding employment for many of the staff involved, especially the call centre staff, of whom there is a shortage nationally. It is also important that we resolve the dilemma in which many people in the firm now find themselves, as they do not know what their future will be. Like the rest of us, they have bills and mortgages to pay, but they have been left in limbo. It is important that the House takes an early opportunity to discuss the matter so that their future can be assured and we can play our part in making that future secure.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Lady has said and have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that she has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, and I cannot therefore submit the application to the House.

Points of Order
Mr. Simon Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance. As you are aware, the Prime Minister graciously agrees to come to the House once a week for Prime Minister's Question Time on a Wednesday. As it now transpires that, more than 48 hours ago, certain people outside the House and the Government knew more than the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about what was happening to the local elections, would it be possible for the House to be kept better informed about important issues by arranging a question time for Mr. Trevor Kavanagh? That would enable us to be better informed of what is going on.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Bill Olner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a common courtesy for Members of Parliament who visit another constituency to advise the Member of Parliament for that constituency of their visit? Does not that apply to Front-Bench spokespeople as well? May I advise the House that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary, came to my constituency on Saturday and spoke—in my opinion—in a way that was just for the Tory party? She did not tell my constituents the truth about how the Tories cut the police budget in the past and how we have increased it. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, that that discourtesy should go unchallenged? The right hon. Lady was discourteous in not advising me, and neither the local authority nor the police authority knew of her visit.
Mr. Speaker: Any hon. Member visiting the hon. Gentleman's constituency should have the courtesy to inform him, but that is not a matter for the Chair to get involved in. The argument should be settled without involving the Chair.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), Mr. Speaker. Not only have we all been observing over the weekend the extraordinary spectacle of the newspapers carrying reports about the postponement of the local elections, but by consulting Ceefax earlier today, I found out that the Prime Minister apparently made a statement at No.10, instead of coming to the House. Surely it is a grave discourtesy to the House for the Prime Minister, who has made such an issue of moving the elections, to announce the postponement on the steps of Downing street and then fail to turn up here himself, sending the Home Secretary instead, as his running boy, to do the job for him.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. David Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that there is a point of order for your consideration, because of the discourtesy to the House. On "The World At One" today, Mr. Trevor Kavanagh of The Sun admitted that he had been briefed, by a source that he has found reliable, that the local elections were to be put off. For The Sun to have carried that headline on Saturday, he must have been briefed on

47
Friday. That is a matter for the House; that news should have been reported to us first. The political editor of The Sun has admitted to having been briefed. Surely that is a discourtesy to the House, which we should address.
Mr. Speaker: I have dealt with that matter. It is not for me to find out where a journalist got his information from. In fact, it is refreshing to know that some journalists actually go and seek information before writing an article.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the helpful explanation by the Leader of the House about the Bill that will deal with the local elections, can you confirm that, in view of the fact that we have not seen the Bill yet—presumably it will have its First Reading either later today or tomorrow, and go through all its other stages on Wednesday—it will be acceptable for amendments to be tabled in advance of Second Reading, so that you can consider whether they are in order for consideration in Committee and on Report? Bills being shoved through all their stages on the same day is becoming a regrettably regular occurrence—something that I hope you would deprecate in normal circumstances. I hope that you will confirm that we will be able to table amendments in advance of Second Reading, because I think that they will be very necessary for such a Bill.
Mr. Speaker: If the Government table a motion to allow the right hon. Gentleman to table amendments, and the House agrees to it, he and other hon. Members will be able to do so.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that in every election that you and I have fought since 1979, statements have been made to the press before announcements have been made to the House of Commons?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw the Chair into the argument.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave your office notice of my point of order this morning. You have tried to be very helpful to those of us whose constituencies are suffering from the dreadful disease of foot and mouth, and you will know that during the debate on foot and mouth a fortnight ago, the Minister of Agriculture agreed that he would arrange for a presentation on the subject to be given to Members of Parliament. He said that he would do that last week: last week, during his statement, I raised the matter again; he reiterated his commitment and said that he would arrange for the presentation to be made either at the end of last week or this week. I tried to get a date from his office this morning, but was told that no date had yet been fixed. Could you, on behalf of Back Benchers, whose champion you are, find out when the Minister will honour the commitment that he gave the House in your presence?
Mr. Speaker: I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's concerns to the Minister.
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the past, when I have raised the matter of statements is being leaked to the media before being made in the House, you have unequivocally condemned that. Accepting the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about general elections, would you give us your guidance on the matter of a statement being made about the postponement of the county council elections, and whether it would have been the correct procedure for the Ministers responsible for that to have made the statement to the House, and not to have leaked it to The Sun?
Mr. Speaker: I have already dealt with that matter.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Friday, I discovered that a landfill site was to be opened in Fosterville in my constituency, which is an uninfected area, and that it was to receive carcases from an infected area. I discovered all that not from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but from media contacts. I asked the Minister of Agriculture at once to give an explanation of what was going on; I have heard nothing. Over the weekend, I have been contacted by terrified farmers who have land adjacent to the site and who are wondering what is happening. They have no information and are extremely worried that animals from an infected area are to be brought to farms adjacent to theirs. My point of order is this: have you received any request from the Minister of Agriculture to explain his policy to the House? Were you to receive such a request, would you give it favourable consideration?
Mr. Speaker: I have received no such request.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance, not for the first time and not for the last. Further to your earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), and in the light of the fact that no fewer than 12 constituents raised the subject with me in the course of two hours over the weekend, can you confirm so that it is clear beyond doubt that there is apparently a distinction between the announcement of a policy, which should properly by made 1by Ministers in the House before it is communicated to the wider world, and the deferment of an election, which apparently entails no such requirement? What is the basis in "Erskine May" for that apparent distinction?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for debate, not for the Chair.
Mr. Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary made a statement to the House this afternoon, which the House no doubt found helpful. I subsequently discovered, to my amazement, that earlier today the Home Office had issued to local authorities affected by the elections all the information in the statement made to the House. In one way, that is sensible. However, it means that people outside the House were given information that was not given to the House until 3.30 this afternoon. Should not the guidance given to local authorities be made available to hon. Members at the same time, rather than later?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's concern has been noted and that Ministers will give due regard to his comments.

BILL PRESENTED
  WHEEL CLAMPING (RESTRICTIONS)
  Ms Oona King, supported by Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, Mr. Geraint Davies, Mr. Keith Darvill, Joan Ruddock, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Ms Karen Buck, Ms Linda Perham, Ms Ruth Kelly and Ms Sally Keeble, presented a Bill to provide for the maximum fee payable for the release of a wheel clamp and for the minimum time which must elapse before a vehicle may be clamped: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 27 April, and to be printed [Bill 79].
Orders of the Day
  Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [Lords]
  Not amended in the Committee, considered.
Clause 1

  EXTENT OF DUTY TO FUND ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE
  5.8 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
  '(3) No regulations under subsection (1) of section 13 shall be made unless a draft of them has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
  Although the Bill is relatively limited in scope, the House would do well to consider its implications in detail. There is an increasing tendency for Bills to include provision for regulations or statutory instruments, and to allow almost complete discretion to the Secretary of State of the day as to how those will be carried forward.
  The Bill touches on several important topics. It refers to the
  "duty of the Legal Services Commission to fund advice and assistance",
  which potentially interests a large number of people. I am sure that many hon. Members are aware of the extent to which the role of the Legal Services Commission regarding funding, advice and assistance can have a distressing impact on people's lives. I am sure that we have all heard about our constituents' experiences and are in no doubt that the Bill is of considerable importance in that respect.
  However, that importance is increased by phrases such as
  "shall be treated as having been enacted".
  Regrettably, more and more of the Bills that are considered by Parliament are inadequately drafted, although bad provisions are more likely to be introduced because the Government have made amendments on the hoof. Furthermore, we are not given sufficient opportunity to give such measures proper scrutiny and consideration in Committee or on Report. We increasingly have to correct legislation long after it has received Royal Assent. Indeed, another such Bill will be considered later this evening.
  The Bill is a graphic illustration of the fact that legislation introduced in the current Parliament has become increasingly fragile, as the Government are either incapable of allowing proper parliamentary scrutiny or are unwilling to do so.
  Mr. John Burnett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are considering a corrective Bill that seeks to rectify errors that were made in the drafting of the Access to Justice Act 1999?
  Mr. Forth: The phrase "correcting errors" is of key importance, as we find ourselves constantly having to return to legislation. I could name any number of measures to which I should like to return, not least among which are the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, the Child

  51
  Support Act 1995 and many others for which the Conservative Government were responsible. I do not make any particular distinction in that regard, but whether such Bills originated under the previous or under the current Government, I suspect that the common strand is either that they were the worst type of provision—that which was achieved on an all-party or consensual basis, which inevitably ensures poor legislation—or, even worse, that they were rushed through without proper provision for parliamentary scrutiny.
  I would be the first to accept that the Government of whom I had the honour of being a modest and minor member for some years resorted to guillotines, but it was unusual rather than routine for them to do so. Of course, that might be what the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) had in mind, but I point out that the previous Government almost always introduced such limitations after Bills had received fairly lengthy consideration in Committee. The difference is that the current Government resort to automatic guillotining before they are aware of the full extent of a Bill or its scope.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he should be speaking to the amendment.
  Mr. Forth: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try not to provoke hon. Members into making interventions to which I shall have to reply. I realise that that would be most unfortunate.
  My amendment seeks to change clause 1(2), which ensures that regulations introduced under section 13(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999
  "may include provision treating them as having come into force at the same time as that subsection."
  Such regulation-making provisions are not unusual, but it is becoming all too routine for there to be a lack of provision for proper parliamentary consideration or scrutiny with regard to them. In this case, that is especially concerning, as the regulations can
  "include provision treating them as having come into force at the same time as that subsection."
  Such phrases are starting to emerge ever more frequently. The term "deeming" is another of those phrases with which it seems we will have to become ever more familiar in badly drafted provisions. There are many such provisions, whether they contain the words "treated as having" or whatever else.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: I, too, have considered that matter, although probably not as closely as my right hon. Friend. Do I take it from his comments that the Government intend the proposed regulations to be subject to the negative rather than the affirmative resolution procedure, so that there will be no opportunity for parliamentary debate? Would he care to reflect on the irony—nay, I understate the case, the sheer absurdity—of inviting us to presume a given in relation to regulations which have not been debated and a draft of which we have not seen?
  Mr. Forth: Indeed. The Bill is silent on parliamentary scrutiny; I suspect that that is deliberate because it reflects
  52
  the Government's routine approach. If my hon. Friend is suggesting that, in the absence of explicit guidance to the contrary, I would assume that the negative resolution procedure would be used, he would be correct. In his relatively brief time here, he has achieved a mastery of such matters that few of us would attempt to emulate, so he is probably right. However, the amendment would put the matter beyond doubt. I am happy that a similar amendment has been selected for debate on another Bill, which, of course, I shall not mention. I shall try to table such an amendment every time the opportunity arises, not least to the Bill that we are now to consider on Wednesday.
  One of the few ways in which we can try to hold the Government to account and properly scrutinise primary and secondary legislation is to provide for positive resolution procedure on regulations, hence my amendment, which would ensure that a draft was laid before each House and approved by resolution of both.
  The word "draft" is important. I hope that it contains the procedural possibility of laying the matter before each House, and thus providing time for perusal and consideration before each House is obliged to deliberate on it. It is happenstance, but we have little opportunity to consider the Bill that is under discussion and the measure on the election imprint cock-up, which was tabled for debate later this evening. Some of it will be rushed through on Wednesday after the Prime Minister's peremptory decision to delay elections. If we had the opportunity for which the amendment provides, and drafts were available and we had time to consider them properly before both Houses of Parliament pronounced on them, we would at least have some protection. That is increasingly absent from our parliamentary process.
  Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to trouble my right hon. Friend, but this dog does not wish to abandon the bone yet. My right hon. Friend's demands are always timid and moderate, and I wonder whether I can stiffen his backbone on the amendment by urging him to demand a minimum of three months for consultation on the proposed regulations and a minimum of three months' notice of their required implementation.
  Mr. Forth: I do not want to teach my hon. Friend to suck eggs or anything else, but one of the difficult judgments that has to be made is whether to push one's luck. One has to ascertain the likelihood of an amendment being selected for debate. Pushing too far may diminish the possibility of selection and therefore debate. If my amendment appears weak, weedy, pathetic and inadequate, I can only apologise to him and stress that it was the best that I could do while trying to ensure that it was selected. I have, happily, been successful and we have the opportunity at least to discuss the matter. However, I accept his comments. Perhaps I shall try harder next time to get a stronger, more effective amendment selected.
  At least we have the opportunity of trying to persuade the Government—I accept that it may be impossible—to contemplate some parliamentary scrutiny, which they want positively to avoid in most other circumstances. I should have thought that even the Government might have realised by now that they only cause themselves more trouble if they avoid such scrutiny. It is becoming obvious that every time they seek to cut off by guillotine

  53
  proper consideration of a measure, they subsequently have to return to the matter and take up parliamentary time correcting their earlier error.
  On this occasion, my objective is somewhat different. I want to bring into play the full panoply of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability, even in a matter such as this. I said earlier that the Bill and the amendment were matters of moment and substance. Although the Bill is short and modest, it covers important territory and can affect individuals in the most dramatic way
  My amendment seeks to provide for both Houses of Parliament to consider any regulations that might arise from the Bill, to satisfy themselves that they are as they should be. Here, the role of the two Houses of Parliament can often be quite different. Those of us who spend most of our lives in this building, and in this Chamber, understand that, because of the Government's enormous majority, proper scrutiny and accountability have been a struggle in this Parliament to put it mildly. Although my hon. Friends have worked manfully, and, in some cases, womanfully, to hold the Government to account, it is very difficult, particularly in a Standing Committee in which the Government may have 14 members and the official Opposition—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order May I once again ask the right hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to his amendment?
  Mr. Forth: I certainly will, Madam Deputy Speaker. My amendment refers to a draft of the regulations
  "being laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
  You do not want me to give my modest analysis of the inadequacies of the scrutiny process in Standing Committee, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall have to deny that to myself and to the House. However, I want to emphasise the importance of proper scrutiny at the stage of introducing regulations—rather than in Standing Committee or in the introduction of primary legislation—to try to provide a safety net so that if, by some chance, proper scrutiny has not been possible in Standing Committee, we have the opportunity to pick up the pieces and provide the necessary degree of scrutiny.
  That process would, nevertheless, be inadequate because—as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) would be the first to point out if I did not—no amendments would be allowed to be made at that stage, and I regret that. That is something we have to live with. The Procedure Committee has considered from time to time whether it should be possible to table amendments when introducing regulations, but has not yet seen fit to take the matter further. We must therefore accept that, in this case, scrutiny and accountability are available only on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
  If my amendment were accepted, it would still be possible for the Government to lay the draft regulations before this House—and, I believe another place—and then say, "We, the Government, want you to approve this, and if you do not, it will fall." That is often used as a kind of blackmail, in which the Government say, "If you do not accept this, nothing will happen." I would often prefer nothing to happen. I often feel happier with nothing than with something flawed, bad or undesirable. Perhaps I have not yet been able to persuade my hon. Friends of that in
  54
  a sufficient number of cases. However, in this case, I shall have to be satisfied with this degree of scrutiny and accountability, because, that is all that is procedurally available.
  It is important to understand why I want both Houses to be involved in this process. I am very keen that we should always acknowledge the role of a bicameral Parliament, such as we have here. For those who argue for the so-called primacy or supremacy of the House of Commons over the House of Lords, my answer these days is that Members of the House of Commons show it increasingly less respect. They are prepared to turn up less and less often, so why we constantly talk about the supremacy of this place is increasingly beyond me.
  For that and other reasons, I am more and more enthusiastic about ensuring that we involve the House of Lords in such processes as often as possible. If we undertook an analysis, which you would not want me to do at this stage, Madam Deputy Speaker, we would probably find that the attendance record of Members of the other place is better than that of Members of this place. Looking round the Chamber perhaps provides a good example of that.
  More importantly, I want the regulations to be approved by both Houses because we have in the other place expertise and experience that is often not available in the House. That is an important factor. Notwithstanding the fact that there are distinguished legal experts sitting on all Front Benches, even they would perhaps admit in their different ways that scrutiny by another place might provide that extra bit of added value and quality in the parliamentary process which we, even on a good day, may not be able to provide.
  Parliamentary scrutiny by both Houses provides that extra dimension, which is very valuable, and I leave it to my colleagues to make their own judgment about the value of scrutiny by the House of Commons when we have a Government with such a large majority. It is for another time for us to digress and debate the relative merits of majorities of various sizes, but size does matter in this example. I hope that all Members present agree that scrutiny by the House of Lords of a Bill covering territory and issues such as these would be extremely valuable and would greatly reassure people, particularly in relation to the Legal Services Commission and access to justice.
  Mr. Bercow: I understand the significance of the point that my right hon. Friend is making, but I would not want his important amendment to be subject to the grisly fate of the self-congratulation of the lawyers—I am not a lawyer and I say that as a matter of pride. Does he agree that, in addition to any consultation that might usefully take place with them, consultation with other parties, including representatives of victims' groups, could be of inestimable value?
  Mr. Forth: That is true, but my hon. Friend has put a rather worrying thought in my mind. Rather uncharacteristically, I praised those on the Front Benches and they all looked appropriately modest and humble.
  Mr. Bercow: They are all lawyers.
  Mr. Forth: Indeed. That is why I praised them—in the context of what I was saying, it was appropriate—but my

  55
  hon. Friend has shown us the other side of the coin. He is right that, time and again, we in this House—and, I expect, those in the other place—find that the very people who scrutinise such Bills have not only the most knowledge but some professional interest which, albeit a proper one, may none the less affect their judgment.
  At what point could we expect input or involvement from those we would expect to benefit from the measures in the Bill? My hon. Friend mentioned victims' groups, whose involvement may be the most appropriate, and we might think of many other such bodies. Who would represent the taxpayer here? I leave that to one side, but one can already identify what dilemmas would arise during consideration of such a matter. Of necessity, we would require a degree of expertise to be brought to bear.
  Mr. Burnett rose—
  Mr. Forth: Talking of expertise, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Burnett: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is being very shy. He should not underplay his own contributions to legal affairs debates. Does he recall a Committee debate on conditional fee agreements in which he took part? Does he remember the points that he made?
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is very kind. Were I to try to remember all the points that I have made in my brief and inglorious parliamentary career as a Government Back Bencher, a Minister and an Opposition Back Bencher, I would have to be Mr. Memory Man. Perhaps I have allowed the contributions mentioned by the hon. Gentleman to slip my memory, but I am flattered that he remembers them: that is very reassuring.
  5.30 pm
  I do not want to detain the House for long, but I believe that this is an important matter, to which we should give serious consideration for at least a short time. On occasions such as this, we are being asked to decide whether we trust the Government. If the Bill proceeds as it is currently worded—without my amendment—the Government will be contemplating regulations that would presumably be made under the negative resolution procedure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham pointed out, and therefore potentially made by default. Do we wish to allow that, or do we want the reassurance of a provision predetermining the procedure by stating that both Houses must give positive consideration and approval to the regulations?
  The issue is no less important than that—and, as I have said, the fact that it is arising in connection with more and more Bills, albeit of varying sizes and importance, suggests that we may have to return to it ever more frequently, for as long as the Government insist on trying to get legislation through Parliament guillotined, with provisions such as this half-hidden in it.
  I hope that I have said enough to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends, but more particularly the Government, that the matter requires proper consideration. Perhaps, if I am lucky, the Government may even see fit to accept my amendment.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on highlighting a particularly important constitutional question that the Government have failed to recognise during their four years in office.
  The Bill, which seeks to correct the so-called Access to Justice Act 1999, clearly demonstrates the problem described by my right hon. Friend: the Government's use of secondary legislation to make changes in primary legislation. I think—and I know our Government did it as well—that that is an appalling development in the modern history of our Parliament.
  In the Access to Justice Act, the Lord Chancellor gave himself—or this supine Parliament gave his office—some 37 powers to make regulations. We are discussing this Bill now because the Lord Chancellor's Department made a mess of it. No doubt overburdened by the number of regulatory powers conferred by this supine Parliament, it has had to produce a Bill that, in my view, would more properly be called the Access to Justice (Cock-up)(No. 1) Bill. No doubt, if the current Parliament continues for much longer, we shall be presented with subsequent cock-up Bills—Nos. 2, 3 and 4—to deal with other parts of the Access to Justice Act that need correcting. I shall say no more about that, however: my general point is one that I have made on a number of occasions, and repetition never made a good point better.
  My right hon. Friend has drawn attention to an important subject, which the Government continuously fail to recognise and of which any Opposition worthy of the name should continually remind the House.
  Mr. Burnett: I too support the amendment, but I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) did not make one point—unless I missed it during his eloquent summary. The regulations may have retrospective effect, which makes the case for the amendment even more compelling.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is entirely correct: the amendment would substitute the affirmative for the negative resolution procedure. In other words, we would have to have a debate on every single regulation made under section 13(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, rather than giving the Opposition the opportunity to scrutinise regulations and decide for themselves whether to pray against them. That level of parliamentary scrutiny would certainly be unusual, given the type of regulations that could be anticipated in the future, and in the particular case of the regulations already contemplated under the Bill, it would be positively unwelcome.
  I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments about scrutiny. He is fabled for his scrutiny, and I was certainly grateful for his suggestion in our debate following Second Reading that the time allocated for Committee proceedings in the programme motion was wholly inadequate. He may be aware that the Committee did not take the full 10 hours allocated: it took 18 minutes.
  Mr. Forth: That is because I was not there.
  Mr. Lock: That may well be true.

  57
  Generally, the affirmative procedure is considered appropriate for powers substantially affecting the provisions of Acts of Parliament, powers to impose or increase taxation or powers involving considerations of other special importance, such as powers to create new varieties of criminal offence of a serious nature. The powers to make regulations under section 13(1) of the 1999 Act do not fall into any of those categories. That section, as amended, will give power to prescribe situations in which individuals involved in criminal investigations or proceedings should receive publicly funded advice and assistance.
  Hon. Members know, because we debated it during earlier stages of the Bill, that our intention is to replicate the current circumstances in which advice and assistance are available. Those circumstances are prescribed in regulations made under the negative procedure under the Legal Aid Act 1988, passed by the previous Government.
  It is possible to imagine a situation in which a new procedure would be needed—for example, if changes had to be made in social security benefit levels—to ensure that advice and assistance financial limits remain in line with the changes, but those are not the sort of changes that should automatically be debated in both Houses. The negative procedure, to which the regulations will be subject, will ensure that if the regulations proposed are more controversial, there will be an opportunity for debate, should the Opposition pray against them.
  In the case of this Bill, the amendment would have very serious effects. Hon. Members will be aware that the Bill and the regulations made under it are capable of retrospective effect. That was to ensure that if Royal Assent was given after the Criminal Defence Service was commenced there would be no gap in provision. The CDS has come into existence today, and clearly we have yet to receive Royal Assent for the Bill. As soon as that is given, regulations will be brought into effect that provide that advice and assistance will be available in exactly the same circumstances as under the Legal Aid Act 1988.
  If we had to wait for parliamentary time to be available for two further debates, both here and in the other place, the law would remain uncertain for a considerable period, because no power would formally exist to provide advice and assistance in criminal cases. That is the lacuna that the Bill is intended to close.
  Mr. Forth: The Minister may have partially answered my question already. At the beginning of his remarks, he said that he envisaged that a number of such regulations might have to be brought forward. I know that it is asking for a gift of foresight, but it would be helpful if he could tell us whether he has any idea of the number and frequency that may be involved. If the regulations were to come in a steady flow, that would be one thing; if they were to be occasional and sporadic, that would be quite another, notwithstanding his point about the need for speed of response.
  Mr. Lock: I am prepared to answer that question in this way. Two types of regulations are likely to be made under section 13(1). First, there are regulations that will extend the advice and assistance to new circumstances. If, for example, the House were to pass into law the International Criminal Court Bill, so the International Criminal Court came into existence, it would be necessary to prescribe circumstances in which advice and assistance could be given to persons coming before the court.
  58
  The far more usual way in which regulations are made under section 13(1) is to reflect the financial limits that are available to prescribe who can and cannot receive assistance in these circumstances. Clearly, it would not be right for the matter to be debated by both Houses of Parliament every time that there was a financial change, because benefits are uprated annually, or however it may be.
  It is not the Government's intention, save in the very unusual circumstances of the International Criminal Court, which is an example of extension in scope, to make a change to the method or substance of the way in which advice and assistance are given. On that basis, bearing in mind the situation concerning the Criminal Defence Service, which comes into effect today, and despite the right hon. Gentleman's desire for proper scrutiny, I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed reply to the debate. Although I appreciate his point about the need for what may be frequent—he said annual—adjustments resulting from benefit upratings or changes, the difficulty is that neither the wording of the Bill as it stands nor my amendment can distinguish between regular, relatively minor, changes and occasional, rather substantial changes. He said that he thinks that it will be mostly routine annual or semi-annual adjustments that are made, but other fairly large changes could take place in the meantime.
  Mr. Lock: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if he felt strongly about substantial changes under the International Criminal Court Bill, it would be appropriate to pray against them and have the debates? If the changes were more routine, would it not be appropriate to allow them to go through without a debate? Is that not the precise purpose of the negative resolution procedure?
  Mr. Forth: Indeed it is. I am grateful to the Minister. However, I think that the problem with his suggestion is that praying against, in my experience, tends to work almost entirely or exclusively if it is done by Front-Bench Members, and rarely if it is done by modest, humble and obscure Back Benchers. Of course, my trust in my Front-Bench colleagues is almost boundless. However, I can imagine the odd circumstance in which it might just be possible that my Front-Bench colleagues were prepared to allow something to go through unchallenged and on the nod and I might not feel entirely happy about it, so I accept the Minister's point only partially.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to raise these matters. I sense that it probably is not the will of the House to have a Division on the matter at this stage. I am prepared to let it rest on the basis of the Minister's assurances and the points that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has made. On that basis, and with some reluctance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Lock: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  This is a short Bill, but an important one for anyone who is concerned with criminal justice. It will allow the Legal Services Commission to continue to fund the same level of essential legal services for those facing criminal charges and ensure that the Legal Services Commission may fund, under section 13, advice and assistance that includes advocacy. Additionally, the Bill seeks to ensure that advice and assistance are available to those who are involved in criminal proceedings rather than only to those who are involved in criminal investigations.
  There was a short but constructive debate in Committee, with no amendments being moved. As the House is undoubtedly aware, on Report in the other place, the Government moved three amendments to the Bill, the combined effect of which will allow the Bill, on enactment, to have retrospective effect. When we amended the Bill to make it capable of retrospective effect, we felt that we might be erring on the side of caution. However, by the smallest margin, it has proved to be a necessary amendment. The provisions establishing the Criminal Defence Service came into force today, and I confirm to the House that regulations will be made under the Bill immediately it receives Royal Assent.
  The draft of the Access to Justice Act 1999 that was originally presented to the House would not have left the lacuna. However, in attempting to respond constructively to amendments and issues raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Government accepted various amendments. Unfortunately, during the scrutiny of those provisions, it was not appreciated that amendments that had been moved both by Opposition Members and by Labour Members would leave that small lacuna. The gap is, nevertheless, an important matter, and I should be grateful if the House would close it by allowing the Bill a Third Reading.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Garnier: The Bill arose from the unintended consequences of the relationship between sections 13 and 14 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The junior Minister in this place—the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock)—and the junior Minister in the other place, Lord Bach, readily acknowledged those consequences, but they have not acknowledged that this little Bill is itself a direct consequence, undoubtedly unintended, of the Government's decision in the earlier weeks of this Parliament to crash through the 1999 Act without seriously thinking about the problems that could arise.
  It is of some interest that the Minister has yet again sought to attach some blame to the Opposition for the sorry state of the 1999 Act, which is the reason that we need this Bill. As I recall it, none of the amendments to the Access to Justice Bill moved in Committee by official Opposition Members were accepted by the Committee, and the only amendments that were accepted were those moved by the Government and voted through— undoubtedly without adequate understanding—by Government-supporting Members.
  Therefore, if the Government are worried about the state of the 1999 Act and the need for this Bill to correct it, they have only themselves to blame. The problem
  60
  arises not least because the 1999 Act is a Christmas tree that allows the Lord Chancellor to aggregate to himself a huge and unprecedented number of powers to make secondary legislation, the effects of which we are now having to correct.
  The Government fancifully called the original legislation the Access to Justice Act, but my view is that it should be called the "Denial of Access to Justice" Act, and the Bill demonstrates why. In the Legal Aid Act 1988, the initial advice and assistance available to those who are facing criminal proceedings included limited support in court. By contrast, it is unlikely that section 13 of the 1999 Act would have allowed the Legal Services Commission, via the Criminal Defence Service, to fund advocacy services in situations such as making a bail application or representing an accused person who is at risk of being imprisoned. Equally, the provision could well have inhibited the representation of someone who is at risk of being imprisoned for failure to pay a fine or obey a court order. Those are not small matters.
  Indeed, the author of the error is happily with us now—I am delighted to welcome into the Chamber the Secretary of State for Defence, who, when the 1999 Act was considered in Committee, was the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department. How things have changed. None the less, the mistakes have lived on after his time at that Department.
  I do not wish to prolong the Government's agony by letting this debate continue unnecessarily into the evening—although I gather that even this debate will be guillotined, at 7 o'clock. Nevertheless, I do not intend to spend the next hour or so dilating—as one of our Committee Chairman used to say—on the defects of the 1999 Act, as they will shortly be corrected on Royal Assent to this Bill. It is, however, an object lesson in the proper construction and making of legislation. The Government have a vast—indeed, an unhealthily large—majority. Nine or 10 Government Members served on the Bill's Standing Committee; only one of them, the Parliamentary Secretary, spoke. The others may or may not have listened, but their Committee activity hardly constituted scrutiny. Perhaps that is unsurprising in relation to a small Bill such as this, but had they not engaged with the Access to Justice Bill Standing Committee in exactly the same way, the problem faced by the Government might not have arisen and there might have been no need for the Bill.
  The official Opposition give the Bill our broad but sad support—sad in the sense that we should not be in this position, but as we are, it is right that the Bill achieves Royal Assent as quickly as possible.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Burnett: I declare that I am a lawyer, but I do not practise as such.
  The Liberal Democrats have also gone along with the Bill—for want of a better of expression. However, I warn the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), that the public defender system will not be as cost-effective as the existing provision through private practitioners. Private practitioners are competitive and do not require a huge new infrastructure and the administration costs that will be spawned by the public defender system.
  I have said to the House on many occasions that real independence and the perception of real independence are crucial in the administration of justice. We have always

  61
  opposed a salaried defender system because we do not believe that the state should provide the court administration, the prosecution and the defence.
  I also warn the Parliamentary Secretary that the state defender system that the Government are intent on setting up will be significantly more expensive to operate than an efficient system of independent private practitioners working through the legal aid system It is regrettable that the Government are intent on continuing with the measure; nevertheless we shall reluctantly go along with it.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Forth: It is not often that one hears such half-hearted support from both sides of the House. I feel that I should say a few words, as it looks as though I shall be the only non-lawyer to have said anything about the Bill during this stage of its proceedings. On behalf of all non-lawyers everywhere. I shall make a few comments.
  Given the intimate relationship—about which we are learning—of the Liberal Democrats with the Government, how is it that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), finds himself having to express such grave reservations about the thrust of the Bill and of the legislation from which it emerged? Indeed, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), while giving the measure his reluctant and half-hearted support, also felt obliged to remind himself and the House of the fact that the Bill emerged from a series of errors and probably from a failure of scrutiny—not merely of this measure but of the previous legislation. We find ourselves in a sad and sorry state.
  No one wants the Bill. Everyone wishes that it was not before us. The Government have not even apologised for it, but we are getting used to that. None of us is satisfied that it will add to the sum of human well-being, but we are stuck with it. The judgment of the lawyers among us is that the measure will bring some small net benefit or will limit the damage—one or the other—so we should feel obliged to accept it.
  Mr. Garnier: One of the sad aspects of this correcting Bill is that it exposes the Government's rubber-stamping of legislation under the Human Rights Act 1998. No doubt my right hon. Friend will remember that when the Access to Justice Bill was published, its cover carried a declaration from a junior Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department that the Bill complied with the Human Rights Act. Clearly, it did not, but we were required to assume that it did because the Minister had said so. That measure will be brought back into compliance with the Human Rights Act because we are bringing access to legal aid for criminal defendants into line
  62
  with the European convention and the Act. Regardless of what one thinks of the Human Rights Act and of the convention—
  Mr. Forth: Very little.
  Mr. Garnier: Well, one ought to think more of it unfortunately—certainly rather more than the Government do. At last, we have brought the Access to Justice Act 1999 back into compliance with the Government's own wretched legislation.
  Mr. Forth: I am tempted to say that that would almost be a reason for me not to support the Bill. I do not agree with the Human Rights Act. I have little time for the convention, which has long since passed its sell-by date and the Act is a mess and a monster that we shall all regret. However, for the sake of legislative consistency, I accept the point that my hon. and learned Friend makes. If, as he tells me, the measure will achieve the result of bringing us into compliance with the Human Rights Act—although I do not support the Act and have no interest in the human rights convention—I suppose, for that reason alone, that it is probably necessary for us to support this increasingly dreadful-looking little Bill.
  All in all, none of us has any enthusiasm for the measure; we all regard it as an extremely regrettable necessity and for that reason, I suppose that we ought to let it go through. I hope that the lessons from it will have been learned, although I am not optimistic. One of these days, surely even the Labour Government, in the short time they have left to survive—although they gave themselves a little more life today—will learn that to do the job properly, to allow Parliament to do its job properly and to allow the Commons to scrutinise is not something to be avoided but to be welcomed. In the end, that is of benefit to the Government and, indeed, to the people of this country. However, I do not expect that lesson to be learned yet. It may be that the Government will have to lose an election before they are allowed to ponder those matters in opposition.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Lock: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to the debate.
  I thank 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 Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough was fair. He made his usual criticisms. He said that repetition never made a good point better. I entirely agree, although as he has again demonstrated, it is capable of making a bad point worse. None the less, I am grateful for his support and that of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon. I hope that means that the House will not divide on Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Armed Forces Bill [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  5.58 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I beg to move,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the expenditure of the Secretary of State in respect of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary.
  The Ministry of Defence police are already inspected by Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary by invitation. Inspections occur every four years or so. As a result of amendment No. 8, which we shall discuss later, the process will be placed on a statutory basis comparable to that which applies to the inspection of Home Department police forces. That will not of itself give rise to significant additional costs. However, because a statutory duty will rest on the inspectorate, it is necessary that the House should agree to a resolution authorising that the cost be met from public funds.
  I commend the motion to the House.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: The Opposition cannot carp at this money motion as it will cover a proposition put by us in Committee; and we are grateful to the Government for putting it on the Order Paper. Indeed, we are so grateful that, later on, I shall not have to move new clause 1.
  Nevertheless, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence makes an extraordinary statement. I had not expected a money motion to be tabled at all at this stage; normally, one would expect it to occur after a Second Reading Division. The Minister says that the advice of his Department is that it is expedient to introduce such a motion. Will he answer a simple question? How much did the previous inspection cost? That would give us a clue to what is anticipated, because in the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary for the last year available—1999–2000—we are specifically told that the costs of the inspectorate are funded directly by central Government and provided through the policing and crime reduction group of the Home Office and that, each year, the inspectorate receives income from two separate allocations. The day-to-day running costs are subject to a specific funding allocation, while income and capital spending are accounted for separately, and the expenditure is controlled by Government accounting rules.
  Dr. Moonie: Perhaps I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The cost is difficult to predict, but we have made an allowance of approximately £100,000 to cover all the costs related to the forthcoming inspection.
  Mr. Key: I am grateful to the Minister, but I asked him what the previous inspection cost. I am sure that that answer will be forthcoming, but I am glad that he has specified the figure of £100,000. As he has already been
  64
  able to tell us that the inspection will cost up to £100,000, I should be grateful to him if he could explain why the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary states:
  "Police authorities and police forces in England and Wales are not charged for any inspections: the reports of inspections of individual forces and thematic inspection reports are also issued without charge."
  It continues:
  "The cost of undertaking all inspections is funded from the annual running cost allocation of funds. Unlike some of our partner organisations any external income generated through inspecting non-Home Office forces such as British Transport Police and Isle of Man Constabulary cannot be used to increase the running costs provision."
  So what will that £100,000 be spent on, because it is clearly not going to Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary or to the Home Office? If the Minister will kindly answer those straightforward questions, I am sure that we can make progress.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: The Minister very kindly told us that no significant extra costs would be involved, but under extreme pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), he then told us that he had made an allowance of £100,000, presumably per annum—
  Dr. Moonie: Per inspection.
  Mr. Forth: The Minister corrects me. Perhaps we shall find out how often those inspections are expected to take place in due course, but that figure is not stated in the money resolution.
  One of the great difficulties with such money resolutions is that, unlike many of the other financial matters brought before us in which either specific amounts or upper limits are specified, we tend to face wording of the kind that we are considering now. The resolution states that
  "it is expedient to authorise the payment … of any increase attributable to the Act … in respect of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary."
  It one thing for the Minister to say in his characteristically open and honest way that he expects only £100,000 to be involved in this case, but that is not what the money resolution states. It states:
  "for any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money … of any increase attributable … in respect of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary."
  If I were a more cynical and unbelieving chap, I might say that the money resolution, if we were to approve it, would seem to give carte blanche to the Secretary of State to spend almost any sum that he wanted
  "in respect of Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary."
  The Minister looks perplexed, so perhaps he thinks that the money resolution will allow him to spend only the £100,000 that he anticipates will be spent on inspections, but the motion does not say that. We are faced with the difficulty that, in the current circumstances, this Minister, knowing what he now knows, envisages that an inspection will cost about £100,000, but, of course, circumstances and, dare I say, Ministers can change, and this genial and

  65
  helpful Minister might not always be in charge of such matters. Indeed, this Secretary of State may not be in charge of them. So we are really being asked to say that, whoever the Secretary of State is and in whatever circumstances he finds himself, he will be authorised to pay any increase in expenditure that he sees fit in respect of the inspectors of constabulary. In effect, that is a blank cheque.
  I should have been more reassured, frankly, if the money resolution had stated, "£100,000 per inspection"; or I might have been prepared to accept it if it had stated, "£150,000 per inspection", to provide some leeway and allow flexibility for any contingency I am worried about the gap between what the Minister knows—he has told us, quite openly, what he envisages—and what the wording will allow. By agreeing to such a money resolution, I wonder whether the House is doing its job properly as the custodian of taxpayers' money and as the authority that can spend, which is the role that we have developed for ourselves over the centuries.
  Perhaps this is not the right occasion to consider it because the amounts involved are not that great, but I occasionally wish that the House would reject a money resolution of this kind to force the Government to introduce more specific money resolutions. That would at least give us some sort of fig leaf which would enable us to tell our constituents, the taxpayers and the voters that, yes, we are looking after their money responsibly and, no, we are not allowing the Government to get away with murder and to spend as freely as they would, no doubt, wish to do. Unfortunately, this might not be the occasion because as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has said, it appears that the Government have accepted his inexorable logic and wisdom, have altered the Bill appropriately and, therefore, have asked the House to approve the extra expenditure.
  I shall gloss over the fact that my hon. Friend seems to be contributing to an increase in public expenditure. He and I can perhaps have a word about that later. Perhaps this is not the occasion on which the House should make the gesture that I believe it should make on money resolutions, but I wanted to tell the House that, at the moment, we are issuing blank cheques and, however
  66
  genial the Secretary of State and the Minister may be, I am not sure that I would trust them quite that far. So, as time unfolds, we shall have to keep an eagle-eye on the Minister to ensure that, somehow, we can hold him to his £100,000 and that there is no question of expenditure on Her Majesty's constabulary running riot as a result of this rather over-generous money resolution.
  6.8 pm
  Dr. Moonie: Given the number of resolutions to which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has spoken, I should have thought that he would understand their purpose. They are not intended to authorise the expenditure of specific sums; nor do they set a budget.
  Mr. Forth: They should.
  Dr. Moonie: No, they should not; there is another appropriate procedure for that. They are an authorisation to spend money under a particular heading when that heading is placed on a statutory basis. When the statutory basis of expenditure in the Department is changed under primary legislation, there must be a money resolution to cover it.
  I do not have the figure for the cost of the old inspection because I did not imagine that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) would want to know it, so I suspect that I shall have to tell him in writing. The provision of £100,000 is for a non-statutory inspection where we meet the legitimate charges of Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary. In fact, under the new statutory basis, we shall, in turn, be obliged to supply officers to carry out inspections elsewhere, so we shall not be charged for the inspections. Nevertheless, a money resolution is necessary because there is a possibility of expenditure and because there is a change to our statutory responsibility. So the £100,000 that we have talked about will not be involved, but, alas, our procedures being what they are, a money resolution is required to cover the eventuality.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Armed Forces Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
  6.10 pm
  Dr. Moonie: I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9th January:

  Completion of remaining stages
  1. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

  Committee of the whole House
  2. The Bill, as amended in the Select Committee, shall be considered in Committee of the whole House in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 to 17; Schedule 1; Clauses 18 and 19; Schedule 2; Clauses 20 to 22; Schedule 3; Clauses 23 to 29; Schedule 4; Clauses 30 to 32; Schedule 5; Clauses 33 and 34; Schedule 6; Clauses 35 and 36; Schedule 7; Clauses 37 to 40; Schedule 8; Clause 41; new Clauses; new Schedules.
  3. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past Nine o'clock.

  Consideration and Third Reading
  4. Any proceedings on consideration, and proceedings on Third Reading, shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past Ten o'clock.
  Programming Committees
  5. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House or on consideration and Third Reading.

  Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords
  6. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any Lords amendments, or on any further messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.
  I may not get off so lightly with this motion. I should point out to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that, in relation to his question in the previous debate, the expenditure was just under £100,000.
  The Bill has benefited from the close and careful scrutiny of the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline. West (Ms Squire). The Committee made full use of the two months or so available to it, taking evidence on nine occasions in addition to its deliberations on the Bill. Against that background, the time proposed for the remaining stages of the Bill seems appropriate to the number of amendments tabled—including only one from the Government, I am happy to say; all the more so given that most of the amendments address issues that have had more than their share of exposure in the Select Committee.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. Day after day, night after night, the Government move programming motions to attempt to tell Parliament, the legislature, how long the Executive think is appropriate for us to consider their proposed legislation. That is an appalling pretension on the part of the Executive branch of the Government, and it is unprecedented.
  We have had provision for programming motions in this House for about 120 years. It was necessary to bring in those rules because of the systematic filibustering by Irish nationalists in the 1880s. However, it was always considered that such motions were exceptional, used only in response to deliberate filibustering. They were a necessary weapon in our armoury to prevent Parliament from coming to a complete standstill.
  Even when I got to the House—in 1987, 100 years after the introduction of the provision to "Erskine May" and our Standing Orders—those procedures were used too frequently, in my view, by the then Conservative Government, as I remember arguing on occasion. Nevertheless, the procedures were used sparingly at that time. It was taken for granted that the Government had to have some evidence of abuse and of deliberate time wasting; for example, if a Standing Committee examining a major Bill had only managed to get through four or five clauses in 100 hours. It was only when the Government could make such a case that they came before the House with such a programming motion.
  That procedure was adopted by the Labour Governments of the 1970s and the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s. In my view, even on that basis, the procedures were used too frequently by Conservative and Labour Administrations. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—who, sadly, is not in his place—arguing forcefully against the excessive use of programming motions by the then Conservative Government, and I remember supporting him in the Chamber.
  There was a balance between the Executive's desire to get their business through this place and the feeling that they should be able, at least, to enact legislation for which they had an electoral mandate without being held up indefinitely, and the strong feeling of the House that it was an exceptional, dubious and problematic procedure for the Executive to use their majority to dictate to the legislature the timetable under which they were going to do their job.
  I have come to know the Under-Secretary well in the past year, and he is not at all an arrogant human being; that is not his natural stance or character. However, he has been imbued with the atmosphere of the new Labour Administration. Their feeling is that if they have an army of spin doctors and cannon fodder on the Back Benches who are prepared to vote through anything at the beck and call of No. 10, Parliament, does not matter and can be steamrollered whenever required. Increasingly, legislation is simply drafted in Whitehall and enforced on this place by Ministers and the vast voting power that they have at present; I hope it will not be there for much longer.
  As a result, we are at real risk of passing legislation that simply has not gone through the proper legislative process. The Under-Secretary said that, given the number of amendments, he thought that two hours was perfectly

  69
  adequate to consider the Bill. That is a pretentious and arrogant thing to say, even though he is not by temperament a pretentious or arrogant person. It is sad that someone like him should have been pressed into this procrustean mould of new Labour and come out with such a thoughtless remark—it was, contemptuous of the role of this place. It is important that we have proper time to conduct our procedures; it is far more important than the substance of any particular clause of any Bill.
  There are important matters to be discussed in relation to the Bill. On the basis of the record that is before the House, we are concerned that the Secretary of State may have seriously misled this House. I will seek to raise this point later in connection with one of the amendments. It is a serious matter, and if such a serious charge is made, it is important that it be documented Such a charge must not simply be tossed off frivolously in debate; it should be supported. There must be time to read the relevant quotations—subject to the indulgence of the Chair—and the Government must have time to refute the charge, if refute it they can. I sincerely hope that they can, because the charge is an unpleasant and serious one. It is not in the interests of Parliament—or the Government—that such a charge should lie on the table without it being refuted. The Government may be denying themselves the opportunity to do that.
  We have a lot of amendments tabled for discussion this afternoon and the Under-Secretary does not know how long we need to discuss them, because they are not Government amendments. The Government said that they had about four amendments and told the House of Commons that we needed two hours to deliberate. I object to that. They do not know how long we need and it is absolutely wrong to try to tell us how to do our job. We would not be doing our job, by definition, if the legislature simply did what the Executive told it.
  How much more outrageous and offensive it is—to logic, as well as to the constitutional principle—of the Government to tell us how long we need to present our amendments. They do not even know what lies behind them, or the arguments that we will adduce in their support. They pretentiously and arrogantly assume that, just because they have a majority we cannot have an argument. Democracy is not based on the principle that because one side has a majority, the other side does not have an argument. Democracy is based on the principle that everybody has the right to say something, even if they are, from time to time, in the minority. They should be heard and considered.
  Frankly, that fundamental principle—on which the procedures of this House have been based, which has been around for centuries, and under which we have been the wonder of the world and an inspiration to many nascent democracies around the globe—is being steadily but surely subverted.
  My party will continue, in principle, to oppose this form of Executive tyranny. We must: not out of any narrow party political interest, but because it is vital that new Labour's four or five years with a crushing majority do not do permanent damage to the way in which this place does its job. That would be precisely the situation if the Conservative Opposition lay back and let the Government go ahead. We will not do that. We will use whatever means we can to make sure that the public
  70
  realise what is going on. What is going on is that we have the most arrogant of Governments and they are the most contemptuous of Parliament in historical memory.
  Many parties had substantial majorities in the past; we remember the great majorities that Baroness Thatcher, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Attlee, and Asquith and Gladstone had in their day.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Davies: I am delighted to mention the names of two very fine parliamentarians and statesmen who did this country great service in their day. They would not have dreamed of using their majority in this fashion; it would not have occurred to them for one moment. They would have stood at the Dispatch Box and defended their legislative proposals and expected their colleagues in government to do the same. They would not have tolerated for a moment the suggestion from a minion that, because they had a large majority, they need not bother with this place very much and could table a programme motion to foreclose debate in two hours, or an afternoon. That is the situation we have been brought to at the dawn of the 21st century by new Labour and nothing but new Labour. It should be thoroughly ashamed of itself.
  The uncharacteristic silence of Government Members suggests that they probably are thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I hope that they continue to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves until they discover the consequence that must inevitably flow from exhibiting such a degree of arrogance in our ancient democracy and from treating the public and Parliament with so little respect.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: I am speaking in the temporary absence of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). He has made many speeches in similar debates over the past few weeks, so he thought it appropriate to allow me to step in and perhaps mouth his words for him. I say in plain terms that we shall not support the programme motion, and my hon. Friend has put our view of such motions on the record time and again.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said that democracy meant providing the occasion for all points of view to be fairly represented. That suggests a conversion to proportional representation that I was pleased to hear. However, I wondered in all seriousness whether he could justify the view that this Government came quite where he claimed they did on the index of supreme arrogance. I refer to the previous Government, who abolished the Greater London council, introduced the poll tax and did a string of things that many people at the time thought represented the height of arrogance and indifference to democratic dissent and lawful authority.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has completely missed the point. It is perfectly true that previous Conservative Administrations put through controversial legislation. In retrospect, some of us are not entirely happy with some of it, but we are very proud of parts of it. Some of the legislation was extremely controversial; other
  Governments in the past have put

  71
  through controversial legislation, too. The hon. Gentleman's party certainly did, and I mentioned the names of the statesmen who introduced it. Indeed, the Attlee Administration put through some momentous and extremely controversial legislation, but it never occurred to any of those Governments to foreclose parliamentary debate artificially by systematically introducing programme motions in the House. Programme motions were an exception—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down when I am on my feet. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) are both missing the point. The debate is about the programme motion for the Armed Forces Bill, so I should be obliged if arguments are adduced to that point.
  Mr. Stunell: I certainly accept your reprimand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I have strayed, but I thought it appropriate to comment on some of the points that were made earlier.
  I return to the central issue. Programme motions and guillotines involve work in progress. Liberal Democrats are willing and eager for an attempt to be made to have legislation introduced and considered systematically and for it to become done-and-dusted law after being satisfactorily scrutinised with a full degree of accountability. We openly say that a system of programming is essential to that. However, there has been a breakdown in the system that was originally approved by a majority of the House. Pending the outcome of the work in progress—it is no secret that the Modernisation Committee is currently debating a draft report to address some of these issues—we will certainly continue to oppose programme motions.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Forth: By my calculation, the motion allows us 200 minutes to deal with the 20 discrete matters that represent your wise selection of amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That does not strike me as an inspiring start to our proceedings, because that simple calculation tells us that we have about 10 minutes to discuss each group. If the Government seriously suggest that we should give a Committee of the whole House on such an important Bill 10 minutes to consider each separate item that you, Mr. Speaker, have identified, that sums up as well as anything the contempt in which they now hold the House.
  It is curious but significant that, on the very day a generous Prime Minister has given us more parliamentary time than most of us might have expected before the weekend, or at least until the formal statement made earlier today, the Government should now seek to compress our business in such an arrogant fashion. We now know that more parliamentary time stretches ahead of us than we might have dreamed of. Surely, in those circumstances, any reasonable Government would have been prepared to say that they would not press the programme motion because they acknowledged that a Committee of the whole House on a Bill of such importance should be given a proper amount of time for deliberation? Even if we thought that we would not have time to do justice to the Bill, the Government might have
  72
  been prepared, in the light of circumstances, to allow the Committee more time to deliberate on the Bill. That would have been a reasonable response.
  Speculation in the press over the past 24 or 48 hours has suggested that Parliament will be embarrassed by the amount of time that we have on our hands. What are we going to do with it? I suggest straight away that the Government could withdraw this outrageous programme motion and say, "We the Government are now prepared to give the Committee a proper amount of time to consider the matters before us."
  The Bill has 41 clauses and eight schedules and my hon. Friends have tabled new clauses and amendments which cover important issues. For example, amendment No. 8 deals with the functions of inspectors of constabulary, and that amendment alone would require a considerable amount of time to be properly considered by the Committee. Amendment No. 7 deals with protocols between the Ministry of Defence and the domestic police forces; even to a layman like me, who has not been involved in the detailed scrutiny of the Bill, that is patently an important issue.
  In a Committee of the whole House, 500 or so Members may be present and they may all be eager to participate in the debate. If we did the arithmetic properly, we would consider not only the 20 discrete items that must be considered in 200 minutes-10 minutes for each item—but the fact that up to 500 Members may all be eager to speak. The House will readily be able to work out that 10 minutes divided by 500 does not give much time for individual Members to contribute.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) so eloquently said, we have been reduced to hearing the Government tell us that parliamentary scrutiny does not matter any more, that they can rush Bills through in a peremptory fashion, that time is no longer of any relevance, and that they can compress consideration of Bills to such an extent that proper scrutiny cannot possibly be given to matters as important as those with which the Bill deals. Even if we were to devote all the time left—the three hours from 6.30 to 9.30, when the guillotine falls on the Bill yet again—to considering the functions of inspectors of constabulary, it would not be sufficient time to enable many of my hon. Friends who have great expertise and knowledge to make significant and substantial contributions.
  All in all, we have here the logical outcome of the process that even the Liberal Democrat spokesman was moved to describe as unsatisfactory. He stated, with all the vehemence that Liberal Democrats can muster, that his party would not be supporting the motion. Those are strong words from a Liberal Democrat—we had better all beware, because when the Liberal Democrats threaten not to support something, it is pretty serious. Of course, we Conservatives will actually oppose the motion.
  Mr. Stunell: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Library, he will find that Liberal Democrats have a better voting record in the House than Conservatives, and that we have a very good record of voting against the Government when necessary.
  Mr. Forth: I presume that they have an even better record of not supporting the Government. When the House divides, we shall see how many Liberal Democrats

  73
  are present and what they do. Perhaps afterwards the hon. Gentleman and I can compare voting records to see whose is bigger.
  The motion is an extreme example of a process to which the Government hope we shall quietly become accustomed and which we shall come to accept as routine—to the extent that we eventually give up our opposition. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford said, we shall not give up our opposition as long as the Government handle such matters in such a fashion and tell the House that consideration by a Committee of the whole House of a Bill of such size, complexity and importance will be allowed only a ridiculously limited time. That is not what the people of this country expect of their Parliament in its discharge of its role of scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account. When the general election takes place, whether it be on 7 June or at some later date, we shall draw these matters to the attention of the electorate and invite them to pass judgment.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: I hope that the Minister felt some sense of shame when moving the programme motion. It was an unpleasant thing to have to do and we know that temperamentally he is not that sort of hon. Gentleman. A programme motion is intended to railroad through a measure by taking away from the Opposition the only weapon they have: time. The ability to extend debate in the hope of persuading the Government to change their course is the only weapon available to us. That is why it is crucial that every programme motion be opposed, unless there are exceptional reasons that justify the Government's belief that the Opposition are wasting time.
  Let me describe how a Select Committee on an Armed Forces Bill operates. I speak as one who chaired the relevant Select Committees in 1986 and 1996. Eleven Members of Parliament are selected to serve on the Committee. On this occasion, for the first time, no one with any service experience was put on the Committee, which was packed with Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries. The Committee tends to work in an harmonious fashion—I am sure it did so on this occasion, under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), whose interest in defence matters is long standing. The members of the Committee work together closely on their task, which is to consider, scrutinise and perhaps amend the pattern of discipline and the structure of the armed forces. As they do that, they take evidence from armed forces personnel. In my experience, they always develop great respect for those who work in the armed forces and the Committee tends to develop an extremely harmonious working relationship.
  Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend believe that a consensual, harmonious, cosy Committee is necessarily the best way to produce sharp-edged scrutiny of legislation; or does he share my suspicion that, every now and then, cosy consensuality gives rise to sloppy, poor legislation?
  Mr. Viggers: My right hon. Friend makes a good debating point, but in the case that I describe it is good that the members of the Committee tend to be harmonious in their desire to do their best for the armed forces and to
  74
  respect the highly taxing circumstances in which forces personnel serve. In this case, harmony promotes good legislation.
  That harmony usually extends to agreeing the manner in which the programme of the Committee is to be handled. I am not aware of any previous occasion on which it has been necessary in any way to curtail discussion by a Committee of an Armed Forces Bill. Today therefore marks a first. The Government have stood on its head the practice developed over the years of harmony and agreement between the sides.
  In that respect, I mean the two sides of the Committee, but on occasions it can be extremely helpful for the whole Committee to have available to it the weapon of time. I recall that, during the passage of the Armed Forces Act 1996, the Select Committee achieved consensus and harmony in its wish to prevent the then Government from implementing their proposals to change the basis on which Greenwich hospital was dealt with by the Government. The Committee wanted to express to the Government its discontent with the manner in which the Government proposed to deal with the future of that institution. I, as its Chairman, expressed the Committee's view that we were not prepared to accept the proposed legislation. The Government had to change their approach, and what emerged was a better relationship between the Government and the management of Greenwich hospital—one that has ensured both that the fabric and architecture of Greenwich hospital are retained in their present form, and that its traditions are respected by its owners. The weapon of time can be extremely valuable, whether it enables the Opposition to make representations to Government members of the Committee, or enables the Committee as a whole to make representations to the Government.
  I profoundly regret the way in which the Government have sought to curtail discussion of the Bill. The current Government are arrogant: the Prime Minister rarely attends the House and Cabinet Ministers rarely attend debates. At the start of the debate on the money resolution, I saw the Secretary of State for Defence sitting in his place on the Treasury Bench. That was welcome to me because I believe that, even if they are not personally responsible for piloting it through, Ministers should be present during the passage of legislation that affects their Department. However, the right hon. Gentleman was present for no more than five minutes before disappearing, and he will probably take no further part in the passage of the Bill. That is, to my regret, typical of the Government's behaviour.
  The Armed Forces Bill is, of all Bills, the one on which it should be possible for the usual channels—the Whips representing Front Benchers of all parties—to agree a reasonable pattern of debate that is not inflexible and which allows all Members of Parliament to express their point of view. This programme motion is nasty, silly and unnecessary, and I very much regret that it has been moved.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: I rise having had a rather unhappy history of trying to take part in affairs on the Bill. I got a chance to speak on Second Reading, but it will not surprise hon. Members to learn that I would have been keen to be on the special Select Committee that

  75
  considered the Bill, given my experience in the armed forces and as a special adviser to Sir Malcolm Rifkind, then Secretary of State for Defence, from 1993 to 1995. I felt that I would have had a deal to contribute to the Bill.
  I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) that it is unnecessary to have a programme motion at this stage. It was unnecessary to have a programme motion immediately after Second Reading, when I made what I believe to be the shortest speech in the House of about five seconds before the motion ran out of time.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: It was a very good speech.
  Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Some people have remarked that it was the best speech that I have made in the House, but I am not entirely sure that they were being kind.
  The point at issue is the way in which the Bill has been handled in the House, which is profoundly unsatisfactory for the armed forces. There is no great controversy between the Government and the Opposition about the detail of issues in the Bill. Excepting the major issue of whether the armed forces should be within the remit of the European convention on human rights—and if it is taken as read that they will be—a lot of what follows in the Bill does not give rise to controversy between the parties.
  It is a shame that someone with my background, who wanted to serve on the Select Committee considering the Bill, was not able to do so or give details to it. I then find that the Bill, frankly, is almost a subject for experts in the House; looking round the Chamber this evening, I see the usual suspects on defence issues. It was not necessary for the Government to introduce a programme motion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has made clear how little scrutiny there would be if we scrutinised the Bill clause by clause. However, I believe that, on Report, we would have had a chance for proper and detailed debates on issues raised by the Bill, driven by hon. Members on both sides of the House who take a keen and informed interest in those affairs.
  That is the duty that we owe the armed forces, not driving through legislation on programme motions—both after Second Reading, to limit consideration in Select Committee and to limit the time on Report, which is a key stage for people like me. Indeed, that will be the only opportunity that I shall have to make known my concerns about the Bill. However, I despair of being listened to by the Government in an area in which I can make a positive contribution. I served on the Committee that considered the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 and tabled a number of amendments. It has to be said that not a single amendment, from whatever party, was accepted by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence who took the measure through Committee. Having heard the Home Secretary make the point that he was not aware of any Bill that could not be improved by its time in Committee, it is instinctive to object to the fact that the Government see fit to deal on a programme motion with the armed forces, of all things.
  Mr. Viggers: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that I am not trying to flatter him. I speak the truth when I say that I served with him on the Committee that considered the Armed Forces Discipline Act and was greatly impressed by his contributions, which were based on his military experience and his consideration of the measure. I very much regret that he has not been able to contribute to consideration of the Bill, and that the period available for him to do so is now limited.
  Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks.
  I conclude by expressing distress at the unnecessary procedure of introducing a programme motion on the Bill. It is clear that the House could have come to a perfectly adequate arrangement about the time needed to debate the issues. The programme motion demonstrates contempt, not only for the House but for the armed forces. Outside the House, people may not be too worried about the Executive treating the House with contempt, but there should be serious cause for concern among hon. Members. The matter should be brought to public attention; when it is, the Executive should pay the price.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 134.

  Division No. 170]

  [6.45 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clelland, David

  Banks, Tony

  Clwyd, Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Cohen, Harry

  Battle, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Bayley, Hugh

  Colman, Tony

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Corbett, Robin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Corston, Jean

  Benton, Joe

  Cousins, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Cox, Tom

  Best, Harold

  Cranston, Ross

  Blackman, Liz

  Crausby, David

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cummings, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Browne, Desmond

  Darvill, Keith

  Bruden, Richard

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Burgon, Colin

  Davidson, Ian

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

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

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Dawson, Hilton

  Cann, Jamie

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Caplin, Ivor

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Casale, Roger

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Caton, Martin

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Doran, Frank

  Clapham, Michael

  Dowd, Jim

  77

  Drew, David

  Laxton, Bob

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Leslie, Christopher

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Linton, Martin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Edwards, Huw

  Love, Andrew

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ennis, Jeff

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Fisher, Mark

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Macdonald, Calum

  Flint, Caroline

  McDonnell, John

  Flynn, Paul

  McIsaac, Shona

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fyfe, Maria

  McNamara, Kevin

  Galloway, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Gapes, Mike

  McWalter, Tony

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McWilliam, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mallaber Judy

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marsden Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Goggins, Paul

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall Jim (Leicester S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Meacher Rt Hon Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Grogan, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Gunnell, John

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hain, Peter

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hanson, David

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Healey, John

  Mountford, Kali

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mudie, George

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mullin, Chris

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hill, Keith

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hinchliffe, David

  Olner, Bill

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hope, Phil

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Perham Ms Linda

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pickthali, Colin

  Hurst, Alan

  Pike, Peter L

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Plaskitt, James

  Illsley, Eric

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pond, Chris

  Jamieson, David

  Pope, Greg

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pound, Stephen

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Radice Rt Hon Giles

  Joyce, Eric

  Rammell, Bill

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rapson, Syd

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Raynsford, Nick

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Kemp, Fraser

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rooken Rt Hon Jeff

  Kidney, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rowlands, Ted

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Roy, Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ruane Chris

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ruddock, Joan

  78

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Salter, Martin

  Timms, Stephen

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Tipping, Paddy

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Todd, Mark

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Touhig, Don

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Trickett, Jon

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Truswell, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Tynan, Bill

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Snape, Peter

  Wareing, Robert N

  Spellar, John

  Watts, David

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  White, Brian

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wood, Mike

  Stringer, Graham

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hammond, Philip

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hancock, Mike

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brady, Graham

  Hayes, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Heald, Oliver

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Horam, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Burnett, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Burns, Simon

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Butterfill, John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cash, William

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Keetch, Paul

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

  Chope, Christopher

  Clappison, James

  Key, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Collins, Tim

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cran, James

  Leigh, Edward

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Lidington, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Fallon, Michael

  Loughton, Tim

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Luff, Peter

  Flight, Howard

  McCrea, Dr William

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fraser, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Garnier, Edward

  Maples, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Gray, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Green, Damian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  79

  Oaten, Mark

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Paice, James

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Townend, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Tredinnick, David

  Randall, John

  Trend, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robathan, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Wallace, Rt Hon James

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Walter, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Webb, Steve

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Wells, Bowen

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wilkinson, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Willetts, David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Willis, Phil

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Wilshire, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spring, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Steen, Anthony

  Stunell, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mr. Owen Paterson and

  Syms, Robert

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9th January:

  Completion of remaining stages
  1. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

  Committee of the whole House
  2. The Bill, as amended in the Select Committee, shall be considered in Committee of the whole House in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 to 17; Schedule 1; Clauses 18 and 19; Schedule 2; Clauses 20 to 22; Schedule 3; Clauses 23 to 29; Schedule 4; Clauses 30 to 32; Schedule 5; Clauses 33 and 34; Schedule 6; Clauses 35 and 36; Schedule 7; Clauses 37 to 40; Schedule 8; Clause 41; new Clauses; new Schedules.
  3. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past Nine o'clock.

  Consideration and Third Reading
  4. Any proceedings on consideration, and proceedings on Third Reading, shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past Ten o'clock.
  Programming Committees
  5. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House or on consideration and Third Reading.
  Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords
  6. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any Lords amendments, or on any further messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

  Armed Forces Hill
  As considered in the Select Committee, further considered.
  [Relevant documents: The Special Report from the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, Session 2000–01, HC 154–I and II.]
  Clauses 1 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

  SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO ACCESS
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  7 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: Mr. Haselhurst, I should be grateful if the Minister—
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Not quite.
  Mr. Key: Sir Alan, I should be grateful if you would forgive my impertinence in failing to recognise your status. I should be even more grateful if the Government would clarify one point in clause 6. It concerns reservations expressed by the Newspaper Society and the National Union of Journalists, who have sought clarification of the implications of the clause.
  The Bill contains special provisions for access to excluded material or special procedure material. In the Select Committee, the director general of service personnel policy, Mr. Miller, stated that the point of the clause was to introduce the same I protection as applies in civilian law to such searches. The clause allows for provisions that will almost certainly be equivalent to those under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to allow such material to be seized. Mr. Miller thought that this was not important, as it applied only to people covered by the service discipline Acts.
  Since then, however, it has become clear that people covered by the service discipline Acts can include war correspondents and journalists accompanying UK forces into the theatres of operation. In the so-called Green Book, which contains the regulations for correspondents, annexe A, entitled "Working arrangements with the media in times of emergency, tension, conflict or war", states that accredited correspondents
  "will be subject to service law while accompanying an operational force and while travelling to and from the operational area in service transport".
  Journalists cannot be accredited, and therefore cannot enjoy the resulting privileged status, if they refuse to sign an undertaking to comply with the regulations. If they sign such an undertaking, I assume that that is a contract and that they come under the service discipline Acts. The Newspaper Society, in particular, is keen to discover whether, during the period that journalists accompany an operational force, premises used by an accredited correspondent as temporary living accommodation would constitute "relevant residential premises" under the Bill. That is an important point, which we hope the Government will clarify.
  82
  Given that members of the Ministry of Defence police have the powers and privileges of constables in any part of the United Kingdom in matters related to anything done under a contract entered into by the Secretary of State for Defence for the purposes of his Department or the Defence Council, it seems to us that in the case of a journalist under contract, the Ministry of Defence police will be able to enter "relevant residential premises".
  The NUJ gave the Select Committee a great deal of evidence relating to notorious cases in which people's homes were raided, but the case against them was subsequently dropped. That is a matter of concern, and I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the position.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): As far as I am aware, the provisions will apply if service accommodation is involved. The clause provides for Ministry of Defence police to search service accommodation for certain materials. I should point out again that there are associated safeguards: the powers that are given will be used only in the investigation of alleged offences under the service discipline Acts. It is extremely unlikely that they would be used other than in the rarest of circumstances. As we explained earlier in the proceedings on the Bill, it does not seem right that service police should be debarred from this area of investigation, should the need arise.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

  POWER OF COMMANDING OFFICER TO AUTHORISE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF CERTAIN PREMISES
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Key: We now know that under clause 6, a Secretary of State can enable a service policeman—who is, of course, not a judicial officer—to obtain access to excluded material or special procedure material, and that that applies to "relevant residential premises", a phrase that the Minister has clarified.
  Clause 6 states that "relevant residential premises" has the same meaning as in clause 5, where we find that it means "service living accommodation" or
  "other premises occupied as a residence"—
  which might be a hotel, for example—by
  "a person who is subject to service law".
  That would apply to a journalist who had signed the relevant agreement with the Ministry of Defence, or
  "a person who is suspected of having committed while subject to service law an offence in relation to which the warrant is sought."
  Clause 7 introduces a new circumstance. A journalist can come back to his own home, having finished his duties in theatre, and find that a service policeman within the chain of command from a commanding officer, without any kind of warrant and without judicial reference from a commanding officer, can enter a private home to remove journalistic material. The NUJ was extremely concerned about that, as it represents a substantial step forwards.

  83
  It seems extraordinary that, entirely within the chain of command, an officer can instruct not just a service policeman, but a service man or woman who is not necessarily a policeman or woman, to enter someone's home after that person has finished time as a journalist or a media correspondent, if it is believed that those premises contain material that might be the property of the Ministry of Defence or, as I understand it, the intellectual property of the Ministry of Defence.
  If there is a belief that the security of the state is being compromised in that way by a journalist, it would be right and proper for the MOD to take appropriate action. However, that bypasses the judicial process. The instructions are given not by a judicial officer within the chain of command, but by the commanding officer of a military unit. That concerns both the NUJ and the Newspaper Society, and I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure us.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister comment on one aspect of the clause, which relates also to clause 8? Clause 7(3) states that
  "a person authorised under subsection (1) may seize and retain anything for which the search under this section was authorised."
  The Minister will be aware of the case of Major Milos Stankovic, a former member of the Parachute Regiment who has now retired from the Army. He is not one of my constituents, but is represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). The Minister will know of the anxiety that exists about the seizure of documents and other items that have not yet been returned to Major Stankovic. I know that the Government intend that procedures on judicial matters concerning the armed forces should, as far as possible, reflect the arrangements that apply to civilian life. In the light of that intention, should not there be more specific provision to ensure that where no charges are brought against an individual, it is presumed that any possessions obtained from that person through the use of a search warrant must be returned?
  I realise that we shall deal with clause 8 shortly, but I should point out that it contains related provision. Clause 8(2) states:
  In relation to review under this section"
  —the review will be authorised by a senior officer—
  "a judicial officer shall have such powers and duties as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order."
  Bearing it in mind that we are discussing clause 7, will the Minister comment on the extent to which any orders made under clause 8 might deal with the case of Major Stankovic, which is also relevant to clause 7? Of course, he might not want to speak about an individual case, especially when it is that of Major Stankovic. It would be helpful if he did so, as the matter has been aired a number of times on the Floor of the House. If he cannot provide a further explanation now, however, will he at least address the underlying principle?
  Dr. Moonie: The clause does not apply to excluded and special procedure material. Subsection (1)(a) applies only when the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of clause 5(1) are satisfied. Clause 5(1)(d) imposes a condition ensuring that excluded and special procedure
  84
  material is not relevant to the offence in question. I suspect that I should leave my reply to the hon. Gentleman's question about clause 8 until we consider that clause, to ensure that we follow the correct procedures. Finally, I can make no specific comments on the case of Major Stankovic.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

  REVIEW BY JUDICIAL OFFICER
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Dr. Moonie: Sticking exactly to procedure, I shall now deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) about this clause.
  Obviously, secondary powers have been taken to make regulations governing the powers and duties of judicial officers in respect of reviews. It is certainly our intention that the actions of commanding officers in respect of initiating such reviews should be subjected to a fairly rigorous test that is properly applied. That is why the judicial officer has a role in reviewing actions.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the Bill continue the existing arrangements that are in place under the current quinquennial legislation, or does it set out a new procedure? I am seeking to establish whether there has been a change in procedures relating to the seizure of documents and possessions and to the return of such items to their owners.
  7.15 pm
  Dr. Moonie: The clause gives powers to the Ministry of Defence police to make searches in specific circumstances, but it does not affect existing powers. Clause 7 clarifies the action that can be taken by a commanding officer when a warrant cannot be obtained. In other words, that clause deals with circumstances in which it is urgent to ensure that the material that is sought is not spirited away. The new powers that are conferred on the MOD police are the subject of appropriate safeguards; indeed, I think that the Select Committee agreed on that. As I said, the provisions allow the Secretary of State to extend regulations governing the powers and duties of judicial officers in respect of the reviews. Currently, the powers of the service police are not set out in legislation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  The Chairman: With the leave of the Committee, we shall consider clauses 9 to 17 together.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: rose—
  The Chairman: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to comment on all the clauses, or on a particular one?
  Mr. Blunt: Clause 15, Sir Alan.
  The Chairman: With the leave of the Committee, we shall take clauses 9 to 14 together.
  Clauses 9 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

  MEANING OF "SERVICE LIVING ACCOMMODATION"
  Question proposed. That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Blunt: Will the Under-Secretary explain how the statement made by the Ministry of Defence a couple of weeks ago about the future provision of single living accommodation for the armed forces will affect the application of the clause? As I understand it, the Ministry is introducing a programme to ensure that all single soldiers will have en suite facilities. Obviously, it will take a long time to provide such accommodation and the programme will be expensive to implement. Indeed, it will consume rather more than the extra resources that the MOD won in real terms from the Budget. Like others in the armed forces, I hope that it will go ahead, and I know that the Secretary of State has made it a priority, although it is one that is causing discomfort in other areas of the MOD budget and in respect of other programmes.
  The explanatory notes appear to suggest that the programme will have an impact on the application of the clause, as the phrase "service living accommodation" appears to apply to shared areas. If all single soldiers in the armed forces are to have their own en suite facilities, will those facilities be analogous to the family accommodation that is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill? The explanatory notes refer to a distinction in respect of family accommodation. Should single service men expect to be subject to the clause when, in due course, they have proper accommodation? If so, how will it affect them?
  Dr. Moonie: It is clause 16 that defines service living accommodation. Clause 15 refers to orders and regulations in general.
  Mr. Blunt: No, it is clause 15.
  Dr. Moonie: In that case, it is clear that the notes from which I am working are incorrect, and I apologise. I thought that it would be easier to work from notes than from the Bill itself.
  The point of the provision is to ensure that a certain amount of private space is defined as personal, irrespective of whether a person is living in single or shared accommodation. The definition is intended to ensure even in communal accommodation that a certain amount of space is allocated as personal and can be searched only when a warrant has been obtained.
  I think that during our debate on clause 8, I may have spoken about "MOD police". I am always making that mistake; I should have referred to the service police.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: Would a separate warrant be required to search the part of a billet shared with others that was specific to a member of the armed forces? If three other people shared the accommodation,
  86
  would they be subject to the same search warrant? Will the Minister confirm that no one could interfere with their property under the aegis of the search warrant?
  Dr. Moonie: That is correct. The warrant applies only to the person under investigation.
  Mr. Hancock: To their property and space?
  Dr. Moonie: Yes.
  Mr. Blunt: As the programme for single service men to have their own accommodation is implemented, will a warrant be required for each service man's space? In future, everyone will have their own space. On land, although not at sea, few areas will therefore be defined as communal. The number of warrants that are required for individuals will therefore increase. Has the Department considered the implications for, for example, communal searches for drugs? Will the warrants have to name a large number of individuals?
  Dr. Moonie: The warrant applies to space that can be searched, not to the person. Warrants will be specific and refer either to shared or single accommodation. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, it will take a long time to provide single accommodation for everyone. We hope to make a start shortly.
  Mr. Hancock: I represent many service personnel, and it is important to be clear about the point. If three service men share accommodation and one is under suspicion and a warrant is obtained to search the premises, will it apply to the space occupied by all three, or simply to the part that belongs to the person who is under suspicion? If the former is the case, what protection is afforded to the other two occupants in such circumstances?
  Dr. Moonie: So far as I am aware, the provision applies to the space of the person who is under investigation, and not to anyone else. Protection will exist to ensure that the rights of others are not infringed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  Clauses 18 and 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Clauses 20 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

  REQUIRED CUSTODIAL SENTENCES
  Question proposed, That this schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: The schedule deals with required custodial sentences from courts martial. The notion of custodial sentences without

  87
  jury trials and established civilian court standards is offensive. On Second Reading, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces:
  "Why has my hon. Friend not had a more radical look at the court martial system, particularly for serious offences? What has he got against having the equivalent of a jury trial for those serious offences, moving away from other service men considering those cases?"
  He replied:
  "It is simply because I am not a radical sort of fellow."—[Official Report, 9 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 898.]
  Clearly, a radical review did not therefore take place. However, I believe that an overall review of the operation of the system would have been preferable to the attempts to tinker with it that the Bill proposes.
  I tabled an amendment, which was not selected, to propose a committee of inquiry into the system. It suggested that civilian law standards and procedures and the Human Rights Act 1998 should form part of the inquiry. The Bill represents a missed opportunity on the court martial system. It tinkers with a fundamentally unjust system that is long past its sell-by date, and it does so without an overall perspective.
  In peacetime, a defendant from the armed forces should have the same rights, including human rights, as a defendant in a civilian court. Such defendants should have a jury trial, an independent judge, the ability to choose a defence lawyer and a public hearing. That should apply especially when custodial sentences could be imposed. Trials for civilian offences should take place in a civilian, not a military, court. Other less serious matters should be subject to internal disciplinary rules and procedures, but not disciplinary courts with legal power. They should resemble employment tribunals.
  In wartime, procedures should be subject to later civil review.
  Mr. Hancock: I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point, but will he furnish us with evidence to show that many miscarriages of justice at tribunals or courts martial have occurred and that custodial sentences have been overturned at subsequent hearings?
  Mr. Cohen: I am about to provide some evidence. When conducting research in the House of Commons Library, I found an article written by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) for the Fabian Review in March 1999, in which he said:
  "This reminds me that I acted judge and jury at a Court Martial while writing the pamphlet"—
  I shall refer to that shortly—
  "and sentenced a young soldier to life for murder. He is now perhaps the only lifer in Britain who did not receive a trial by a jury of his peers. He should be the last."
  That is evidence.
  The Fabian Society pamphlet entitled "Arms and the Man—Renewing the armed services" was written earlier. It states:
  "There can be no doubt that we need an in-house disciplinary structure; but we should now question whether it should have the force of civilian law. We should also question whether it is now appropriate that soldiers charged with very serious crimes in a
  88
  peacetime context, for which a guilty verdict will lead to imprisonment in a civilian prison, should be routinely denied a jury of their peers."
  Being "routinely denied" such a jury is unsatisfactory. People should not be sitting in jail without having a jury trial in serious cases.
  Mr. Blunt: I have watched the operation of the civilian and military justice systems. Someone is far more likely to get a fair trial under the military than the civilian system. If the principle holds for a lesser offence, why should it not hold for the most serious offences? Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there was a miscarriage of justice in the example that he gave?
  Mr. Cohen: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view. Trial by a jury of peers for the most serious offences is a fundamental tenet of British civilian law. There is also an important human rights element. People might well take their cases to European Court of Human Rights and claim that their rights had been infringed by not receiving a jury trial. We shall see what happens in that respect.
  7.30 pm
  In the pamphlet that he wrote for the Fabians, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West talked about a legal time bomb, He was really referring to other matters, but this, too, could be a legal time bomb.
  Mr. Hancock: It is important to note, when quoting a case such as the one that the hon. Gentleman has described of a service man who was tried for murder and found guilty under court martial procedures, that that service man could have been represented by civilian legal advisers, and probably was. We shall no doubt hear that that was the case. We also need to know why that case was tried under military law rather than under civilian law. Will the hon. Gentleman explain more of the background to the case?
  Mr. Cohen: The basis of my argument is that cases involving serious offences should be tried under civil law and an independent judge. There are dangers in armed forces personnel trying such cases, even if they are not associated with the defendant's regiment. That is because they share a similar ethos with other commanding officers. It is important to have independent judges and public hearings. I know that most courts martial have public hearings, but they also have the ability to sit in camera. That could represent a serious abuse of a defendant's rights.
  Mr. Blunt: I do not understand the distinction that the hon. Gentleman is drawing between serious offences and other offences. All offences in which a defendant comes before a justice system are likely to be serious if that defendant is likely to end up in prison. I am not sure, therefore, why the hon. Gentleman does not simply extend his argument to the whole of the courts martial system. Why should there be a particular cut-off point? Either the courts martial system is just or it is not. In my judgment, and that of the military as a whole, it is. The system is held in great respect and we change it at our peril. Will he pursue that point?
  Mr. Cohen: The cut-off point is when someone could go to jail for an offence. That is very serious. If it is

  89
  possible that someone could go to jail, they should have the right to a jury trial and a civilian hearing. If their alleged offence did not carry a jail sentence, it would be more akin to a disciplinary matter for an employment tribunal. That could then be dealt with under military law—not by disciplinary courts but by ordinary tribunals such as those used by employers generally.
  Mr. Blunt: I want to be absolutely clear that the hon. Gentleman is saying that the whole of the military justice system should be ended. Even a commanding officer, under summary justice procedure, has the capacity—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman convinces me that we are getting wildly off the point. The schedule is not about whether there should be courts martial, but about the sentences that should apply I would appreciate it if hon. Members brought their remarks back to that rather narrower point.
  Mr. Cohen: I chose to speak on this schedule because it is about required custodial sentences, and I do not think that the courts martial system is appropriate for cases that carry those sentences.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee how many service men and service women are currently being held in custody under the schedule?
  Mr. Cohen: Clearly the gentleman referred to in the article by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West is in jail. Perhaps it is right that he should be—it almost certainly is. However, he is in jail without having had a jury trial. That is a good question to ask the Minister: how many other people are in jail without having had a jury trial? That is the aspect of this matter that I find offensive.
  The Government responded to the case of Findlay v. the United Kingdom, which was a European Court of Human Rights judgment delivered in the late 1990s. In 1990, Lance-Sergeant Findlay, a service man serving in Northern Ireland, ran amok with a loaded pistol, threatening to kill himself and others. At a court martial in November 1991, he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, a reduction of rank and a dishonourable discharge. He appealed to the European Court, saying that various aspects of the court martial had been unfair, and that the subsequent sentencing reviews contravened article 6 of the European convention on human rights. He also stated that he had not been given a reason
  "for the level of sentence, and that subsequent post-hearing review procedures were largely administrative … On 21 January 1997 the ECHR held that the British court-martial system did breach Article 6 on the basis that it lacked independence and impartiality. The judgment stated:
  … the applicant's fears about the independence of the court martial should be regarded as objectively justified particularly in view of the nature and extent of the Convening Officer's roles, the composition of the court martial, and its ad hoc nature.
  Regarding the impartiality of the court-martial the European Court declared that:
  … the tribunal must be subjectively free from personal prejudice or bias, and must also be impartial from an objective viewpoint, that is, it must offer sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect."
  The European Court also found against the system in other respects. That was a case in which someone received a custodial sentence, which is what the schedule deals
  90
  with. That was a damaging judgment, and this part of the Bill contains the Ministry of Defence's response. I think that it is a very unsatisfactory response. Basically, it proposes applying summary proceedings against officers, which is likely to prove unsatisfactory. It also proposes abolishing naval disciplinary courts—I think that all the disciplinary courts should go—and that warrant officers should be able to serve on court martial panels. However, those warrant officers would not be able to serve on cases in which the accused person was of a higher rank. That is ridiculous, and a reflection of the hierarchical, class-ridden nature of the armed forces. That is like saying that a worker cannot sit on a jury if the defendant is a manager.
  The MOD's response also proposes that the Attorney-General can refer court martial decisions to an appeal court if he thinks that the sentence is unduly light. The Ministry claims that that is the same as in the present civil procedure. However, the big difference is that, in the present civil procedure, there would have been an original trial by jury before the sentence was passed. That would not be the case in a court martial.
  The Ministry's response also included a proposal to exclude most court martial proceedings from the possibility of a judicial review. That is a denial of a legal right.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to hang far more on this schedule than is possible within the rules of order. He is developing a more general argument that falls outside the provisions of the schedule, and I must ask him to desist.
  Mr. Cohen: I will desist, but I was trying to save the House time by not speaking to all the different amendments.
  I return to the central point of the schedule, which is that it involves custodial sentences. The final response of the Ministry was that courts martial should have the power to compel the production of evidence or attendance of witnesses. That means civilian, not military, people being subject to compulsion by a military court. That is out of order.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I know that the hon. Gentleman follows these matters carefully in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Will he explain how he proposes to make the process more democratic when the Army has differences of rank—or is that what the hon. Gentleman calls "class-ridden"? Is he proposing to abolish those differences as well?
  Mr. Cohen: I am proposing that all people, including officers, who are brought into this arrangement and who might perhaps summarily have a custodial sentence passed on them, should have the right to a jury trial in a civilian court.
  The response from the Ministry of Defence to the European Court judgment on Findlay v. the United Kingdom was feeble and defensive. It lost sight of the overall perspective. The whole courts martial system is flawed because it still does not accord with civil law in lots of respects or with civil proceedings, arrangements and standards. In peacetime, the armed forces should not have a separate court system and should not be able to

  91
  send people to jail for serious offences without jury trial. In wartime, such arrangements should be subject to civil review.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: The hon. Gentleman refers to peacetime and wartime. Will he explain what he perceives to be the difference between peacetime and wartime jurisdictions and court trials?
  Mr. Cohen: That is an obvious difference. In wartime, there is an emergency situation. People may be at the front and commanding officers have to make decisions about men who they think are in breach of the rules and regulations. That should be the case, but there should be a review in a calmer environment—for example, back in this country. There is no such emergency in peacetime, so the civilian courts could deal with those cases.
  The Bill as it applies to courts martial is a shallow response to the ECHR judgment. The procedure was rushed through with little criticism being made and we are stuck with it for five years. We are not even doing the groundwork to have it changed when we consider the next Bill, but, meanwhile, we could face a legal time bomb and perhaps even compensation claims under that ECHR ruling.
  I repeat my view of sensible reform: we should abolish the courts martial system in peacetime; all serious cases should go to a civil court and there should be a right to jury trial; there should be transparent and fair disciplinary procedures, not courts, in all other cases; and defendants should have the right to representation. In wartime, there should be a civil review after the event. That is my point of view, which I am happy to put to the Committee.
  Mr. Hancock: I am mindful of your look across the Chamber, Sir Alan. I shall bear in mind the time available.
  The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) made a case for considering over the next five years how courts martial operate and his final point was the most valid of all. He said that no groundwork is being done to address any injustices that occur. I have attended a number of courts martial in and around my constituency because my constituents have been involved, but also out of interest due to other involvements. I have seen them operate.
  I also represent, like other hon. Members, a significant number of service personnel at all levels, but I have yet to hear one complain about the procedures adopted once the process has started. Many thought that the processes that led to arrest and laying charges were deficient—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is picking up the broadest of the points made by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), which I suggested he should not make. I allowed some latitude, because he claimed that he was stringing together one or two different points that went wide of the schedule. I understand that he did that for the convenience of the Committee, but I cannot offer the same tolerance to other Members to enable them to pursue the debate on such broad terms.
  Mr. Hancock: I shall do my utmost to focus my comments on the matter before us.
  92
  There is no compelling evidence to show that the system that we are considering is a bad one, although changes will need to be made over time. The review of armed forces discipline as a whole will mature over the next three or four years and we must take into account how European legislation will interact with it, so the next time that the House discusses the issue, significant changes will undoubtedly be made to the way that the system works. I do not believe that courts martial offer a disservice to armed forces personnel, especially when custodial sentences arise from their decisions, because all defendants have the right of appeal and the right to have outside legal opinion on their side if they so choose.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Blunt: I shall abide by your injunction, Sir Alan, and refer to the detail of the schedule.
  To pick up the points made by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), he omitted to mention a matter that is pertinent to considerations under section 70 of the Army Act 1955. Section 70 takes the Act into civil procedure and, of course, there is an appeal mechanism that ends, effectively, at the Courts-Martial Appeal Court and then the House of Lords. I share the views of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and, whatever the mechanism about which the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead is concerned, the system is safe and just and there is an appeal route.
  Although the hon. Gentleman's arguments about the wider courts martial system are perfectly reasonable in terms of other European countries, the schedule should be accepted as it stands. As he suggests, the situation that he described pretty much applies in Germany, where all such offenders who commit civil offences are dealt with under the civil law, not a provision similar to the 1955 Act or the schedule.
  The schedule should stand part of the Bill precisely because of the operational experience of the British Army and the inability to differentiate between peace and war, which was displayed by the hon. Gentleman and which shows why our system is robust. I draw the Committee's attention to the example that he and the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, witnessed during a Defence Committee visit to Kosovo in November 1999.
  The right hon. Gentleman may recall the circumstances in which soldiers from a British unit serving in Kosovo some six months after the occupation by NATO forces conducted what appeared, on the face of it, to be the robbery of a store in Pristina. We do not know what happened subsequently under the justice system, but they had apparently committed a serious offence. Is the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead seriously suggesting that we should have set up a civil trial in the United Kingdom and flown the jury and everyone else out there so that they could see the premises? Should we have had proceedings to-ing and fro-ing between the UK and Kosovo? That would have been wholly inappropriate in such circumstances and the example shows that there is no neat dividing line between peace and war for our armed forces. That is why we need the schedule.
  Dr. Moonie: We think about the courts martial system very carefully whenever such Bills are considered and at other times. We are well aware that the system that we

  93
  apply to our armed forces is different from that which we apply to the civilian population, but I happen to believe that it is pretty fair and that the safeguards that we built into the Bill last year have made it still fairer. That, surely, is the object of the exercise. The truth should be discovered and discovered in a fair way. Although I fully appreciate the emotional and intellectual attachment of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) to the jury system, I cannot say that I particularly share it. The system has served us well for many years. Other systems serve other countries equally well, or, some might argue, better.
  I want to make some specific points about courts martial. They are held in public and are therefore open to public scrutiny. Defendants choose their own lawyers. An appeal against court martial findings can be made to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, which is made up of civilian judges. With regard to overseas offences, certain very serious offences committed in the United Kingdom, such as murder and rape, must be tried by a civil court, but that court cannot deal with offences committed abroad.
  One purpose of trying very serious offences committed abroad by means of court martial is to safeguard service personnel from local law, which may not be governed by the European convention. Sierra Leone provides an example of that. The schedule would bring all disciplinary offences and trials within the provisions of the convention.
  We take many considerations into account in drawing up proposals to be included in armed forces Bills. As I have said, we certainly take account of the scope for bringing court martial procedures more into line with the corresponding procedures in civil courts, without affecting the principles that apply. In this Bill, for example, we have allowed for the possibility of review of unduly lenient sentences, for costs orders, and for the possibility of bail following appeal.
  We propose those changes because they will benefit the operation of the system, and make it fairer. They have not been dreamt up in isolation; they reflect provisions that already operate in the civilian system. This is part of a long-standing policy of keeping in step with the civilian criminal justice arrangements, where it is sensible and practical to do so.
  Mr. Key: During his time in the Ministry of Defence, has the Minister had time to attend a court martial?
  Dr. Moonie: No, the Minister has not, although I have been able to review the written proceedings of several. It would be quite a pleasant way of spending an afternoon—it would certainly be informative—but so far I have not had the time.
  As for the Human Rights Act 1998, we have made many changes. We have brought procedures into line with the European convention on human rights. We have removed any apparent influence of the chain of command over the administration and conduct of courts martial. The European Court of Human Rights has recognised our actions, and, in the judgment on the Findlay case, noted the changes that we have made with satisfaction, saying that the United Kingdom authorities had made changes to the court martial system with a view to ensuring the observance of their convention commitments.
  The Bill itself has been certified by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, on the basis of legal advice, as being compatible with convention rights. That means
  94
  not just that specific proposals in the Bill are compatible, but that the three service discipline Acts that will remain in force under it are as well. Ensuring that that happens has meant checking that all our procedures are compatible with the convention. Most of them already were: after all, we signed the convention nearly 50 years ago.
  We are not complacent; we are always prepared to review legislation. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead would be very surprised if I said that I agreed with the principle that he is trying to apply, but I certainly agree with his aim, which is to make the system as compatible as possible with the civil disciplinary system, and as fair, open and transparent as possible.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Government may think that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights, but I wonder whether it has been subjected to scrutiny in connection with the charter of fundamental rights signed by the Government in Nice.
  Dr. Moonie: I do not think that that was necessary. The Bill complies with the law as we have to observe it, and it will be a better Act as a result.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Schedule 3 agreed to.
  Clauses 23 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

  COSTS AGAINST LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ETC.
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Key: Clause 27 deals with costs awarded against legal representatives. It provides that, in any proceedings, one of the courts listed may disallow, or order the legal or other representative to meet, the whole of any wasted costs. It defines "wasted costs" as costs incurred by a party
  "as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any representative or any employee of a representative".
  This is a serious issue. It is hard enough for those of us who are not lawyers to cope with detailed legislation of this kind in any event. The Select Committee considering the Bill received some interesting evidence in the form of a memorandum from Professor G. R. Rubin, who, in commenting on changes in military law, pointed out that some would argue that there was an obscure or hidden military law agenda.
  That is why I am interested in a discussion of sins of omission in relation to clause 27. Such sins may be committed by military documents, such as the various provost manuals, which have a restricted classification. They prescribe, among other things, legal procedures for the exercise of constabulary power, or whether the Army Commissioning Regulations 1999—which derive from royal prerogative, as does much military law—should continue to be classified.
  That was an interesting proposition, which led me to table a parliamentary question on 2 February asking the Secretary of State to place in the Library copies of the documents listed by Professor Rubin—the unit folder

  95
  entitled "Military Custody and Summary Dealing System", the provost manuals, the Army Commissioning Regulations 1999, the military secretary's guide to officers' confidential reports, Army form AF B9926 and the Army general and administrative instructions, volume 5, instruction No. 6.
  That seemed quite reasonable, and I had a very reasonable reply from the Minister for the Armed Forces, who said that copies would be placed in the Library.
  When the Select Committee heard evidence from the Secretary of State on 7 March, I raised the matter with him. I pointed out that by that date, more than a month after the tabling of my question, the Library had three times requested the parliamentary branch of the Ministry of Defence to put the papers in the House, and that three times the request had been refused. The Secretary of State replied to my question—it is question 1131, on page 165 of the Select Committee report—by saying, "I will." I said, "Thank you."
  In anticipation of tonight's proceedings, I returned to the Library. I asked what had happened to the manuals. On 28 March, I received a letter from the Library that told me:
  "I contacted the Parliamentary Clerk's office today and the official told me that these documents are classified. There will therefore be a delay of at least a couple of weeks while versions are approved for placing in the Library. As soon as we receive the manuals, we will contact you again. I hope that this is helpful."
  It was very helpful indeed, and I am grateful to the Library; but what a palaver. The Minister of State says yes. The parliamentary branch countermands that, and says that the documents are classified. The Secretary of State then says yes, and nothing happens, except that the Library is again refused permission.
  Someone should get a grip of the Ministry of Defence. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to achieve more than either the Minister of State or the Secretary of State, and I should be grateful if he would do so now.
  Mr. Blunt: It appears from clause 27(3)(b) that the regulations made by the Secretary of State under clause 26 can be made against prosecuting officers
  "appointed under section 83C of either of the 1955 Acts or under section 52J of the 1957 Act".
  Having seen the Army legal corps in action, I feel that the clause might prove rather expensive for the MOD. In my experience, the corps contained many inexperienced lawyers who were chucked in at the deep end. While acting as an assistant prosecuting officer, I sat alongside one when he was a prosecuting officer, and I am slightly worried that the conduct of the young captain beside me might have led me, as well as the prosecuting officer, to collect a bill under this legislation.
  The prosecution was perfectly well prepared by the regiment, and the case seemed clear-cut, as it related to someone stealing a fellow soldier's bank card—he knew the number—and emptying his account on five separate occasions, but it was conducted so badly by the prosecuting officer that, halfway through the proceedings, the defence moved no case to answer, whereupon the young captain conducting the case for the Army legal corps burst into tears and had to be taken away to another room, with a rather aggressive judge advocate taking part.
  96
  8 pm
  In such circumstances, with the case collapsing because of the incompetence of the prosecuting officer—in my experience, regrettably, not an uncommon occurrence—the defence could very properly have moved for costs. Regardless of whether the defence is funded privately or through legal aid, the prosecution could surely be liable for costs under this part of the Bill.
  If the prosecution is found liable for costs, will a bill from the Ministry Defence, which funds the prosecution, go to the legal aid budget and/or the individual? What is the position of the poor, hapless officer at regimental duty, who is not a lawyer—this is what happened to me—but is the assistant prosecuting officer?
  Mr. Hancock: If prosecution cases are not prepared properly and the officer presenting the case is incompetent, surely there should be redress and the defendant should be able to claim costs. That will surely prove an advantage to the court martial system, because people will have to be better prepared, and better able to conduct themselves, in future.
  Mr. Blunt: I agree. It is perfectly proper to expect the Army legal corps and other armed forces legal services to operate to a proper standard, but they often have difficulty in recruiting lawyers of sufficient ability to make the system fly. The system is skewed in favour of the defence because of service lawyers' limited resources. At least, that was true in my time—I am prepared to accept that things may have changed in the past dozen years. Have the consequences in terms of the cost to the Ministry been thought about? Will the Ministry have to pay the legal aid fund, or individuals funding their own defence, out of MOD funds, as it properly should do?
  Mr. Hancock: I see nothing wrong with what is being proposed. If the Ministry of Defence ends up having to pay a large sum because of the incompetence of prosecutions, so be it. That is one reason why it should get its legal services in good order. When evidence was given to the Defence Committee, of which I am proud to be a member, several questions were asked about the calibre of lawyers recruited to the armed forces and we were assured that it was no longer a problem, that young lawyers who wanted a future in the military were being recruited in sufficient numbers and that senior officers were content that they were in the process of developing sufficiently robust legal services.
  We were told that proper advice would be given to commanding officers about how courts martial or other hearings should be conducted. I am sure that that confidence was based on sound information. We were assured that sufficient resources would be put into armed forces legal services. Unless the Minister is not prepared to repeat those undertakings, I see nothing wrong with the clause, but it is a bit rich for the Ministry of Defence to suggest that it has a backstop on the compensation that will be paid if we get it wrong. It should clearly start from the premise that it is not going to prosecute anyone unless there is a good chance of success and it is totally confident that the prosecution team is sufficiently robust to present the case properly. Whether the defence is up to the job is another matter.
  Dr. Moonie: On the point made by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I have no idea what is holding matters up, but I will ensure that the logjam is broken as quickly as possible.
  The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) should accept that the Army legal services have improved considerably since his day. They provide a high standard of service. The Army prosecuting authority, which has been set up since his time, has further increased the competence with which prosecutions are conducted.
  It may seem anomalous to award costs if service officers are conducting both prosecution and defence, but the point is that that is not always the case, and in order to be equitable, whichever side causes an irresponsible increase in costs should be liable for it. That is perfectly proper. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that his point about funding is accepted.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 28 and 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 4 agreed to.
  Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

  EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION
  Mr. Key: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in clause 31, page 32, line 11, after "operation", insert—
  'except in matters relating to a serious crime or police raid;'.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 32, line 20, after "operation", insert—
  'except in matters relating to a serious crime or police raid;'.
  Mr. Key: I had better start by explaining what I mean by "serious". The matter is defined in the Supreme Court Act 1981, as amended by a practice direction from the High Court. I mean classes 1 and 2 out of the standard four classes. Class 1 offences are misprision of treason and treason felony; murder; genocide; torture, hostage taking and offences under the War Crimes Act 1991; an offence under the Official Secrets Acts; and soliciting, incitement, attempt or conspiracy to commit any of those offences. Class 2 offences are manslaughter; infanticide; child destruction; abortion; rape; sexual intercourse with a girl under 13; incest with a girl under 13; sedition; an offence under section 1 of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957; mutiny; piracy, and soliciting, incitement, attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above offences. That is what I mean by "serious".
  I am a survivor of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. As we progressed through that Bill, Ministers of the day made it clear that the Ministry of Defence police force was, on that occasion, being given proper constabulary powers. It was being given a clarity of jurisdiction, with which we all agreed. The then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), repeatedly pointed out that the sort of crimes that would be handled by the Ministry of Defence police would be of a minor nature. They would certainly not be serious crimes of the sort that I have described. Further more, they might be
  98
  investigated by the Ministry of Defence police by arrangement with the Home Office constabulary concerned. It would only be at the invitation of those Home Office police forces that the Ministry of Defence police would handle such crimes.
  It was never envisaged that the Ministry of Defence police would suffer the mission creep, as the National Union of Journalists and others have called it, that we have seen. That is in no way to denigrate the Ministry of Defence police, whom I do not think have had a fair deal over the past 15 years or more. They are a very distinguished and ancient police force, going back to the time of Samuel Pepys. This House has gradually increased the force's powers but every now and again it gets a bit out of kilter and the House addresses the issue once again. That is why we see these clauses tacked on to the Armed Forces Bill. This is quite a modest Armed Forces Bill compared with the last piece of legislation, which was a veritable Christmas tree of differing and widely disparate issues. Nevertheless, these clauses have been tacked on.
  In the Select Committee, we challenged the Ministers, the chief constable and the deputy chief constables about what had happened since that nice, simple time in 1987 when everything had seemed so clear. On question 765 on 6 February, Mr. Comben, the deputy chief constable, was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall):
  "You would agree presumably that, when it was first set up, it was envisaged that the MDP would be for minor offences?"
  Mr. Comben, to paraphrase him, said yes. He said later:
  "In a microcosm, that is what has happened to the MDP. It has got more experience; it has become more effective; it has more technical equipment and it can now investigate a range of offences that it could not have done in the early days prior to 1987. That has happened in all policing, and thank goodness it has."
  That is fine, but once again the Ministry of Defence police have got ahead of themselves. That is why I will be arguing that it may have been inappropriate for these clauses to be tagged on to this Bill.
  The outgoing chief constable said in his address to the Defence Police Federation national conference at the end of last year that it was all well and good having this recognition, but that it counted for absolutely nothing if the police force was not recognised by the customer. He said that those officers must be seen to be delivering a top quality service, no matter what that service might be. He referred to a number of CID cases. He reported that the CID of the MDP had investigated 30 rape cases—the previous year the figure had been 16.
  We heard a lot of evidence in the course of the special Select Committee, not just about rape but murder. There was genuine concern among the Home Office constabulary forces, and genuine worry on the part of the Police Federation of Home Office constabularies at this mission creep.
  There was a stark difference in the evidence of the deputy chief constable of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland who addressed us and the chief constable of Suffolk who addressed us on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That struck members of the special Select Committee quite forcefully.

  99
  8.15 pm
  I am trying to clarify, by these amendments, just how far we think that the Ministry of Defence police should be going. It matters to the clients and the public that they know what a Ministry of Defence policeman is. He is in a police uniform; we have been reassured that he or she has superb training, and there is no doubt that they have to meet the same targets as the Home Office police. However, it is important that as the Ministry of Defence police evolve—for evolve they will—we should be clear about what they are seeking to do.
  From the Bill's Second Reading onwards, we have been assured that the Ministry of Defence police will operate outside the wire only in a way that will be approved by the chief constable of the local Home Office constabulary. I say "approved by" because that might happen in two ways. It can happen either by the invitation of the chief constable or because of a standing agreement at a high level—a phrase that has been often used during the Bill's passage—between the Ministry of Defence police chief constable and the chief constable of the local force. We will come back to those protocols later.
  It is very important to clarify what is meant. That is why these straightforward amendments would insert the words:
  "except in matters relating to a serious crime or police raid".
  In that way, everybody knows exactly what is happening. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively and reassure us that this is not happening simply by accident but that there is a deliberate policy behind it.
  Mr. Keetch: This is the crux of the Bill. As the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has said, the special Select Committee spent a great deal of time discussing it. I am delighted to see the Chairman and other members of the Select Committee here tonight.
  The concern that we have expressed on a number of occasions is that there has been, as the hon. Member for Salisbury said, a degree of mission creep in what the MDP have been doing. We have heard conclusive evidence from journalists, from Tony Geraghty and Gill Linscott, of previous actions that the MDP have already undertaken. We have heard of concern about the MDP's existing powers. Therefore, if we are to accept that there should be an extension of the MDP's jurisdiction, the House should be absolutely sure that the limitations placed upon it are right.
  I support what the hon. Member for Salisbury said about the crimes that the MDP will be investigating. In our Committee, the Minister made it clear that he did not believe that the MDP should investigate murder, rape, attempted murder, attempted rape, and so on. He believed that there should be a way in which such offences should automatically be offered to the local county constabulary for it to investigate. I should be interested to hear whether he says that now and how he suggests that that should be done.
  I should also be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the report of the Armed Forces Bill Committee. We said:
  "We believe that there is a case for giving MDP officers greater powers".
  We must remember that these officers are dressed like civilian police. If they are going about their duty and they see a crime being committed, of course they should
  100
  intervene and come to the support of the civil powers. They will also want to be involved in assisting at floods and other such incidents. However, we were right to say in the Committee:
  "we would be completely opposed to the MDP actively seeking to increase its involvement in general policing duties which are the proper responsibility of local police forces."
  There has been a consistent train of thought, throughout the evidence that was taken, that the MDP are seeking to extend their powers because they want to justify their existence. Indeed, when we were in Cyprus, members of the joint Cyprus military police force voiced their concern that the MDP somehow wanted to extend their powers on to their turf. This is the key point of the Bill.
  Mr. Hancock: I am sure that the whole House is interested to hear that there is a turf war between MOD police and other police forces. However, that is not the important point. My hon. Friend suggests that the Select Committee that considered the Bill wanted to give more powers to the MOD police, but he did not say what those powers are. Most of the powers that he mentioned are already available to them. I should like to know what powers he would like to give them.
  Mr. Keetch: The Committee did not suggest that the MDP should be given more powers. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend has read our report and that he will be aware not only of our concerns about their current powers, but of the way in which they should be held to account—although I am sure that we shall deal with that matter later. In this debate, however, the Minister must tell the House which MDP powers will be extended by the Bill. Additionally, which crimes that the MDP may want to investigate will be transferred to local police forces? As the hon. Member for Salisbury rightly said, those issues are the crux of the Bill.
  Mr. Bruce George: My colleague the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned that he could be considered as an old-timer because he served on the Committee that considered the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. I also served on that Committee, but it is a long time since that Committee reported and the law was subsequently changed. I think that it would be ludicrous to say that legislation that the House passed in 1987 has to be operational today.
  I have a good connection—not a financial one—with the Ministry of Defence police, and I have an even closer connection—again, not a financial one—with the Defence Police Federation. I first took an interest in the MOD police when, quite accidentally, the Defence Committee ambushed the MOD and the MOD police in an inquiry that we conducted on physical security at military installations. I have followed the MOD police ever since.
  In that time, I have seen much criticism of the MOD police, ranging from genuine criticism to truly paranoid comments. A tendency to make the latter type of comment is very strong in the media. Quite naturally, anyone whose collar has been held by an MOD policeman—and there are quite a few such people—feels very irritated by the MOD police, especially if, as in Tony Geraghty's case, they did not proceed with the matter.
  There is nothing unique about a police force messing up big time or small time. I come from the west midlands, where, historically, our police force has failed to arrest

  101
  the right people. Regrettably, in the past, it has also had a reputation for being less than scrupulous in adhering to the law of the land and the principles of policing. However, although our police force has faced enormous criticism for screwing up cases, no one has said that its powers should be changed. In the 1970s, and post-Lawrence, the Metropolitan police have also been thought to have failed in many ways. However, no one is suggesting that their powers should be curtailed to punish them for those failures.
  As I said, some people are paranoid in addressing the issue. Conversely, some people want to chip away at the margins of the issue. My good friend the hon. Member for Salisbury falls into the latter camp. He is not quite certain; he is influenced equally by the MOD police who abound in his constituency and by the Home Department police forces. His situation is symbolised by the regimental cap badge showing that the regiment faces both ways. I cannot remember which regiment that is—
  Mr. Blunt: It is the Gloucesters.
  Mr. George: Yes. I think that the Gloucesters should give the hon. Member for Salisbury one of their cap badges and make him an honorary member.
  The MOD police have evolved. When the Committee conducted its inquiry into the matter 13 years ago, and when I did the same 20 years ago, it had not been long since the MOD police had had to deal with the 1971 reforms, and some of the MOD-plod image remained. However, very unfairly, that image has persisted. The MOD police officers are a very professional force. ACPO and individual coppers are very ambivalent towards them, and hon. Members are ambivalent or hostile towards them. The media are either very unhappy or very angry with them. All that undermines the efficacy of the MOD police.
  I think that the time has come to expand the MOD police's range of powers. However, I was not a member of the Select Committee considering the Bill—although, unlike the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), I was not kept off the Committee. It seems to me that the Opposition kept him off that Committee. The Government did not keep me off the Committee; I did not volunteer to serve on it. However, I gave evidence to it, partly because Committee members had forgiven me for being so obstreperous to them a few weeks earlier.
  I also certainly did not get rid of the hon. Member for Reigate from the Defence Committee. I think that that was a decision by the Opposition rather than by my Committee. Therefore, I do not want him to become paranoid. He is not a member of the Defence Committee, but is considering very important issues such as canals, walking in cities and cemeteries. I am sure, however, that he likes that much less than serving on the Defence Committee.
  Mr. Blunt: I was replaced on the Defence Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who is extremely experienced on these matters, and I am sure that the Committee has done extremely well, in my absence, with his assistance. I fear that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) has forgotten that, during the Second Reading debate on this Bill, I asked him to sign my manuscript amendment nominating
  102
  me to the Standing Committee considering the Bill. As the Government had nominated two Ministers and a Whip to the Committee, the Opposition nominated two shadow Ministers and a Whip, leaving no place for an Opposition Back Bencher on the Committee.
  Mr. George: As I had caused havoc by moving my own manuscript amendment, I was not in a strong position to endorse someone else's.
  The Bill seeks slightly to extend the powers of the MOD police. The change is not earth-shattering, but recognises the changes in the professionalism of the MOD police and the environment in which they work. Their numbers have declined and they are now more mobile. They do less static guarding. The world of policing also has changed around them—with greater involvement by the private security industry, the MOD guard service, the military provost guard service and the growth of List "X" companies.
  The MOD police have also undergone the changes occasioned by the 1987 Act. Additionally, there is a new range of threats to counter, including fraud, terrorism and environmental offences. They are now also a police agency. I think that the time has come for them to have a modest increase in their powers.
  In 13 years from now—the hon. Member for Salisbury may still an hon. Member, but I doubt that I shall be—the House may seek further to extend the MOD police's powers. However, hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot quietly say, "The MOD police are still MOD plods. They are not really up to the competence of some of the mainstream police forces", while criticising fairly modest proposals to increase their powers. Such criticisms are voiced despite the fact that they are attempting to become more professional and help out Home Department police forces in certain circumstances. Committee members were given sufficient evidence to justify why the MOD police deserve to have a marginal increase in their powers.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I had no intention of intervening during this debate, but as one of my constituents is currently dying of cancer because the Ministry of Defence police grossly exceeded their powers—and have admitted doing so—when they raided his office and, in effect, by their act rendered him bankrupt, I feel rather dismayed. The name of my constituent is Mr. Crawley of Chesswood Floors.
  Mr. George: I am desperately sorry. However, just because there is a posse of murderers in south London and the Metropolitan police did not use their powers and were proved to be incompetent, that does not mean that we get really angry with them. We cannot isolate a few cases and say that just because people fouled up in those, they should be penalised by being stuck with the powers that they had in 1987.
  The world is changing. The world of policing is changing. If the Defence Committee had survived for another 12 months, we should have conducted a major inquiry into policing and security in the Ministry of Defence to show those aspects that should and should not interlock, and where powers, competence and training should evolve further.

  103
  In conclusion, the MOD police have definitely improved. They want a little more encouragement. Hon. Members shuffle around and issue statements on the one hand proclaiming how much they adore the MOD police while on the other saying, in effect, that they are not up to handling the rather limited changes to their powers that any reasonable person should support. Those hon. Members are saying to the MOD police, in effect, "You're not up to it. You should be stuck with the powers you had in 1987. You should not have evolved. You're a second-class police force. You are not a professional police force and you should stay that way."
  That would send the wrong message. I hope that the Minister will send members of the MOD police in Salisbury, Wiltshire and Herefordshire copies of the speeches and check whether they had consulted hon. Members as to whether those powers should remain ossified or should evolve.
  Mr. Blunt: I am tempted to follow the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) down the track on the merits of the MOD police in toto, but that course might be better left until the debate on clause stand part. I am grateful to you, Mrs. Heal, for your indication in that respect. I shall address myself to amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and will try to catch your eye during clause stand part to deal with some of his points.
  To put the matter in perspective, I share some of the concerns expressed about the MOD police. However, I note that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends provides that the MOD police can go to the assistance of other police forces
  "except in matters relating to a serious crime or police raid."
  I do not share the concerns of my hon. Friends on that matter because if such an action takes place at the request of another police force, which wants the assistance of the MOD police, something as specific as a police raid is exactly when the MOD police might be required to supply numbers, under the direction of the other police force.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) replies to the debate, I should be grateful if he could explain that point. Perhaps I have misunderstood the effect of the amendments. Although I have concerns about the MOD police, it seems to me that the effect of the amendments would be that the MOD police could not operate at the request of other forces—presumably under their direction. I look forward to the remarks of my hon. Friend and the Minister.
  Mr. Hancock: The Armed Forces Bill Committee report contains some interesting comments. Paragraph 39 refers to the extension of powers when the MOD police
  "are attempting to deal with emergency situations which they come across in fulfilling their normal duties. However, we would be completely opposed to the MDP actively seeking to increase its involvement in general policing duties which are the proper responsibility of local police forces."
  There is a slight contradiction; the Bill's explanatory notes point out that MOD officers now have greater contact with the public than before. They are far more mobile and may run into various incidents on the way to and from different establishments.
  104
  In the greater Portsmouth area, between a dozen and 20 establishments are serviced by the MOD police either full time or in a visiting capacity by a mobile unit. Those police officers move extensively around our part of south Hampshire. For example, Whale island, which has an MOD police presence, is close to the ferry port. In the past, several legal, peaceful demonstrations against the transport and export of live animals through our ferry port have entailed the involvement of the civil police, and occasionally the roads in and around the ferry port, including the access road to Whale island, have been blocked. Perhaps the extension would mean that the MOD police would have the right to be involved in such demonstrations, but they are very difficult matters for them to become involved in.
  Likewise, MOD police moving from one establishment in the south of Portsmouth to another at the eastern end of Portsmouth would travel along the seafront. On Friday or Saturday nights, it would not be uncommon to see several police vehicles parked opposite South Parade pier in Portsmouth, and probably at least one patrol wagon from the naval provost. If a significant incident were to occur outside one of the clubs on another part of the seafront while an MOD police patrol was passing, the MOD police might deem it their responsibility to intervene and stop a fight or an affray.
  I should be interested to know whether the Minister thinks that the extension would give the MOD police the right to take part in preventing such a disturbance from gathering strength, and whether they would have proper protection under the law and in their job descriptions to allow them to act as policemen. Is it not important that, where a heavy concentration of MOD police is found, the civilian population should be made fully aware of what the extension of MOD police rights involves? For example, people should know when MOD policemen have the right to follow them to their homes and to take action inside or outside their homes, once having seen them commit an offence.
  I am full of admiration for the MOD police. I was particularly inspired by their conduct when a young MOD constable at the main gate of Portsmouth dockyard made a very senior Royal Marine general very angry by making him comply with the regulations in operation for other staff going in and out of the naval base. The MOD police stuck to their line, and I am glad that they were supported, but that very disgruntled senior general in the Royal Marines retired from the service, for ever carrying a grudge against the MOD police. Anyone who wants to insist that a general toe the same line as everyone else has my support, and their willingness to stand in the front line and regularly confront such situations involves a pretty worthwhile job—ensuring that rank carries no sway with the police.
  As the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said, the MOD police have been heavily criticised in the past, sometimes cynically and for motives not wholly germane to the argument being pursued at the time. I should like to think that the House will be fair to the MOD police. I am not against their powers being extended, but what those extensions involve, when they can be brought into operation, and what rights the civilian population have if they are confronted by an MOD policemen, alone or with another officer, must all be made clear. It will be no good if the powers are extended but the bulk of the civilian population are totally ignorant of their rights.

  105
  Few people who speed on the motorways in and around south Hampshire would slow down when they saw an MOD police car behind them. The implication is that the MOD police might think it their duty to pull those people over and at least caution them, but will they have the power to do so? When did the Select Committee think that the emergency would arise in which the MOD police could exercise their powers along the same lines as the civilian police? I can guess what those circumstances might be, but I should be interested if the Minister or the Chairman of the Select Committee explained what the Committee was thinking when it included that in its report.
  I hope nevertheless that the House will support the line pursued in the Bill and extend the powers of the MOD police.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I rise to support much of what the hon. Member for Portsmouth. South (Mr. Hancock) said. In quoting the Committee's conclusions, he probably reflected what the bulk of the population feel about the relationship between the MOD police and our own Home Office and county constabularies. Clearly, if MOD police officers come across an incident while travelling between bases, it is entirely proper that they should be able to assist other police officers in trying to prey ant crime. None of us would object to that.
  There is concern that what the clause proposes is, to a large extent, open-ended. My hon. Friends have sought to table amendments to seek some limitation on the role of the MOD police. The public would not accept the MOD police being increasingly brought in, as a matter of routine, to support Home Office police forces, which we know are overstretched; numbers are clown by 2,500 since the Conservatives left office in 1997. We are concerned that local constabularies might be encouraged to resort to MOD police forces to make up for their lack of numbers.
  The evidence taken on 6 February by the Committee included a letter from the chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers general policing committee to the police resource unit of the Home Office. It said:
  "We have some sympathy with their officers who come across serious incidents and we believe that they should be acting as constables when they choose to get involved in dealing with such incidents. We would point out, however, that many more mobile patrols seem to be undertaken by the MDP officers and in doing so we would be determined to make sure that the officers were not leaving their bases and patrolling in order to find incidents to attend."
  In other words, there was concern that officers should not seek to exercise their newly confirmed responsibilities and powers by seeking out incidents beyond the wire and outside the base where their principal responsibility lies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) helpfully drew my attention to question 438 in the evidence taken on 25 January, in which he asked a police officer, Mr. Tony Comben:
  "Can you explain a little more about what these standing arrangements are going to be and whether it will mean that the Ministry of Defence police will be patrolling garrison towns, civilian or not—what does it all mean?"
  Given the behaviour of the Welsh Guards in Aldershot at the moment, we could do with whatever resources we could get to curtail some of their excessive enthusiasms: resulting, perhaps, from the absence of training facilities as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic. Clearly, many of those soldiers are getting frustrated because they are unable to go out on exercises.
  106
  Mr. Comben replied that the proposal would allow someone at a senior level to say:
  "Okay for the next three months within a defined period where we have some notification of the threat your officers can do this part of the patrol outside and we in the Home Office will do some other part of the operation."
  That suggests that what is being proposed here is more than the MOD police assisting, on an ad hoc basis, when they see a crime being committed, requiring powers under the Bill to enable them to act in the role of constables. It is, rather, a much more formalised arrangement, which is one reason we have reservations.
  8.45 pm
  Dr. Moonie: This has been a wide-ranging debate and many views have been expressed.
  Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would not remove the MDP's basic jurisdiction—for example, on defence land—to deal with serious crime, but they would stop the MDP giving assistance to a local police force in a serious case or on a police raid, as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) helpfully—at least in some senses—mentioned. For example, a local force may want help simply to carry out an arrest for a serious offence; under the amendments, the MDP would be unable to give that assistance. The amendments refer to those parts of clause 31 that specifically enable police officers or forces other than the Ministry of Defence police to call on MDP officers for assistance. The amendments would limit the circumstances in which an MDP officer could provide such assistance.
  By way of background, I should explain that the provisions in the Bill that would be affected by the amendments substantially restate the position in section 2(2)(d) of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. Where clause 31 differs is in the removal of the geographical limitation in the existing legislation that relates to the vicinity of defence property. Clause 31 also includes the British Transport police and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabularies, as well as local police forces, among the forces whose officers may call on MDP officers for assistance.
  In one respect, the new power is more restrictive than the old one, in that its operation is specifically limited to a particular incident, investigation or operation, whereas the old power was more generally drawn. Except for its geographical limitation—the limitation to the vicinity of defence land—the present provision has worked very well in practice and I see no reason to provide additional conditions. It is to be borne in mind that the initiation of requests for assistance under the provision rests exclusively with the officer of a police force other than the MDP. I hope that the Committee would have confidence in such officers being able to act sensibly in calling for MDP assistance.
  Implicit in the amendments—I accept that it was not intended, but this construction can be put on them—is the suggestion that MDP officers are not competent to be involved in major operations. In fact, MDP officers have training similar to Home Department police officers', so there is no need to limit artificially MDP officers' involvement in particular classes of case if, in the opinion of a Home Department officer, that is necessary.
  In summary, we consider the limitation proposed in the amendments inappropriate both because of the constraints that they intentionally impose on the ability of MDP

  107
  officers to provide assistance when it is needed and because of the erroneous premise that the latter are not competent to assist in the circumstances mentioned in the amendments.
  Mr. Hancock: Can the Minister clarify for the House what rank of civilian officer can request intervention?
  Mr. Key: It has never been stated.
  Mr. Hancock: I think that the House is therefore entitled to be told what rank of officer can request intervention: constable or inspector?
  Dr. Moonie: It is, in fact, any rank, because the provisions may be applied in an emergency. I think that we would all agree that it would not be proper to expect a Home Department police force to go up through the chain of command to find someone of sufficient standing.
  I shall now deal with some of the other points that were made. A very limited extension has been made to allow MDP officers to respond in an emergency to the crimes of violence or events involving the risk of injury or loss of life that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. When an MDP officer is en route from one part of the MOD's jurisdiction to another and comes upon an offence that is being committed that clearly involves a risk to life or serious injury, he has the power to intervene as a policeman, as opposed to as a member of the public.
  I can only thank the hon. Member for Reigate for his very sensible comment. As for the incidents mentioned by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), we can act only if someone cannot get help from the local police—we cannot cruise around hopefully, looking for violent emergencies. I am well aware of the problems that he is experiencing in his constituency and hopeful that we have in hand ways in which to deal with them.
  Mr. Key: We are running out of time and the Minister has made his case well. My intention was to clarify what was meant to be going on, and we have been around the course; so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 32, line 13, after "privileges", insert—
  ', and be subject to the code of conduct and disciplinary procedures,'.
  The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
  No. 5, in page 32, line 22, after first "privileges", insert—
  ', and be subject to the code of conduct and disciplinary procedures,'.
  No. 6, in page 32, line 45, at end insert—
  '(3E) The Secretary of State shall be liable in respect of torts committed by a member of a police force engaged on relevant service within section 2, subsection (2), paragraph (d) to subsection 3B(b) inclusive; in the performance or purported performance of his functions, in like manner as a master is liable in respect of torts
  108
  committed by his servants in the course of their employment and shall in respect of any such tort be treated for all purposes as a joint tortfeasor.'.
  No. 7, in clause 37, page 38, line 37, at end add—'Functions of inspectors of constabulary—
  '(5) Protocols between the Ministry of Defence Police, Home Office Police Forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and Police Forces Scotland, shall be laid before Parliament.'.
  Mr. Davies: The Minister was kind enough to say that our last debate was wide ranging; indeed it was. I hope that he will agree that it was also serious and constructive. He cannot claim that there has been any element of filibustering or time wasting. Therefore, by his own statement, he has condemned the decision of his party managers to force us into a three-hour debate. Parliament being gagged in such a manner means that we are less than half way through the groups of amendments selected for debate and we have only 40 minutes to go. What is happening this evening is monstrous and the remarks that I made on the programme motion were, if anything, understated.
  It is not the Opposition's view that Ministry of Defence police are professionally incompetent in some way—far from it. We shall certainly not engage in the sort of MOD police bashing that we heard from the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. On the contrary, we believe that there is a good case for extending the powers of the MOD police—
  Mr. Keetch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: No, I shall not. If the hon. Gentleman does not like my not giving way, let me point out that my reason for not doing so is that there is no time, and that the reason that there is no time is that his allies in the Labour party have imposed a disgraceful programme motion on the Committee. If he wants to complain, he should complain to his friends in the Labour party. Given the disgraceful way in which the House has been treated, I do not intend to take interventions either from new Labour Members or from their Liberal allies.
  We believe that it is sensible to extend the powers of the MOD police. We do not want an MOD policeman to be unable to intervene in an emergency when he is passing. We want MOD police to be able to support the civilian police and to add to police resources in the local community when required to do so. In the Select Committee, I suggested that it would be sensible to give MOD police explicit training to prepare them for overseas police operations—Petersberg-type operations, such as the one being undertaken in Kosovo.
  We do not in any way oppose that extension of powers. However, amendments Nos. 4 to 6 reflect our belief that it should be accompanied by an extension of the disciplines, checks, balances, protections and duties that would apply to civilian policemen in similar circumstances. We want to maintain the balance and to ensure that pari passu with the extension of powers goes the extension of protections. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 would bring Ministry of Defence police under the Police Act 1996 and make them subject to the Police Complaints Authority, just like the civilian officers with whom they would be working in the circumstances envisaged under the clause.

  109
  That is important because there is currently great doubt about whether Ministry of Defence police are subject to the PCA. Let me quote the exchange that took place between the Secretary of State for Defence and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on 7 March in the Select Committee. My hon. Friend asked:
  "Does the MDP come under the Police Complaints Authority?"
  The Secretary of State replied, "Yes." When my hon. Friend asked, "Under the full jurisdiction?", the Secretary of State replied, "Yes." One cannot be much clearer than that.
  It is a matter of considerable concern to the Opposition—and ought to be to the public—that recently, well after 7 March, we received an e-mail from a senior serving officer in the MOD police, who said:
  "police officers in the UK act under a code of conduct made by statutory instrument in 1999. The procedures contained therein derive from the Police Act 1996 and make provision for investigation and disciplinary procedures which propose to protect both the interests of the public AND the officers"—
  meaning the civil police. The officer continued:
  "Conversely, MDP officers are currently investigated under an internal MOD procedure, inappropriately named the Ministry of Defence Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 … The stated regulations have no basis in law.
  Previous statements to Parliament over the past few years, (made indirectly from MDP) have been equally as misleading as the response given to your Select Committee. Such responses have stated that the current discipline regulations 'mirror those of the home department police forces.' This is misleading at the least and at the worst blatantly untrue.
  MDP officers are neither subject to civil service disciplinary procedures or regulations derived from the Police Act 1996.
  I feel that it may be misleading to say that complaints against MDP officers are dealt with in exactly the same way as other police forces."
  The officer continues:
  "In the interim, MDP continue to investigate police officers, make unlawful police inquiries into their private lives, form awards and hearings and award punishments etc. all without any basis in law whatsoever."
  That is a serious charge, as the Committee will appreciate. In effect, the statements from the Defence Secretary that the MDP are simply subject to the full jurisdiction of the Police Complaints Authority under the 1996 Act are simply not correct. Our suspicions are strengthened by the fact that a written answer given to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 22 March, two weeks after the Secretary of State's clear and apparently unambiguous assurance to the Committee, is much less clear. It is plain that the Government are trying to weasel out of the Secretary of State's clear statement. In his written answer of 22 March, the Minister for the Armed Forces states:
  "The Ministry of Defence police complaints regulations are comparable to those of the Home Department police forces."—[Official Report, 22 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 299W.]
  "Comparable" does not mean "exactly the same", so we need to get to the bottom of the matter, and we probably do not have time to do that properly. It may well be that the Government, having imposed the programme motion on the Committee, will be able to use lack of time as an excuse for not giving adequate answers on that important matter. A whole area of considerable doubt and proper concern about contradictions in what the Government have told us will never be clarified and Parliament will not be able to do its job.
  110
  No doubt you selected Amendment No. 6, Mrs. Heal, because it, too, enshrines the principle that the same kind of protection that applies to civil police should be extended to Ministry of Defence police when they serve or act alongside civil police. The amendment deals with responsibility for torts and its purpose is simple. At present, individual constabularies are responsible for the deeds or misdeeds of their officers. If officers serve outside their own constabularies and alongside other police forces, under section 97 of the Police Act 1996, the Secretary of State is directly responsible for any damage that they may cause or any tort suit that may be made against them. We are simply extending that principle to the MOD police when deployed in equivalent circumstances alongside other police forces. Indeed, the amendment follows exactly the text of the equivalent passage in section 97 of the 1996 Act. The great problem is that we do not understand the true position, because the Government are speaking with forked tongue again.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State is now back in his place, because on 7 March, speaking about the accountability of the Ministry of Defence police, he told the Select Committee:
  "the Ministry of Defence Police are accountable through me to Parliament".
  That is recorded in paragraph 1115, on page 161 of volume II of the Committee's report. It sounds absolutely splendid, but the evidence that we heard directly from the deputy chief constable of the MOD police, Mr. Comben, was not quite in line with it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) asked Mr. Comben:
  "What I am now seeking to establish is the independence of the Ministry of Defence Police. My colleague, Mr. Davies, went through this and we established that you are accountable to the Secretary of State. This is very important because if the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police is completely operationally independent. I think you suggested that he would not get instructions from anybody, he would not even take instructions from the Secretary of State or officials in the Ministry of Defence, is that correct?"
  Mr. Comben responded:
  "That is absolutely so."
  In other words, Mr. Comben was saying that the Secretary of State could not give instructions to the Ministry of Defence police.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I will give way, if I can finish my quotations first. Then the Secretary of State may be able to answer my question.
  In a written answer to the hon. Member for Richmond Park on 3 November 1999, the Minister for the Armed Forces used the phrase:
  "we instructed the Ministry of Defence Police to investigate the matter."—[Official Report, 3 November 1999; Vol. 337. c. 214W.]
  There is a clear contradiction here. The Secretary of State says that the MOD police are directly accountable to him, and a parliamentary answer refers to instructions given by the Secretary of State to the MOD police, but the deputy chief constable of the MOD police says that he would not accept instructions from the Secretary of State. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has returned to the Chamber, because he may be able to resolve this urgent matter.
  9 pm
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman does not understand something fairly fundamental about the way in which all police forces in the United Kingdom operate. They are accountable to Parliament—in the case of the Ministry of Defence police, to the Secretary of State for Defence, and in the case of most other police forces, to the Home Secretary. Their being accountable means that Members of Parliament can approach the relevant Secretary of State with whatever concerns they may have about the problems that arise.
  That is how most Ministers are accountable for the activities of those in their Departments. That is what accountability means, as opposed to operational independence—I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks up the word "accountability" in a dictionary. Operational independence is a basic principle governing the way in which police forces operate throughout the country. They do not take direct instructions on how to deal with matters. He really should not come to the Dispatch Box unless he understands those basic concepts properly.
  Mr. Davies: It is the Secretary of State who does not understand what is going on—at least, that is the most charitable interpretation that one can make. I have just read out a parliamentary answer from his own Department which refers to instructions, so in practice the Secretary of State does instruct the MOD police to investigate matters and to do other things. That is in absolute contradiction of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said at the Dispatch Box, and of what the deputy chief constable told the Select Committee.
  The Secretary of State owes the House an explanation of why, on 3 November 1999, his Department gave what he is now telling us was a fraudulent answer, referring to his having given the MOD police instructions that he now tells the House he is not in a position to give. Far from resolving the matter and explaining the contradiction, the Secretary of State has deepened our suspicions and made it plain that the Government have not been entirely frank with the House over this important matter.
  The final amendment in the group, amendment No. 7, deals with protocols. That is also an important matter, precisely because no one knows what is going on. The Government continue to put up a smokescreen, behind which they can do what they want in the MOD and with the MOD police.
  Under the previous Government, it was plain what the limitations were on the activities of the MOD police, in terms of the kind of criminal case that they would take up. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) was the relevant Minister, he stated on 27 January 1987:
  "The Ministry of Defence police would hand over responsibility for such crimes"—
  that is, serious crimes—
  "at once. If the case involved murder, rape or any such thing there would be no question and the investigation of such crime would be handed, straight away, to the Home Department forces".—[Official Report, 27 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 279.]
  That is clear. However, as the proceedings of the Committee reveal, the picture now is very different.
  112
  The latest annual report of the Ministry of Defence police states:
  "An increasing number of offences of rape and other serious offences against the person are being investigated by the Force; during the past year 30 allegations of rape have been investigated compared to 16 in the previous year. Again this is not necessarily solely an increase in crime, but—
  I emphasise this point—
  "more a reflection of offences being investigated by the MDP rather than by other police forces."
  Once again, we see the Government's characteristic subterfuge and reluctance to tell Parliament what is going on. We have an extension of the powers of the MOD police, contrary to previous explicit ministerial assurances and with no intervening ministerial explanation to make it clear what the position is.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge very reasonably asked Mr. Comben:
  "Why do you think the MDP should be investigating more offences of rape now than they were a couple of years ago?".
  Mr. Comben responded:
  "Because of the protocols that we agreed with the Home Department forces".
  In order to know what is going on, we must know what is in the protocols; hence the importance of the amendment.
  One might think that the Government would have no problem with that. Perhaps I was too optimistic about the way in which the Government conduct their business—I expected that the Bill would contain relevant provision. During the Committee proceedings, I received an assurance from the Secretary of State that he had no objection to publishing the protocols. At paragraph 1107 I asked:
  "If the solution, or part of the solution, is these protocols which you have mentioned, would you be prepared, in order to make the matter absolutely clear, so that the public can see what these lines of demarcation are, to publish the relevant protocols?"
  The Secretary of State replied:
  "I see no difficulty about that at all."
  Perhaps he thought that he could brush me off and I would forget about the matter.
  There is no reference in the Bill to the obligation to publish the protocols, so we have introduced that through our amendment. Because we are dealing with an extremely slippery and tricky Government, we require the protocols to be laid before the House. They will then be announced in the relevant documentation and will be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office. Nothing less will suffice. It is crucial that we see those protocols, otherwise Parliament will never have a clear idea of what is going on.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: It was not my intention to contribute to this part of the debate, but my attention has been attracted to amendment No. 6, to which the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) spoke briefly. The purpose of the amendment appears to be to create a responsibility on the part of the Secretary of State to be vicariously responsible and also to be regarded as jointly responsible. There is a legal distinction between vicarious and joint liability, but amendment No. 6 does not appear to recognise that.
  In these days of devolution, we must have regard to a further point. I understand this to be a United Kingdom Bill that should, if it completes all the necessary stages of

  113
  its passage, become a United Kingdom statute. However, amendment No. 6 deals only with England and Wales and not with Scotland, which has the principle not of tort, but of delict. In so far as the amendment seeks to make clear the responsibility of the Secretary of State, it seems to me that it has confused vicarious liability with joint liability, or at least that it has sought to combine them. It has, therefore, offered a remedy for circumstances south of the border, but not north of it. It would be extraordinary if the House were to agree to an amendment that created liabilities for the Secretary of State south of the Tweed, but allowed him to escape scot free—no pun intended—north of the border.
  Mr. John McDonnell: Will my hon. Friend the Minister clarify the provision that amendment No. 4 seeks to change? It is important for hon. Members whose constituencies contain military establishments to be clear about the process for complaints by members of the public about the behaviour of an MOD police officer who has been acting under the powers conferred by the clause. Can the public complain to the Police Complaints Authority? If not, to which body will they have a right to complain? If there are procedures for complaints and appeals that might result in disciplinary action regarding the actions of Metropolitan police officers, for example, it would be inappropriate if there were no similar procedures for complaint against MOD officers acting at the request of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Will my hon. Friend clarify that point?
  Dr. Moonie: On time-wasting, I point out to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that we wasted an hour of the time allocated to this Bill when we dealt with the programme motion. We have also listened to his speech for 20 minutes. I suspect that if both had been a little shorter, we might have had time to cover the rest of the important points with which we were hoping to deal, instead of listening to the self-indulgence of Opposition Members.
  Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 deal with provisions that enable police officers from forces other than the MOD police to call on MDP officers for assistance. The provisions in question confer on MDP officers in such circumstances the powers and privileges that are held by the officer who is being assisted. The amendments are intended to subject the MDP officer to the same code of conduct and disciplinary procedures as those to which the other police officer is subject. That would mean that MDP officers were subject to the disciplinary procedures of another force.
  We believe that such provision is unnecessary. There are currently differences between the disciplinary procedures of the MOD police and those of other forces. That is not at all desirable. Accordingly, schedule 5—I refer in particular to paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of that schedule—is drafted expressly to allow MDP disciplinary procedures to be brought fully into line with those that have existed in Home Department police forces since 1 April 1999. Expectations about the conduct of MDP officers are no less than those that apply to Home Department officers. Indeed, MDP officers are trained to the same syllabus and operate within the same legal framework. Complaints against them are handled
  114
  similarly and supervised by the Police Complaints Authority. The amendments would add nothing to that process.
  On amendment No. 6, I do not intend to get into an argument with any of the legal experts on both sides of the House about the difference between tort and delict. My experience of tort is limited to that which has an "e" on the end.
  9.15 pm
  Amendment No. 6 intends to make the Secretary of State liable for torts that Ministry of Defence police officers commit, in the same way as, in the quaint terminology of the law,
  "a master is liable in respect of torts committed by his servants."
  In plain language, the Secretary of State would be as liable as if he were the employer of the Ministry of Defence officers. As they are civil servants, the Secretary of State is already liable for their wrongdoing, in the same way and in the same circumstances as an employer.
  The amendment appears to be based on a provision of the Police Act 1997. It makes the Home Secretary liable for the actions of police officers who are not part of a Department when they are working for a Department or, for example, on temporary service for the Home Secretary.
  Perhaps there is some misunderstanding about responsibility for Ministry of Defence police. However, I assure the Committee that the Secretary of State, like any employer, is already legally responsible for their actions. The amendment is therefore unnecessary as well as inapplicable to Scotland.
  Amendment No. 7 refers to the protocols between Ministry of Defence police and other police forces in different parts of the United Kingdom. The protocols set out guidelines on the respective responsibilities of Ministry of Defence police and other forces. Three such protocols exist: one for England and Wales, another for Scotland and a third for Northern Ireland. They will be renegotiated if the proposals on Ministry of Defence police pass into law. The amendment would provide for them to be laid before Parliament formally. It is not clear whether it is intended to apply to existing protocols or to the renegotiated documents, but the overall intention is clear.
  The Select Committee took an interest in the protocols and received assurances about putting them in the public domain. We shall abide by that commitment, but we should prefer it not to be a statutory obligation; that would be the effect of the amendment. The protocols will have to be renegotiated and Ministry of Defence police will be only one of the parties to the negotiations. We need to be sure that the other parties are content with the idea of publishing the documents in their entirety.
  I do not want to be difficult about the matter. If we have learned one lesson from the Ministry of Defence police proposals, it is that the appetite for information about MOD police affairs is apparently endless. We shall to try to do even better in future to satisfy that.
  I understand the spirit behind amendment No. 7, but I hope that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford will accept our desire and intention to be helpful and withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Someone should remind the Minister and his grinning colleagues on the Treasury Bench

  115
  that hubris is followed by nemesis. Earlier, I accused the Government of arrogance. It has got worse during the course of the evening. The Minister even had the temerity to suggest that we should not have protested against the attempt to programme or guillotine the Bill and that we should not have debated the programme motion. That speaks for itself.
  Dr. Moonie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: No, there is no time.
  Another insidious aspect of the meretricious procedure is that if we vote for our amendments or against the clauses, we take a quarter of an hour out of our limited time. It does not take a mathematical genius to calculate that if we voted for six amendments or against six clauses, there would be no debate. The Government do not want to hear arguments; they would be delighted if we spent all our time voting.
  Although we have not completed our discussion of the important points raised by the amendments, I shall reluctantly but necessarily ask the House to allow me to withdraw the amendment. We can then try to make as much progress as possible on dragging the truth out of a reluctant Government.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Key: I do not believe that the clause should stand part of the Bill. The House is clearly not of one mind on the issue. The clause is the one genuinely contentious provision in the Bill. It absorbed the vast majority of our time in Committee and led hon. Members on both sides to ask a lot of penetrating questions. It would be no exaggeration to say that our confidence in the Ministry of Defence police was to some extent called into question as a result of some of the representations made to us. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee felt that there was a lot of serious unfinished business surrounding this issue.
  The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), my old sparring partner, reads me completely wrongly on this matter. I said that successive Governments had been unfair to the Ministry of Defence police because we had not been clear about what we expected them to do. Of course I accept his statement that certain aspects of the matter have moved on a great deal since 1987. Of course they have—and a good thing, too. However, there is still a great deal of uncertainty, and the Bill does not address that. That is why the clause should not stand part of the Bill. This matter should have been the subject of a separate Bill. The provision should have been bigger and should have addressed other issues. The Government should not just have looked at a little bit of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 and tacked on some clauses. We should have been given an opportunity to examine the issue of policing of the military in the widest sense.
  The clause arose from the most extraordinary circumstances. That matters, too. What was the motive of the Ministry of Defence for introducing it in the first
  116
  place? That was revealed to us in a speech by the outgoing chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police to the Defence Police Federation at the end of last year, about the growing role of the CID in the Ministry of Defence police and about the protocols established with chief constables:
  "We have established the Protocols with police forces of the respective UK countries which we police but we still have anomalies in respect of our jurisdiction which is presently legislated for in the MDP Act of 1987. A more recent and poignant example was that of a request from 2nd PUS"—
  permanent under-secretary—
  "for us to supply police officers on a mutual aid basis during the fuel crisis. I wrote back to the 2nd PUS and told him that he could have as many officers as reasonably practicable but he wouldn't be able to use them for the specific role that the Home Office had intended (that of aiding fuel convoys or policing picketed oil refineries). Having explained our dilemma in great legislative detail it wasn't long before the 2nd PUS was on the case. It has always been a point of great concern that fundamental issues such as where and when we can exercise the power of Constable have taken such a long time to be formally recognised. At last we have the final pieces of the jigsaw in place and ironically, it is the Armed Forces Bill 2001 which is the vehicle we are using to make these final changes."
  So said the chief constable in one of his last speeches before he retired. He identified the reason why the clause has been tacked on to this important Bill, which allows the continuation of the military service discipline Acts and a number of sensible reforms that we have not opposed. We have agreed with the vast majority of the Bill; we have stuck to the timetable; and we have done what an Opposition should have done in Committee. However, this clause should not stand part of the Bill. It is not complete; it has not been thought through or debated; and it leaves a lot of stones unturned.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): It has been debated.
  Mr. Key: The Minister says that it has been debated. It has been debated fully in Committee, but not on the Floor of the House. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have strong feelings about that. There is a lack of clarity in the clause, and it leaves a lot to be desired, as we have demonstrated in the speeches that we have made in the short time available. That is why, in spite of the warm welcome that we have given to many of the provisions, a lot of people in the House and outside it have severe misgivings about this part of the Bill. We have seen those misgivings written about in the press by distinguished commentators and journalists. Those in the Association of Chief Police Officers have also said that they have reservations. We have not had adequate time to discuss the matter in the wider context, and that is why the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Bruce George: I am not quite certain from the remarks of my adversary or sparring partner, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), whether he is recommending voting against clause stand part. I urge him not to call a vote not because that would waste 20 minutes when we have little time available, but because it would be awful to make the MOD police an issue of party political controversy. [Interruption.] I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), but he becomes semi-hysterical on these matters.

  117
  He virtually accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of lying by suggesting that the Police Complaints Authority had nothing to do with the MOD police. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain these remarks in the chief constable's annual report:
  "Of the 54 complaints recorded last year … 23 were informally resolved and, in two cases, the independent Police Complaints Authority (PCA) granted its 'dispensation from investigation'."
  Obviously, the PCA is more than peripherally involved. I am sorry, I have mispronounced "peripherally"; it is on a par with "nemesis". Perhaps this is my pronunciation nemesis.
  Conservative Members have had a good fling. I did not like the Committee procedure and I expressed my dislike more strongly than anybody, but the Bill spent a long time in Committee and we have had a debate today. I hope that the Opposition will decide that, of all the issues to which they could object, this is not one of them, and that they will not call a vote that would throw the MOD police into the political arena, which, frankly, they do not deserve. If there is any group of police officers that has been more investigated, I should like to know which. I hope that we can let the MOD police go along with their marginally additional powers. I hope that the coppers, journalists and Opposition Members who want to do so have had their whinge now. Let us not make the MOD police a political issue.
  Mr. Blunt: Having listened to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) put his point of view, I can understand where he is coming from in respect of the MOD police. He has taken a keen interest in the force and has been a long-standing champion of it. He will, of course, take a great interest in the remaining stages of the Private Security Industry Bill, not least because of his interest in security issues.
  Having been with the right hon. Gentleman when he pursued those interests in Moscow with the Russian Minister of Internal Affairs, I know that his knowledge is widespread. However, I have bean convinced by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). I have criticised amendments that he tabled, so I hope that the Committee realises that I come to the issue with an independent perspective.
  My experience of the MOD police as a serving soldier, a special adviser in the Ministry and a Member of Parliament has yet to convince me that it is a force with the same talents and abilities as the others in the country. There are proper and serious questions to be addressed and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is wholly wrong to tack on to the Bill procedures to deal with the MOD police.
  The Bill goes through a five-year cycle and, typically, it is not controversial between the parties. As to making the matter party political, it is all very well the right hon. Member for Walsall, South appealing to Conservative Members' better nature. Of course, there is a considerable amount of it, but the fact is that the measure should not be part of the Bill, which should be free standing, just as the 1987 Bill was.
  Mr. George: As a member and as Chairman of the Defence Committee, I have struggled successfully to avoid any vote since 1982. I take a consensual approach. I was a member of the Select Committee that considered
  118
  the previous Bill and which tacked on a measure on the sale of Greenwich naval college, so there is a well-established precedent for tacking on.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman should have voted against that.
  Mr. Blunt: From behind me, my hon. Friend says that the right hon. Gentleman should have voted against that. I do not agree; I am afraid that the measure was necessary.
  9.30 pm
  We are going to run out of time—which is disgraceful, as ever—but I have experienced an armed raid—
  It being half-past Nine o'clock, THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS put the Question, pursuant to Orders [7 November 2000 and this day]:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 308, Noes 128.

  Division No. 171]

  [9.30 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clelland, David

  Allen, Graham

  Clwyd, Ann

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Cohen, Harry

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Coleman, Iain

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Colman, Tony

  Austin, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Banks, Tony

  Corbett, Robin

  Barnes, Harry

  Corston, Jean

  Barron, Kevin

  Cox, Tom

  Battle, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Bayley, Hugh

  Crausby, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cummings, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Benton, Joe

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Berry, Roger

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Best, Harold

  Darvill, Keith

  Betts, Clive

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blackman, Liz

  Davidson, Ian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

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

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Browne, Desmond

  Dobbin, Jim

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Burgon, Colin

  Doran, Frank

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dowd, Jim

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Drew, David

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Cann, Jamie

  Edwards, Huw

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Casale, Roger

  Ennis, Jeff

  Caton, Martin

  Etherington, Bill

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Clapham, Michael

  Fisher, Mark

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Flint, Caroline

  119

  Flynn, Paul

  McCabe, Steve

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Gapes, Mike

  Macdonald, Calum

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonnell, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McFall, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  McNamara, Kevin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McNulty, Tony

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mallaber, Judy

  Grogan, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Gunnell, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hain, Peter

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marshal, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hanson, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Maxton, John

  Healey, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Meale, Alan

  Hendrick, Mark

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Heppell, John

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Miller, Andrew

  Hill, Keith

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Hope, Phil

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

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

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mountford, Kali

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mudie, George

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mullin, Chris

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hutton, John

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jamieson, David

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jenkins, Brian

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pike, Peter L

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Joyce, Eric

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rammell, Bill

  Kidney, David

  Rapson, Syd

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Raynsford, Nick

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Laxton, Bob

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lock, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Love, Andrew

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Roy, Frank

  120

  Ruane, Chris

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Timms, Stephen

  Salter, Martin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Todd, Mark

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Trickett, Jon

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Truswell, Paul

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Tiwgg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tynan, Bill

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Watts, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Snape, Peter

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Spellar, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wills, Michael

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Winnick, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stevenson, George

  Wood, Mike

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Woolas, Phil

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Worthington, Tony

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mr. Don Touhig and

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mr. Ian Pearson.

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Fight, Howard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Fraser, Christopher

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gibb, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Green, Damian

  Brady, Graham

  Grieve, Dominic

  Brazier, Julian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hammond, Philip

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hancock, Mike

  Burnett, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burns, Simon

  Hayes John

  Butterfill, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Horam, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Chope, Christopher

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Clappison, James

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Keetch, Paul

  Key, Robert

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Collins, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Letwin, Oliver

  Cran, James

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lidington, David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Livsey, Richard

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Loughton, Tim

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Evans, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fabricant, Michael

  McCrea, Dr William

  Fallon, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fearn, Ronnie

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  121

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Stunell, Andrew

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Maples, John

  Syms, Robert

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Oaten, Mark

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Page, Richard

  Townend, John

  Paice, James

  Tredinnick, David

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Trend, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Tyler, Paul

  Randall, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Viggers, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Walterson, Nigel

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Webb, Steve

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wilkinson, John

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Willis, Phil

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wilshire, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Teller for the Noes:

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Mr. James Gray and

  Spring, Richard

  Mr. Owen Paterson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

  AMENDMENTS RELATING TO MINISTRY OF DEFENCE POLICE
  Amendment made: No. 8, in page 67, line 27, at end insert—
  4A. After section 4A of that Act there is inserted—

  Functions of inspectors of constabulary
  4B.—(1) The inspectors of constabulary shall inspect, and report to the Secretary of State on, the efficiency and effectiveness of, the Ministry of Defence Police.
  (2) The inspectors of constabulary shall carry out such other duties for the purposes of furthering the efficiency and effectiveness of the Ministry of Defence Police as the Secretary of State may from time to time direct
  (3) Before carrying out any inspection by virtue of subsection (1) above in Scotland, the inspectors of constabulary shall consult the Scottish inspectors with respect to the scope and conduct of the proposed inspection.
  (4) In this section—
  'the inspectors of constabulary' means Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary appointed under section 54 of the Police Act 1996;
  'the Scottish inspectors' means the inspectors of constabulary appointed under section 33 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967.

  Publication of reports
  4C.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the Secretary of State shall arrange for any report received by him under section 4B(1) above to be published in such manner as appears to him to be appropriate.
  (2) The Secretary of State may exclude from publication under subsection (1) above any part of a report if, in his opinion, the publication of that part—

  (a) would be against the interests of national security, or

  122

  (b) might jeopardise the safety of any person.

  (3) The Secretary of State shall send a copy of the published report to the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence Police, and shall invite the chief constable to submit comments on the published report to the Secretary of State before such date as the Secretary of State may specify.
  (4) The Secretary of State shall arrange for—

  (a) any comments submitted by the chief constable in accordance with subsection (3) above, and

  (b) any response that the Secretary of State may prepare to the published report or to any comments submitted by the chief constable,

  to be published in such manner as he considers appropriate.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 6 agreed to.
  Clauses 35 and 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 7 agreed to.
  Clauses 37 to 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 8 agreed to.
  Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, with amendments.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  9.46 pm
  Dr. Moonie: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Before I deal with the main body of my text—which, I am glad to say, will not take me too long to deliver—I should like to correct the possibility of a slight misapprehension about something that I may have said to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) when we were discussing the search of premises. I tried to explain the fact that the word "searches" involves searches of space rather than searches of persons. In certain circumstances, however, provided that it were specifically mentioned and there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that an item had been secreted elsewhere, a search could involve, for example, the space of members of a crew or a unit other than that of the member who is under suspicion. I wanted to make that very clear as I may have been a little misleading on the point.
  I should like to thank the Select Committee for its work on the Bill and for its report. The Committee was conceived a little less than three months ago, in circumstances that may not have been considered altogether propitious for the way in which it was likely to go about its work. That the Select Committee achieved so much is due largely to its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire). She managed to mix courtesy and firmness in presiding over the Committee and she proved resolute in promoting its interests.
  As its report notes, the Committee was able to hold at least as many evidence sessions as its recent predecessors and to undertake a similar number of visits. However, that tells only half the story, as the Committee was able to attract witnesses of the calibre of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the chief constables of the Suffolk constabulary and the Ministry of Defence police, and the Chaplain General.

  123
  The visits conducted by the Select Committee included Colchester, HMS Invincible, which was off the coast of Scotland, Kosovo and Cyprus. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) may be of the view that those were three or four journeys too far, and he may well enlighten us about that later if he catches the eye of the occupant of the Chair. However, I know that the Select Committee found those visits a vital component of its work. The Ministry of Defence was very happy to assist in organising them.
  I should say a few words about some of the Select Committee's recommendations. When the recommendations fall within the Ministry of Defence's sphere of responsibility, we shall of course give them the customary careful consideration. Perhaps inevitably, the Committee considered the issue of the tri-service Act that will replace the three single service Acts that we are in the processing of extending with this Bill. The Committee recommends that the tri-service legislation should be brought before Parliament within three years, whereas the Department is working towards bringing it forward as part of the next five-yearly Bill, as we announced on Second Reading.
  The key issue for us now is to get the new legislative framework for the armed forces right. We agree that it is important for it to be in place as soon as possible, but it is even more important that the framework should be capable of meeting the needs of the services for the foreseeable future. We believe that it will take some time to ensure that we get it right. Nevertheless, we shall examine the scope for some acceleration of the project, and we shall be happy to keep the Defence Committee in touch with our thinking on that and on progress generally.
  We have spent some time discussing the Ministry of Defence police today, so I do not propose to dwell on that part of the Committee's report. The Select Committee looked at the services legal aid schemes, and noted that there appeared to have been a problem recently with the availability of duty solicitor assistance for members of the armed forces overseas. That is about to be put right. It is worth mentioning that the services attach great importance to their arrangements for legal aid being at least as good as those available in the civilian sphere. There is a very serious intention that "accused in service" proceedings should not be at a disadvantage compared with their civilian counterparts, and much of the credibility of the system of discipline in the armed forces depends on that. Where problems are identified, we shall do what we can to sort them out.
  Like previous Armed Forces Bill Committees, the Select Committee inquired into the question of under-18s in the services. Of particular interest is the period of service required of young recruits. The Committee is properly concerned that potential young recruits should receive clear information on that and that those involved in the recruiting process should be responsible for ensuring that such would-be recruits have fully understood the information before they sign up.
  In fact, the present intention—and, we believe, the practice—is that such recruits are given full and clear information, both prior to signing up and subsequently, about the length of time for which they will be required to serve. It is only right that that should be the case.
  124
  However, the procedures will be looked at again, in the light of the Committee's comments. In the meantime, we welcome the Committee's recognition of the need for the armed forces to continue to recruit young people straight from school, at the age of 16. Very many of those young people go on to rewarding and successful careers in the services.
  I am sure that the House will not have lost sight of what the Bill is primarily about—the continuation for a further five years of the legislative basis for armed forces discipline. We believe that many of the changes in the Bill will help the administration of discipline; we commend those, and the Bill in its entirety, to the House.
  Above all, we must remember those for whom we legislate—primarily the men and women of the armed forces. I again place on record what I am sure will be the thanks of the whole House for what the armed forces undertake and achieve, not only overseas but, as we have been reminded so graphically during the past few days, in this country, too.
  9.52 pm
  Mr. Key: I add my thanks to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), and to all its members who made it so worth while. Despite the somewhat difficult circumstances of the original composition of the Committee—I suspect that when people read its report to the House, they will understand what we were getting at—nevertheless, as the report stated, we all did our best in the traditional way.
  I am grateful, too, to all those people who gave evidence to the Committee and to those we met during our modest peregrinations. I especially thank the hon. Lady—so ably assisted by the Clerk—for the quality of her report to the House. I am also grateful to the Government for actually giving the Opposition several of the important things for which we asked. That is a measure of the success of such Committees. I am an advocate of the pre-legislative scrutiny route. I was converted to it by my membership of the previous Armed Forces Bill Select Committee.
  I am sure that that approach works. The Government have listened. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence mentioned the legal aid scheme and his amendment to put on a statutory basis the work of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. He also said that there would be a new look at the employment of people aged over 16 and under 18, which I especially welcome.
  I agree with the Minister that the whole purpose of our work is to ensure excellence in every respect for every member of Her Majesty's armed forces and, of course, for their families and loved ones.
  I look forward, with some trepidation, to the tri-service discipline Bill. I am sure that Ministry of Defence officials are already working hard on that project. If they are not, they should be because we will be after them in a few years. Such issues will need to be addressed as we move on in the cycle. We all need to make more effort to ensure that the public understand more about the policing of this country. I am sure that most people do not often come into contact with the police; they see police cars dashing about and they are aware of red caps in the Army, but that is probably about it.

  125
  Any hon. Member with a remotely military constituency can be fairly sure that up to eight different police forces will operate there. I certainly have eight forces in my constituency. Of course, the Wiltshire constabulary is by far the most numerous, but the Ministry of Defence police, the Royal Military Police, the Military Provost Guard Service, the Ministry of Defence Guard Force, the RAF police, the Atomic Energy Authority police and the British Transport police are all involved.
  During our travels and in taking evidence, it was clear that some people feel that the time has come perhaps to consider creating a unified military police service for the armed forces. That suggestion has its merits. I have heard some significant arguments for more purple operations and more joint operations between the services, and it might be time to consider those issues, but the counterbalancing argument is that people like to be policed by their own kind.
  We shall have to return to the legal rules that govern the terms of the service engagement, which derive from the royal prerogative and from the judicial rulings of a previous age. The feeling among civilian lawyers is that the rules are skewed in favour of the Crown, and I alluded to that in mentioning the secrecy of some of the documentation, but it might also be timely to address the whole legal and conceptual basis of the current service engagement to determine whether an engagement derived from the royal prerogative is adequate in this day and age. That is inevitable; I rather regret it, because that has been the basis on which the Army's regimental system has grown up, but Professor Rubin has a lot to contribute, and I am grateful to him for the way in which he has helped my thinking on the matter.
  We must address the issues brought to the public domain in "The Future Strategic Context of Defence", a paper produced by the Ministry of Defence. I suspect that that important document is not widely read—more's the pity. I do not hesitate to say that the introduction makes it clear that the document represents not Government policy, but Ministry of Defence or military policy. However, it is significant and we cannot ignore the section on the political dimension, which states:
  "Crime, terrorism and political extremism may increasingly require a military element to the Government response."
  I suspect that that is true.
  It should be clear that, despite earlier comments by my old sparring partner the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), in no sense is this an attack on the MOD police; nor was the Division that we managed to squeeze in. I have been hugely reassured and impressed during the past three months by the growing professionalism of the MDP. I look forward to visiting Wethersfield. I have been invited and I shall certainly go, because I am convinced now that it is a mature police force and that its training is up to the Home Office standard. Not only is it inspected by the Home Office constabularies, but it trains Home Office forces in a number of areas; we must dispel the myth. This is a criticism not of the police, but of the Government for the way in which they sought to tack on that series of clauses.
  I return to the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South will have had many such instances, but I cannot help recalling that on 24 February 1987, I said:
  "today, we shall create a police force with a national jurisdiction under the direct operational control of a Minister of the Crown. Throughout our nation's history we have resisted this sort of
  126
  arrangement and I am astonished that Parliament has allowed it to happen so easily … I recognise reality when it stares me in the face. However, I am certain that we have not heard the last of the Bill."—[Official Report, 24 February 1987; Vol. 111, c. 174.]
  We should look to the role of the MOD police in future, as it will change. I have seen its new role with the Committee in Kosovo—under the direction of the United Nations—where undoubtedly it is performing a valuable international role, combining the best of British policing with a military tradition. That is perhaps one way in which the MOD police could expand in the future. I do not know whether that is the way forward, but certainly it should not be ruled out. It might be a way of strengthening the force.
  Above all, we owe it to the force to give its purpose more clarity in the future than we have in the past. Overall, this has been a good and useful Bill and I hope that in continuing the life of the service Acts, we will have performed a service for Her Majesty's forces.
  10.1 pm
  Ms Rachel Squire: Before we started discussing the Bill, some hon. Members told me that armed forces Bills tended to be technical, complex and boring. At times, this Bill may have been technical and complex, but boring it most certainly was not. As the House has gathered, from the start the Bill excited some controversy and there has been extensive and lively debate on many subjects. I have at times wondered whether the precedents that the Select Committee set might be used as case examples in examinations for clerks and MOD officials.
  I wish to place on record my thanks for the compliments that I have received today, and I thank all Committee members for their commitment, co-operation and interest. I wish to thank Admiral Cobbold—our specialist adviser—the clerk of the Committee, the other parliamentary staff and MOD officials for their assistance and advice. I wish to thank the Liaison Committee for funding our overseas visits, which we all found invaluable in giving us a glimpse of the realities of dealing with military discipline in multinational conflict situations.
  I wish to thank the Defence Committee for giving us access to its in-depth investigations of armed forces personnel issues. I wish to thank the Chairman of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), for giving us his views and the benefit of his experience. I wish to thank all those who assisted us with their oral and written evidence and their general advice and assistance.
  Of course I would like to thank also the British armed forces, whose national and international reputation for professionalism and standards is second to none. It is one thing to sit in the security and comfort of this Chamber or a Committee Room debating military discipline. It is quite another thing to be a soldier who is subject to that discipline far away from family and home comforts, unable to go off duty—often for weeks at a time—and dealing daily with people who are seeking to kill those he is trying to protect and who would easily and happily kill him if he gets in their way.
  One of the benefits of the Select Committee process is the opportunity that it gives Committee members to hear directly from those who our proposed legislation would most affect. I wish to share three lasting impressions that stayed with me following our brief visits; they say a great

  127
  deal about the qualities of our armed forces and the situations of which we must he aware when we look at military discipline.
  My first impression is of the presentation made by the commanding officer and his team in the 1st Battalion, the King's Own Scottish Borderers when we visited the Episkopi garrison in Cyprus. They told us how they had looked for the small but significant things that they could do to improve discipline and morale among the forces. Quite radically it seemed to me, they even involved the regimental sergeant-major as a key access point for the grievances of some junior ranks. Hon. Members look bemused, because they have not heard of an RSM playing that role before.
  My second impression is of an instructor at the military corrective training facility at Colchester. He told me how he used his skills not only to help service personnel overcome the circumstances that had led to their misconduct, but in a voluntary capacity to raise money for a Russian orphanage. He took some of his annual leave every year to spend time at that place.
  The third impression that will stay with me has influenced my perspective on military discipline and future legislation. I listened to the calm presentation of the Ministry of Defence policeman in Pristina who told me of his experience after the tragic bus bombing incident that occurred a few weeks ago. He had to deal with grieving Serbian families and, along with the military, a community that was hellbent on revenge, as well as supporting our armed forces personnel in their efforts to maintain order and to investigate and handle the horror that they had just witnessed.
  Those three examples on their own say an awful lot to us when we consider military discipline. I have already spoken for six minutes and the House will know that the Select Committee spent much of its time examining the extension of jurisdiction. I wish to place on record my support for the recommendations in the Committee's report and welcome the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South about the Ministry of Defence police. Certainly, at local constituency level, I and the community with whom they deal have always had a positive impression of them.
  The time has come to move on to the long-term recommendation that we consolidate the legislation on military discipline in a tri-service Bill. The Select Committee is well aware of what a mammoth task that would be and the Chief of the Defence Staff made us aware of the flexibility that the different armed forces would require. All of us on the Committee thought that we needed to increase the pressure for a tri-service Bill and—I put my bid in early—for a full parliamentary Session to consider what would be a complex but significant piece of legislation.
  Challenging times are ahead for all of us interested in the armed forces and military discipline. I hope that the Committee's report will play a significant, if small, part in future considerations.
  10.9 pm
  Mr. Keetch: I join colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on her chairmanship of the Select Committee. The selection of
  128
  its members was difficult at the outset and many voices in the Chamber expressed concern. However, by and large, members of the Committee have worked extremely well together apart from one outburst from the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who accused the Liberal Democrats of being in cahoots with the Government. For the record, I remind him that we opposed the motion that was put before us earlier tonight. I also remind him that it was at our request that the Secretary of State and the Chief of the Defence Staff came before the Committee. We played a significant role, as the record will show.
  I am glad to see the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) present. In our debate on 9 January, I said that he should have been a member of the Committee. The reason I wanted him on the Committee was that I was aware of his concern that our actions now and those of the past few years might affect the military effectiveness and the core ability of Her Majesty's armed forces to do their work. When the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, came before the Select Committee on 6 March, I put to him the same direct question that I put to the commander of every unit we visited. I asked whether the changes that we were proposing, or those to which the House had agreed in the past few years, affected our military effectiveness in any way. The Chief of the Defence Staff replied:
  "No. it has not, and indeed, some of our worst fears on the bureaucratic side … are not being realised".
  When I pressed him to say whether he felt that anything that we were doing would affect military effectiveness, he again said no, adding:
  "I can assure you that if operational effectiveness were being affected by anything, I would make that perfectly clear."
  That underlines the statements that members of my party have been making for the past few years: the changes in discipline that have occurred have not in any way affected our military effectiveness.
  We were right to visit forces overseas. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who, sadly, is not in his place, thought that we were junketing, but he was entirely wrong. Our visits were extremely important because they enabled members of the Select Committee to identify exactly what we were doing, and Her Majesty's armed forces could feel that we were doing a thorough job. During our visits to Kosovo, Cyprus, Colchester and HMS Invincible—the last of which I, sadly, was unable to attend—we spoke directly to the men and, increasingly, the women who serve in Her Majesty's armed forces. I should like in particular to express my thanks to Brigadier Hamish Rollo and Major Mark Carleton-Smith in Kosovo and to the RAF people we met at Episkopi in Cyprus.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West was right about the King's Own Scottish Borderers. We saw a regiment based in Cyprus that is making innovations not only in the handling of discipline, but in retention and recruitment. The regiment's actions in the Scottish borders to recruit additional people and to bring back people who have left the regiment should serve as a beacon for the Government.
  Two aspects have not been thoroughly discussed today, but they were fully discussed in Committee. The first is the accountability of the Ministry of Defence police.

  129
  We made a recommendation, to which I know the Minister paid close attention, regarding the composition of the national MOD police committee. We said that it
  "should be reviewed and that at least a third of its members should be drawn from outside the civil service, the police service or the Armed Services."
  I strongly believe that that should be done. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said that I was wrong to criticise the MDP, but I do not criticise them—they are right to do what they are doing. However, they must be an accountable police force. If MOD police are to go on to the streets of Hereford, Walsall or anywhere else, local people must feel that they have accountability. The Committee was right to make that recommendation and to consider the protocols between the MOD police and local forces.
  The Committee also expressed concern about firearms. We were assured by the chief constable of the MDP that if forces are either going on auxiliary to support the civil police—perhaps as a result of flooding—or travelling from one base to another, the firearms that they carry will be kept in secure safes in the boots of their cars, and that they will not carry sidearms or other weapons as they move about unless they are on escort duty or some other duty that requires them. I believe that that is not the case.
  Mr. Hancock: It is simply not true.
  Mr. Keetch: My hon. Friend is right. I have been told that in my constituency those officers regularly carry firearms when they are moving from place to place. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the assurance given by the chief constable to the Committee that that will no longer be the case will be implemented. That will prevent the situation in which MDP officers who come across a crime being committed get involved in it when they are carrying sidearms. If that happened, a can of worms would be opened and no one in the House would want that.
  In conclusion, whenever we discuss these matters—and we do so sensibly—we must remember that the men and women we talk about put their lives on the line. We can talk about that, but they, and those people in my constituency who have lost their lives in the past year, have delivered the goods when it matters. That is why I am particularly concerned to ensure that nothing in this Bill or previous measures affects our capability. I am glad to say that I do not believe that anything does.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: It is often said by football fans that football teams are not as good now as they were 20 years ago. The same has been said of Select Committees considering Armed Forces Bills. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) impressed us with his knowledge of the classics. Well, I am reminded of "Much Ado About Nothing". In the past, I have served on similar Committees, and we considered a series of issues, including capital punishment, gays in the military, drugs, women, race relations, human rights and what happens when a commanding officer goes bonkers. I must confess that the present Select Committee report is pretty tame stuff.
  Mr. Key: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that all those exciting things happened under a Conservative Government—[Interruption.]
  Mr. George: Absolutely; the commanding officers went bonkers too.
  130
  I was pleased when my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) gave generous tribute to the Select Committee on Defence, including thanks for the loan of our second Clerk. That was a grievous loss; when one is dealing with a labyrinthine, bureaucratic organisation like the Ministry of Defence the disappearance of one's deputy Clerk, from a staff of four—almost absent with leave—has repercussions for the Committee. I am afraid that was regrettable. Despite that, we agreed to loan our Clerk.
  Had I been Chairman of the special Select Committee, I would have had more staff than Admiral Cobbold alone, who is an excellent adviser. One cannot deal with the MOD—unless the MOD is represented on the Committee. However, if balance is restored, the Committee then functions as it should and tries to monitor the MOD—rather than the MOD monitoring itself. In future I hope that the Committee goes in with more arms.
  Very briefly, I recognise the generous remarks of the hon. Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). I assure them that their remarks will be taken into account when the final case sheet is presented to the Defence Police Federation. It remains to be seen how much it takes that deathbed repentance into account. The most important message to come out of the Armed Forces Bill Committee is that it should not operate in the same way again. I hope that the lessons will be well absorbed by the MOD; the Committee should not be packed with Government Members, and should not have two Defence Ministers on it. Perhaps the Opposition could loosen up a little, and an odd Back Bencher, like the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) could serve on it—although he is the best example of why the status quo may be correct. I do not mean that; he would have been a wonderful addition.
  Most importantly, procedures should be different. I would much prefer the Defence Committee to be involved from the outset and engaged in discussion at each stage; the Select Committee should not present major changes, or, in this case, less than major changes, suddenly and dramatically. The special Select Committee was right to say that a draft Bill should be presented to the Defence Committee; when the Defence Committee has done its work, perhaps the Bill can be passed on to a more traditional environment for consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury is my sparring partner; I did not realise we were sparring partners until he said so and I picked up the insult—[Interruption.] We are not complete heavyweights.
  I hope that the MOD follows the advice in the report and tries to deal with tri-service discipline legislation. The previous Government must take the blame for the fact that we do not have such legislation. We were discussing that in 1987, yet nothing has happened.
  In conclusion—this speech will be rather briefer than my previous appearance here—I must repeat that in terms of accountability, the MOD police have had investigations up to here. They have had endless internal investigations, inquiries conducted by the National Audit Office, regular reports of Her Majesty's inspectorate of police, and reports on them by the Public Accounts Committee. I hope that we do not have to expose them to any further investigations, apart from the next one by the Defence Committee. Let them do their work; they are a professional force and deserve to be recognised, not to be perpetually kicked in the groin.

  131
  Despite its abortive birth, the Committee has managed to develop satisfactory work methods. The report, too, is satisfactory as far as it goes. However, I repeat my hope that when the next Committee is constituted, lessons will have been learned from the appallingly wrong decisions that were made three or four months ago.
  10.21 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I join the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who did not exactly praise the Committee for its work, but thought that it passed muster. I agree, because the remit was fairly narrow and restrictive; had a broader brush been used, it could have got into trouble. I shall use this moment to pay my respects to all those who took part in it, as I am an old soldier who is probably in the dying moments of his membership of the House, although I shall move on, fully alive, into civilian life—or rather, normal life—afterwards.
  One thing that attracts me in the report is the recognition by the Committee of how dangerous the waters are in which it moves. I do not know whether there are many people left in the House now who saw active service in the second world war—probably only three or four, if that, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). Those people must be very much aware that unless people have seen active service, it is difficult for them to get under the skin of those in the armed services, who may seem to us like members of a restricted club.
  There is often a danger that we shall try to impose on the services some of the civilian laws and legal ways of dealing with complaints, including the European convention on human rights. I know that that has a strong appeal for people, but for the armed forces, in the future as in the past, our civilian rights and laws may not have the same resonance when it comes to questions of life and death. I hope that we shall bear in mind the fact that what works for us in our civilian life will not always work so well for those in the armed services.
  I feel that strongly, as someone who has also been involved in peacekeeping in India, where we had to have a discipline that was rather different from that which prevailed when I served in Belgium for a short time, during the second world war.
  I am reminded of the difficulty by the words of the outgoing chief of defence staff, General Sir Charles Guthrie, who on 19 December, in his speech to the Royal United Services Institute, said:
  "If we hamstring our fighting services with inappropriate legislation then we will create a generation of sailors, soldiers and airmen who are little more than a gendarmerie."
  To judge from the comments that I have heard from the members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate, that is not a failing that could be attributed to them, nor will it be in the future.
  I hope that the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence will continue to share with us that great responsibility for providing a framework for discipline in which it is possible for the men and women of our armed forces to work as a disciplined team—to recognise the duty that they have to society, especially in peacekeeping, but also to remember that they are there to be tough and to defend our rights.
  10.24 pm
  Mr. Hancock: I shall be brief, mindful that the House would be disappointed if the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) did not have time to speak tonight, as everyone has praised him and recommended him for membership of the Select Committee. He has put down a significant marker for the future.
  Since Second Reading, the House, including the hon. Member for Reigate, has come a long way. I remember the contributions at that stage, and I fully expected the Bill to be fought tooth and nail. I compliment the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on her eloquent and informative speech this evening, although it was too short. She did more justice to the Committee's work than does the report. Her six-minute sketch of what the Committee has been up to over the past three months gave the House an insight into the serious endeavours of members of the Committee—despite the obvious packing of the Committee—to get to the bottom of what the Bill is about.
  I expect that there will not be a Division at the end of our deliberations tonight. I see no point in that. We all believe that the armed forces need the right sort of legislation, and we have come a great distance in producing that, although we recognise that the Bill does not go the whole way. Hon. Members who spoke in Committee and who are not present tonight made points that need to be addressed—for example, about the way in which courts martial are to operate in future. I welcome the fact that warrant officers can be further involved. They should not be debarred from sitting on courts martial where senior officers are involved. Junior Army and naval officers regularly sit on courts martial judging officers of equal or senior rank. That issue needs to be addressed. The way in which custodial sentences are dealt with and the rights of appeal need to be reformed, and no doubt that will happen in time. Hon. Members were right to put down markers in that direction.
  Like the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, I believe that a disservice was done to the Ministry of Defence police tonight by some of the comments that were made. The MOD police have been knocked and I believe, like him, that it is about time that the knocking stopped. If we give them increased responsibility, of course we want to make sure that they are accountable, and that that added responsibility is clearly defined, not only to them, but to their civilian colleagues and the wider population in which they will operate, so that no one is left under any illusions about what that added responsibility should mean.
  The involvement of MOD police overseas is a step in the right direction. I am mindful of the time and the fact that the hon. Member for Reigate wants to get in. We have come a long way and produced a good piece of legislation, but that cannot be the end of the story. I hope that the next review will deal properly with the outstanding issues and with tri-service discipline. I agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West that the Committee should have a year in which to undertake such a review.
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Blunt: It is typical that I shall probably be speaking at the end of the Third Reading. I made a nine-second speech on the programme motion for the

  133
  Second Reading, I was unable to get in at all on a subsequent stage, and I was cut oft at the end of the Committee stage.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) and to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, for their kind remarks about me—the right hon. Gentleman's remarks were kind, once he had withdrawn half of them. I noted his point about the report being good, so far as it goes. The Chairman of the Defence Committee would be pretty unimpressed by a document of 67 paragraphs over 26 pages. By his standards and those of the Defence Committee, that is pretty thin gruel, given the scope that the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill had to cover.
  The way in which the Bill has been dealt with must be reviewed, as the right hon. Gentleman said. There was the opportunity for it to go to the Defence Committee. A Defence Minister and a shadow spokesman should have been attached to the Committee. The necessary expertise would then have been in place to allow the Committee to consider all the issues.
  The Bill is necessary, and it would be grossly irresponsible for the House to vote against it on Third Reading. This is the Bill by which we sustain the armed forces. It is a unique piece of legislation which gives us the opportunity on a cross-party basis, with the authority of a Select Committee, to examine the issues in proper detail. As I am about to run out of time, I shall conclude by picking up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Hereford, who should not weigh so heavily the evidence given in public by senior officers who have no choice about responsibilities further up the chain of command. Perhaps he should rely more—
  It being half-past Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Orders [7 November 2000 and this day].
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Northern Ireland
  10.30 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 27th March, be approved.
  The order appoints 27 February 2002 as the date before which the amnesty period identified in a non-statutory decommissioning scheme must end. The amnesty period is the time during which firearms, ammunition and explosives can be decommissioned in accordance with the scheme, thereby attracting both the amnesty and the prohibitions on evidential use and forensic testing of decommissioned items provided by the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.
  Section 2 of the 1997 Act requires that a scheme must set out the amnesty period. The initial period had to end before 27 February 1998, but the Act gave the Secretary of State power, by order, to extend the scheme by a maximum of 12 months at any one time. Four such orders have been made to date. Under the one made in May last year, the amnesty period will expire at midnight on 19 May this year. The day appointed in any order must not be more than five years after the enactment of the 1997 Act. The Act took effect on 27 February 1997, so the five-year period that it envisages will end at midnight on 26 February 2002. The order therefore extends the period during which an amnesty may be provided to the maximum extent that is permitted under the Act.
  The Prime Minister and Taoiseach stated at Hillsborough castle on 5 May last year that
  "the remaining steps necessary to secure full implementation of the Agreement can be achieved by June 2001."
  That remains the Government's position. We are absolutely clear that we want to see substantial progress on decommissioning by June.
  The report published on 22 March by the decommissioning commission, confirming the IRA's re-engagement and the continued engagement of the UVF and UFF, is to be welcomed. The commission stated in its report that
  "events in the last few weeks lead us to believe that progress … can be made"
  on decommissioning. Those are encouraging words for all of us who want the agreement to be implemented in full.
  It would be unrealistic, however, to expect all decommissioning, including decommissioning by loyalist groups, to be completed by 19 May, when the current amnesty period will expire. The reality is that, as part of the Government's commitment to the full implementation of the agreement, we must continue to provide the means by which terrorist weapons can be put permanently beyond use.
  It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning can fulfil its remit, which is to determine exactly how the mechanics of decommissioning should operate. That is the purpose and effect of the 1997 Act, which envisaged a maximum period of five years within which an immunity from prosecution might be required. Parliament approved that arrangement, and has

  135
  also approved the renewal of immunity on a periodic basis. That is why the Government have brought the order before the House.
  In preparing the order, we considered the possibility of setting a June date for the expiry of the amnesty provisions. However, the Government did not think that extending the period for only a few weeks after 19 May was sensible. The reality is that decommissioning is a voluntary act, and it is not only the IRA who must decommission. Some of the loyalist groups that are committed to the agreement have made it clear that they will consider decommissioning only after the IRA has made tangible progress.
  It would therefore be counterproductive not to have some flexibility over timing, and it would not help the process if we had to keep coming back to the House every few weeks. A longer time scale has therefore been chosen.
  The Government believe that extending the length of the amnesty for the full period permitted by the Act is more advisable than setting a June date, because we do not want unnecessarily to restrict the decommissioning commission's room for manoeuvre.
  The commission must be able to deal with arms from any paramilitary organisation, and it must have the tools to do so. In effect, we must provide the tools to help General de Chastelain and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning to ensure that decommissioning takes place.
  The Government, with the Irish Government and all the pro-agreement parties, have a responsibility to do everything in their power to secure the decommissioning of arms held by all paramilitary organisations. We are totally committed to that objective.
  It is worth while putting the matter in context. It would be wrong to lose sight of the considerable progress on illegally held weapons since the Good Friday agreement was made in April 1998. The ceasefires have helped to create a context in which peace, prosperity and stability can flourish. It may not be a perfect peace, but it is preferable to what preceded it. The decommissioning commission issued a positive statement on 22 March, setting out the nature of its recent contact with the Provisional IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Freedom Fighters, and stating its belief that progress could be made.
  In addition, there have been two separate, encouraging reports from the independent arms inspectors Martti Ahtisaari and Cyril Ramaphosa, detailing their inspection of a number of IRA weapons dumps. The IRA has stated publicly that it is prepared to put its arms completely and verifiably beyond use. All those stages constitute real progress in our pursuit of a peaceful, non-violent society in Northern Ireland.
  However positive those developments, they are not enough on their own. They do not constitute actual decommissioning and they have not yet resulted in illegally held weapons being placed completely and verifiably beyond use. That is our ultimate goal. The Belfast agreement requires it, and all parties to the agreement agreed to work to achieve it. The Government, with the Irish Government, are committed to bringing it about through discussions with all the pro-agreement parties in Northern Ireland. Renewal of the amnesty provisions is essential to that goal.
  136
  Decommissioning is a central part of the Good Friday agreement. Removing permanently the bomb and the bullet from Northern Ireland politics is essential if the new era of peace and normality that the agreement envisages is to be established on a stable and lasting basis. To achieve that, we must work through the arrangements that are already in place, through the IICD and the mechanisms set up by the Decommissioning Act 1997.
  I commend the order to the House.
  10.38 pm
  Mr. John M. Taylor: Conservative Members will not oppose the order. After all, the previous Conservative Government introduced the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. As the Minister has pointed out, the legislation was intended to encourage voluntary decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives by terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland. It sought to do that by providing immunity from prosecution for terrorists who gave up arms and explosives, and by prohibiting any forensic testing of them.
  The amnesty period for which the Act provides initially ran for a year from the date on which it was passed—27 February 1997—though it could be extended for further periods of up to 12 months for up five years. The Act also established the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning to deal with the modalities of decommissioning and to verify that it had taken place. We pay tribute to the work that has been carried out by General John de Chastelain and his team in very difficult circumstances over the past four years. He has achieved an almost unique position in Northern Ireland, in that he has been able to gain the trust and confidence of all sides.
  Although we shall not oppose the order, we deeply regret that it has been necessary to introduce it and to prolong the amnesty period until 27 February 2002. The reason is clear: despi e all their promises, and in defiance of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland, north and south, the paramilitaries have yet to decommission one gun or one ounce of semtex. At the same time, the IRA has seen its political allies in Sinn Fein enjoying office as Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. Furthermore, some 430 hardened terrorists—republicans and so-called loyalists—have been let out of prison and back on to the streets early. All the main terrorist organisations continue to carry out vicious beatings, mutilations, shootings and, in some cases, murders, even though they are supposed to be maintaining complete and unequivocal ceasefires or, put more accurately in their own terms,
  "a complete cessation of military hostilities."
  The Belfast agreement made it clear that the decommissioning of all illegally held weapons was to be achieved within two years of the referendum—that is, by 22 May 2000. That deadline came and went. However, in May last year, in what appeared to be a breakthrough, the IRA promised to begin the process of putting its arms completely and verifiably beyond use. It said that it would re-engage with the de Chastelain commission, and promised to open some arms dumps for inspection by the team of independent inspectors, to demonstrate that its guns remained silent.
  Like the Government, we welcomed the IRA statement, although, as the Prime Minister made clear in the House, inspections of arms dumps could not be a substitute for

  137
  decommissioning or, to use the jargon, "delivery of product". Since then, there have been two reported inspections of arms dumps by Mr. Ahtisaari and Mr. Ramaphosa. The IRA re-engaged with de Chastelain only on 8 March—the first contact since last summer. We await the next report of General de Chastelain's decommissioning commission with interest, to find out exactly how productive those discussions have been, although the Minister will forgive me if, on the basis of the terrorists' past performance, we do not hold our breath. The blunt truth is that despite last May's statement we, and the people of the island of Ireland who want nothing more than to see the gun taken out of Irish politics for good, are still waiting for decommissioning.
  There are those who say that the fact that the terrorist guns are silent is sufficient. They are wrong. Decommissioning is crucial for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that its absence remains the single most important obstacle to the full implementation of the Belfast agreement, which has yet to be implemented. The issue of decommissioning is also proving to be the single most destabilising factor in the entire political process.
  The single most important commodity in the process is confidence, and it is essential that decommissioning should take place if we are to maintain the confidence within the Unionist community that is vital if the process is to succeed. Decommissioning is essential if the paramilitaries are to demonstrate once and for all that the war is over and that they are committed, in the words of the Belfast agreement, to
  "exclusively democratic and peaceful means".
  The refusal or failure to decommission is clearly incompatible with that commitment. Until decommissioning takes place, there will always be a lingering suspicion about the true intentions of the paramilitaries: a suspicion that if they do not ultimately get their way through political debate, a return to violence remains an option. People will be entitled to ask why, if the terrorists are committed to peaceful and democratic means, they need to hang on to the weapons of terror.
  Sadly, it still appears that Sinn ein-IRA are playing two strategies at the same time, which is best summed up by the acronym TUAS. That was the title of a briefing paper circulated to republicans in 1994. To one audience, it means "Totally Un-Armed Strategy"; to another, "Tactical Use of the Armed Struggle". That ambiguity should end, and decommissioning is a way to demonstrate that beyond question.
  Decommissioning should happen because, quite simply, it remains fundamentally wrong in a democracy such as the United Kingdom's to have Ministers serving in government—apart from temporarily—while they are associated with an organisation that retains weapons. Decommissioning should happen, for as long the island of Ireland is awash with guns and explosives, the chance of them falling into the hands of dissident organisations that reject the Belfast agreement is significantly increased.
  We are all aware of the serious threat posed by dissident organisations on both sides, not just in Northern Ireland, where serious loss of life has been avoided only through a combination of good fortune and skill on the part of the security forces, but here in Great Britain, as the recent bomb in Shepherd's Bush showed.
  138
  Decommissioning should happen because it is the clear will of the people of Northern Ireland and the will of the people of the Irish Republic. They voted in 1998 to take the gun out of Irish politics: they voted for decommissioning. They did not vote for an armed peace. By refusing to decommission, the paramilitaries show their contempt for the views of the people in whose name and cause they have so often claimed to act.
  For all those reasons, decommissioning should take place, and it should take place soon. In their statement of 5 May last year, the British and Irish Governments set out the process for the full implementation of the agreement, which envisaged decommissioning taking place by June of this year. For that to happen, it would presumably have to begin in the next few weeks.
  With that deadline in mind, we are somewhat surprised that the Government have chosen to extend the amnesty provisions in the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 for the fullest possible period, to next February. Is not there a case for extending the amnesty only until June, as a clear indication of the importance that the Government attach to that date and of the urgent need for decommissioning to take place?
  The decision to extend the amnesty until next February risks sending out a message that the Government have already accepted that decommissioning will not take place within the time scale envisaged last year. If so, that would be truly regrettable. We look to the Minister to reassure us that that is not the case, that decommissioning remains an urgent necessity, and that all pressure will continue to be put on the republican and so-called loyalist paramilitaries to carry it out. Everyone else has done their bit and, often at great political risk, fulfilled their obligations. Surely it is time for the paramilitaries to deliver on theirs.
  10.48 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: First, I apologise to the Minister for missing the first couple of minutes of the debate. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) was here and reported to me what he said. I listened to his careful words and to the careful words of the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), and I can be brief. The view in my party and among Members on these Benches is similar to that expressed from the Conservative Front Bench.
  It is clearly right that when the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 was passed, a possible five-year period, renewable on a regular basis, was envisaged—that was the end point contemplated then. It is also clearly right that forward steps have been taken. The two people appointed to undertake the monitoring are held in great esteem internationally and are highly regarded in their job. Likewise, General de Chastelain has become an accepted broker with the paramilitaries.
  However, we are getting near the end of the period—the new Secretary of State is as aware of that as anybody—and our nervousness is shared much more every day by people in the Province who have to live their lives in circumstances that the rest of us experience only occasionally. The promises and the indications given have yet to be delivered.
  We will not divide the House. We accept the Government's good faith, and know that they are trying to bring about delivery of the agreement and

  139
  decommissioning; but one or two matters appear to remain unspoken, and I hope that the Minister will deal with them.
  First, the last Secretary of State and the Prime Minister implied that we could realistically expect an agreement to be concluded by June this year. We are now dealing with the order in early April. If pressure had been put on all the parties, there might have been a logic—as the hon. Member for Solihull implied—in delaying the order or giving it a shorter life, so that pressure could be seen to be exerted to achieve the June deadline. Will the Minister tell us whether he contemplated either a shorter order or delaying tonight's debate until nearer the June date—a date in May, when the current order runs out—to put pressure on the parties to deliver the goods which, as the hon. Gentleman said, have not yet been delivered?
  My second point is this: it is obviously a good thing that the IRA has made two statements, one last year and one this year, saying that it is willing to engage with the de Chastelain commission, but that was against a background of talks having been broken off in the first place. Can the Government give the House and the people of Northern Ireland any idea of whether further progress has been made? Is there any possibility that a date is to be fixed on which General de Chastelain will be able to give a positive indication of progress? Are the Government aware of any good news in the pipeline? Have there been a number of meetings between the IRA and the commission on which the Minister can report to the House; if so, how many?
  I know that we clutch at straws to some extent, but they must be more than straws before long. They must be solid pieces of building material, to enable the peace desired by the Government and all other democratic parties in the House to be achieved.
  Obviously I do not deal with these matters as often as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), but I understand that the weapons dumps have been inspected twice in the past 10 months. That is all well and good, but what the people of Northern Ireland want is exactly what the hon. Member for Solihull said they wanted, and what the rest of us want. We want not just inspections, but destruction. We do not just want a monitoring process; at the end of the day, we want the weapons to go. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether, as of tonight, the Government have been given any indication that there is not merely a willingness for a further inspection to take place, but a willingness for the weapons to disappear by the end of the period.
  Time is running out for the amnesty; time is running out for people to show that they mean what they say. Time is running out for a response to the perfectly proper initiatives that the Government have taken, with the support of all sides. We cannot call too strongly—on behalf of all the people of Ireland, north and south—for a response. We cannot go on saying, "Tomorrow, or later, will be time enough".
  10.54 pm
  Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann): The order is a technical measure. It is necessary because, without such an amnesty provision, actual decommissioning could never occur. Obviously we shall want the order to be
  140
  made, to provide for that. As the current amnesty period will expire on 19 May, it is clearly necessary for it to be extended. I therefore support the order, subject to a reservation similar to that mentioned by other Members, to which I shall return shortly.
  Clearly, the debate will range beyond the technical measure to review what has—or, more precisely, has not—happened with regard to decommissioning over the period. The starting point is the discussions that took place in Hillsborough in May last year. At that time, the Government set June this year as the point at which full implementation of all aspects of the agreement should be achieved. The original date set for full implementation was May 2000, but in view of the circumstances at that time, the Government moved it to June this year, which was regrettable but necessary.
  At that time—May last year—we were encouraged by the undertaking given by the IRA to put its weapons beyond use, completely and verifiably. Our expectation was that the IRA would engage with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and agree a method by which the weapons would be put beyond use. We expected the republican movement to approach de Chastelain with ideas about how that could be done, so that a fresh scheme could be made and the weapons dealt with. Provided that the weapons were permanently beyond use or unavailable, people in Northern Ireland would have been satisfied.
  Regrettably, although there was some contact—a telephone call, I believe—in May or June last year, there was no engagement. The failure of the republican movement to keep its promise resulted in the decision that I took, supported by my party, to impose what sanctions we could on the political representatives of the republican movement, barring them from the North-South Ministerial Council and possibly other meetings. That sanction has been and will be maintained until serious progress occurs. I am convinced that the republican movement has moved only under pressure. Any thought that progress can be achieved without pressure being applied is, I believe, quite illusory.
  Republicans have recently made undertakings to renew contact with General de Chastelain and his commission and to have further discussions, and reference has been made to a report issued by the commission on 22 March. I commend General de Chastelain's recent reports. The most recent ones have been quite detailed and are worth reading closely. When the report of 22 March is read closely, it reveals that no progress has been made. Some who have spoken today have drawn encouragement from some of the language used in that report, but it is clear that there has been no progress.
  There has been a meeting—one—between de Chastelain and a representative of the IRA, but the language used about that meeting is interesting. De Chastelain says that the participants reviewed events over the course of the past year and discussed a basis for further discussions. One can contrast that with the references to meetings that de Chastelain has had recently with representatives of the UVF and UFF, at which he says they renewed their commitment to decommissioning and their general agreement on modalities.
  There is commitment and agreement on methodology from the loyalist paramilitaries, but with the republican movement there has not yet been discussion on the means

  141
  by which weapons would be put beyond use, let alone any agreement. As I read that report, I conclude that there has not yet been any serious engagement between the republican movement and the IICD—contact, yes; a meeting, yes; but no serious engagement. I regard that as a very serious matter. June is the date for full implementation. As has been said, if we are to see serious decommissioning in June, there will have to be agreement on methodology and various matters will have to be sorted out in advance of that date. The time in which to do that is running out.
  The danger of this order is that setting or renewing the amnesty period right through until February of next year could create the impression that June was being undermined as the date by which full implementation will occur. It is very important that nothing that is said tonight on either side of the House should undermine June as the key date by which implementation has been agreed. Whatever the position might be in an amnesty order, de Chastelain's mandate was renewed in May of last year until June. That mandate derives from an agreement that was made by all the parties; it can only be extended by all the parties.
  I know from discussions with General de Chastelain that he is aware that his credibility and that of his commission is at stake. If no serious progress is made between now and June, he is well aware of the possible effect on the decommissioning process and his commission's credibility. It is therefore important that all parties who wish to see progress on this issue should maintain the emphasis on June and maintain the pressure on the republican movement. They should make it clear to the republicans that there will be no extension of the de Chastelain mandate without serious progress on this issue. I intend to maintain that pressure, with regard not only to the sanctions that we have applied to the republican movement but to other matters. We shall take whatever course of action we consider most appropriate to reinforce the pressure on the republicans, because there has to be progress on this issue.
  I shall not weary the House by saying why that progress is necessary. The reasons have been mentioned by the hon. Members for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). An additional reason is that there is already a significant worry that material, explosives and weapons held by the mainstream IRA are leaking into dissident republican organisations. There is some evidence of that happening from the devices that have been used. For that reason if no other, it is necessary for these weapons to be made permanently unusable and permanently unavailable. If we have progress on that, we can then start to tackle—effectively, I hope—the way in which some paramilitary gangs are transmuting themselves into Mafia-type organisations.
  The people of Northern Ireland appreciate the progress that has been made so far, but they are conscious of the fact that the job is not yet done. A lot of hard work remains to be done to achieve the goal that we have set ourselves of producing a normal, peaceful society that operates in a wholly democratic fashion.
  11.3 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The thesis that has been stated in this House over and over again about the agreement—so-called—has been a simple one. It is that
  142
  we can wean people away from criminal acts, violence and murder by making concessions to them. The whole of the agreement is built on that thesis. We have heard it repeatedly. People have emphasised that if we give it time, it will certainly succeed.
  The people of Northern Ireland see the leaders of Sinn Fein-IRA every day. They hear what they say on television; they hear what they say in the Assembly and at their political meetings. There is no reason to believe that they have changed any of their views. A recent leaflet from Sinn Fein-IRA circulated in west Belfast makes that very clear. It tells the people of west Belfast, "We are able to make an announcement that we have succeeded in ridding you of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The police reserve which persecuted and tortured you and helped to destroy you will be off the streets in one year's time."
  The leaflet goes on to say, "These people carried out against the nationalist people this campaign of torture and murder and on every occasion did that which they ought not to have done." It says, however, that the RUC will be off the streets. It says that those people are scum. It also says, "If they take employment among you, you have to make their life hell on earth. You must report them, and you must break the scum." Those are not my words, but the words being circulated among the Sinn Fein constituency. The heart has not changed.
  Anyone in Northern Ireland listening to us will know how far this debate is from reality.
  Mr. William Ross: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should inform the House that the document to which he refers is available on the internet.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that it is, and I am sure that it will be widely circulated.
  Can any hon. Member bring me evidence showing that any of the leaders of IRA-Sinn Fein have changed at all in regard to the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the British Army? We remember the days when, every Christmas, the IRA and Sinn Fein issued the statement, "Have a member of the British Army for dinner—they taste beautiful." That is the nature of the matter.
  We need to read the history of the republican leaders in the south of Ireland, De Valera and the rest of them. They knew that those men would not be changed. Their own leaders knew that they would not be changed. Hon. Members may think that they have changed because we have let them all out of prison, given them this, that and the other thing, put money into their hands and did all those other things, but they have not changed. There will come a reaping day for Northern Ireland, but it will be the people of Northern Ireland and not hon. Members sitting comfortably in this place who will have that reaping day. As was rightly said, why do they want to hold on to their arms if they are not going to use them?
  It is absolutely wrong for any hon. Member to say that the IRA's arms are under constant inspection. Only a very small part of their arms has ever been properly inspected. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does not know how many arms they have or what percentage of arms is in those bunkers. Nor were those who inspected the arms in the bunkers the second time able to count every one of them and say, "They are all totted up and everything is all right." The inspectors had no idea whatever.

  143
  We have had a demonstration to try to alleviate people's fears, but they have not been alleviated. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) tells us that people are happy about the situation, but I have met no one who is happy about the situation. I have met no one of the Roman Catholic faith attending one of my advice centres who was happy about the situation. People are concerned when guns are in the hands of any section of the community and held on to. For what purpose are those guns held on to? As a leading MLA told us some time ago, if those people do not get their way, they will go back to doing what they do best. That man is the Chairman of one of the Assembly's important Committees. That is what we are up against.
  We have put off this evil day. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann tells us that an agreement was made that June was to be the deadline. He says that we should not depart from that. If we are not departing from that, what are we doing by spreading the matter into next year? Why do we not stick to June and say that that is it? But we are not doing that; we are putting it off for another year because some Members of the House think that Unionist people will tire and say, "Oh, let them keep their arms. After all, they're not doing any harm."
  No democratic Government can survive when members of that Government have access to arms that they will use if they cannot get their own way. That is the position in Northern Ireland.
  As for the so-called loyalist paramilitaries, they will not disarm either. They have made that clear. No matter what they say to the general, they will not disarm. However, because they have little strength in the polls, they are not in the Government, whereas the leaders of IRA-Sinn Fein are in the Government of Northern Ireland.
  Tonight, the House is putting its hand to a very, very foolish measure. It is giving IRA-Sinn Fein a prolonged period—another year—to plan, scheme and keep moving in the direction of their agenda. Their agenda is not peace; it is control. If that control does not come through the ballot box, it will come through the bullet and the bomb.
  I shall vote against the motion. I think that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would want it voted against, because it extends to the IRA the liberty to go on and on—to hold on to weapons of murder and to attack those who bore the heat and the burden in those hard and evil days. It is a shame and a disgrace that we should be asked to do that tonight.
  11.13 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: People in Northern Ireland who may be watching the debate on satellite television will consider it most unreal. Once again, the Government show that they are being strung along by the Provisional IRA. They are extending the amnesty beyond the time that they themselves said would be the final period for the full implementation of decommissioning in Northern Ireland.
  It was a sad spectacle when the leader of the Ulster Unionist party made his comments in the debate. He should hang his head in shame. He was suckered by the IRA into making concessions to it, on the basis that he believed IRA members when they said that they would
  144
  decommission within a two-year period. Although they have not delivered, he believes them again, makes more concessions and allows them a further year to decommission.
  Does any hon. Member believe that the full decommissioning process will have taken place by the end of June, as required in the agreement that was reached last May? I suspect that not too many hon. Members believe that that will happen—if any. Certainly, the Minister of State does not believe it, because if he really did believe it, he would not be asking for the period to be extended beyond June to next February. That is a clear indication that the Government recognise that, once again, the IRA will not decommission.
  The truth is that, far from decommissioning, the IRA is stockpiling more weapons. We had some evidence of that when a court case took place in Florida. The FBI in Miami undertook an investigation, at the end of which it concluded that the decisions that related to that particular gun-running effort were taken
  "at the very highest level of the Provisional IRA."
  What is the highest level of the Provisional IRA? It is its army council. Who is on the army council of the Provisional IRA? The chief of staff is Thomas "Slab" Murphy. The assistant chief is Brian Keenan. The other members are Martin McGuinness, the Minister of Education in the Northern Ireland Assembly; Gerard Adams, leader of Sinn Fein; Martin Ferris, another Sinn Fein member; Patrick Doherty, another Sinn Fein member; and Brian Gillen. They are the seven members of the army council of the Provisional IRA, a majority of whom are members of Sinn Fein.
  Those are the people with whom the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has been dealing. They are the people who he is prepared to believe would decommission the weapons. According to the FBI in Miami, they are the people who took the decision to run more guns into the country, and we are told that their word is being taken in considering decommissioning in Northern Ireland.
  How much do the Government have to be suckered? How much does the right hon. Member for Upper Bann have to be suckered before he recognises that Sinn Fein-IRA are simply stringing them all along, sucking the concessions from them and giving nothing in return? They may not understand that, but the people of Northern Ireland do. The people of Northern Ireland will take the earliest opportunity to tell the right hon. Gentleman what they think of his trusting the Provisional IRA.
  11.17 pm
  Mr. William Ross: When I sat down to read the order, I thought that it would be instructive to look at the chronology of events. I noticed that the first piece of delegated legislation on decommissioning appeared in March 1998, and the second appeared in February 1999, extending the deadline to February 2000. In February 2000, the deadline was extended to 23 May 2000, which gives an indication of the high hopes that were around at that time. On 20 May 2000, the deadline was extended to 20 May 2001—for a year, which is all that was possible.
  It is fairly certain that the general election will be held on 7 June, although Ministers may not think so. If they

  145
  do not, they must be the only people in the country who do not think that it will take place on 7 June. We are now debating the issue again today, so that the deadline can be extended to 27 February 2002—the last day of the five-year period, when the sunset clause takes effect and the legislation falls.
  Of course, that raises a very interesting question. The Secretary of State made it perfectly plain very recently that the June deadline remained. What happens in June when no weapons have been surrendered for destruction? Beyond that, what happens in February next year when the decommissioning legislation dies? We have not been told that. Before we are finished this evening, we should be told what the consequences will be in June of the failure to decommission or destroy weapons and what happens as from February next year. Do all the benefits of the legislation fall? Can any weapons that are surrendered then be taken for forensic testing? I think that we should be told. If the legislation falls, surely we go back to the situation that existed before it went on the statute book.
  The chronology of events shows that the Government have exhibited in relation to the IRA an annual triumph of hope over experience, We should not be under any illusions as to the views that Lord Mayhew—the former Secretary of State—took when proposing the legislation originally. As far as he was concerned, it was an absolutely vital element of the peace process that weaponry was surrendered and destroyed. It was not only Lord Mayhew who took that as a litmus test; it was treated as such by the right hon. Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam) when she was Secretary of State. She made it absolutely clear that this was a most unusual piece of legislation, in that it suspended the normal criminal law, as she said on 22 February 1999 when the legislation was being renewed.
  We have taken the serious step of suspending the normal criminal law, allowing people to do things that normally constitute criminal acts and to get away with them without charge, all in the hope that we would get the Provisional IRA, their fellow travellers and other terrorist organisations on the republican and loyalist side to surrender their weapons.
  The Minister of State made it clear in May last year that if there were no extension, there was no hope of progress on decommissioning. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman was convinced—less than a year ago—that there was going to be progress on decommissioning. I hope that he does not feel too disappointed this evening that he has had to come back for another year. Perhaps he is just a slow learner and has not yet understood that the Provisional IRA and their fellow travellers have not the slightest intention of giving up their weapons.
  A number of different wordings have been used at one time or another and, given that the debate only has a short time to run, I will not go into them. However, the right hon. Member for Redcar made it perfectly clear that the Decommissioning Commission was intended to collect and destroy the arms or to bring about the destruction of the arms by those who possessed them. Other options were also open, including the handing over of weapons for destruction.
  Later on, the language changed. We had "decommissioning", "putting permanently beyond use" and "looking at things in the round". In other words, all
  146
  sorts of excuses were being made for not making it clear to the IRA that weapons had to be handed over and visibly and verifiably destroyed. If I were a member of the IRA and I saw the Government changing their language and softening their approach, 1 would be greatly encouraged not to move one millimetre. That has happened; the IRA never had any intention of giving up their weapons. They intend to hold on to them and use them as blackmail against the democratic process, the ordinary citizens of Northern Ireland and the Government. The threat is there; they have the guns and the bombs and, if necessary, they will use them to get their own way.
  The Secretary of State made it clear a week or so ago that the target date of June this year would not be affected by the order. If he had not extended the deadline to February but had made the cut-off date 1 July, the Provisional IRA might have been more likely to believe him. Be that as it may, he has decided on February next year. His reputation in Northern Ireland will depend on whether he sticks to that date. It was not my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) or me but the Secretary of State—speaking for the Government—who said the end of June. If he cannot keep his word, he need not tell the people of Northern Ireland anything else. They will just not believe him.
  June rather than February is still the operative date, but I still want to know what will happen at the end of June and what will happen next February if no weapons have been given up. What will the outcome be? Are we expected to forget completely the fact that an armed terrorist organisation with the capability to cause considerable death and destruction is sitting in government in Northern Ireland? It is being treated as a normal political party and it is feted across the world as though it has not been all that bad. Its members are viewed as though they fought a little war for freedom rather than as the ruthless, murderous thugs that they are. They live off the backs of the people of Northern Ireland and are involved in every sort of crime. They practise intimidation and terror every single day. The sooner we have clear answers to my questions, the better for all concerned.
  11.27 pm
  Dr. William McCrea: My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that the debate seemed to be very far from reality. When one considers the opening remarks of the Minister of State and the speeches of other Members, it is clear that they are far from reality. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to clutching at straws and said that we needed solid building material. There is no doubt that we are clutching at straws when we try to get any reality or reason into this debate by considering what is happening in the Province.
  The Minister's opening speech was revealing. I noticed that he was busily munching sweets when my colleagues were speaking, but I remind him of what he said. He took us back to the Belfast agreement and to the promise of May 2000 when we were supposed to have the total decommissioning of terrorist weapons. He reminded us that nothing happened in May 2000—just the empty void, being led by the nose and being suckered by the provos laughing all the way to the bank having got concession after concession from gullible Governments and previous

  147
  Secretaries of State, especially the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam).
  The right hon. Lady prostrated herself even in the prison itself in front of the provos to try to get them on to her train. It was a disgraceful and despicable act. She crawled to some of the greatest and vilest terrorists that have ever lived in our Province, who rained sorrow and tragedy on the people of the Province and the United Kingdom.
  At the end of May 2000, nothing happened, but we were told that there had been a breakthrough. That breakthrough led to more concessions by the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, who has just left his seat to carry out some other business. The breakthrough was restoring Martin McGuinness and Barbara Brown—Bairbre de Brun—to their special places holding ministerial office over the people they had murdered and destroyed during the years of terror.
  We had the promise of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. I should like to ask the Minister of State this question: what has been the cost of that commission from the time that de Chastelain started his work to now? The people of the United Kingdom have met that cost and it would be interesting to find out exactly how much it is. People in the Province cannot get cancer operations and heart operations when they need them, but there seems to be an endless amount of money going to the commission. It would be interesting the learn the precise cost of that farce of a decommissioning commission.
  Anyone who knows the reality knows fine well that the provos never had any intention and still have no intention of giving up their weapons. They are stringing people along in the knowledge that all they have to do is make another little gesture to get another round of concessions. They have every reason to believe that, because time after time they have got concession after concession—a stream of concessions has flowed to the republican movement. It was interesting to hear the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) say that we have to maintain pressure on the republican movement—that will make the provos shudder and tremble in their shoes, given what pressure has been applied until now!
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary and its reserve have been trampled in the gutter. The leader of my party, my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), has read a document sent in the name of Sinn Fein-IRA throughout the Province: it calls the gallant RUC, GC "scum". The leopard has not changed its spots. Previous Secretaries of State have thrown their arms around those people and photographs record the kisses they had along the way with the darlings of the movement. Decent people were sick and continue to be sick.
  The Secretary of State might find that funny, but I tell him that the decent people will have an opportunity to speak in the forthcoming general election. Whether he likes it or not, he will have to listen to the authentic voice of the Unionist population, because the ballot box will give that authentic voice when, in a few months at most, the Prime Minister decides finally to call it. Roll on that election—let the people speak. The people of Northern
  148
  Ireland are not those who are courted by the Secretary of State, lauded, applauded and given positions. The people are the ordinary, decent voters of Northern Ireland who sent me here, even though the Labour party did not want the hon. Member for South Antrim to be a member of the Democratic Unionist party. They sent me here as their authentic voice. They will return me as that authentic voice whenever the election comes, and I shall be happy to put my record before them at that time.
  We are told that the deadline is June 2001, but June 2001 is coming and the Minister of State knows that there are no guns, so what do the Government do? They move the deadline to the furthest date possible under the legislation, to February 2002. None the less, the Minister of State knows the provos and knows full well that they have no intention of giving up their weapons. If they had such an intention, why would they be arming and re-arming?
  I think that the Minister of State thinks that he is in a funny house. He should stand on the ground with the people of my constituency and the Province—the people who to this very day suffer under the terror of the provos. There was nothing funny about what happened last night, when the gunmen fired their weapons and houses were petrol-bombed in Glengormley and Cookstown. The provos go on day after day, week after week. They have not given up their old path and have never moved an inch from their original direction and what they espoused in imposing their weaponry of fear on ordinary people. Yet the Minister said that de Chastelain's report was "encouraging". It is interesting that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said that no progress has been made, and that there has not been any serious engagement. Is that encouraging?
  Once the provos were applauded for letting two of their dumps be seen, but which dump were the guns from Florida going to? At the same time, they were taking part in the peace process and Martin McGuinness, who was involved, was making authorisations. The Secretary of State has told my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim that he does not believe in those pieces of paper. However, he knows full well who is the leader of the provos.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): I did not say that I did not believe in those pieces of paper. I said that I do not discuss them.
  Dr. McCrea: The Secretary of State may not discuss them, but the reason why he cannot is that he is embracing the people mentioned on them as Ministers over the people of Northern Ireland. They have committed murder. Martin McGuinness appears on one piece of paper as a member of the army council of the provos, yet that organisation carries on murdering to this day. It continues with intimidation and threats and holds its community to ransom. The Secretary of State knows that full well, but does not want to discuss it because the Government have embraced those people as the new democrats. If they are new democrats, God help democracy.
  The leopard has not changed his spots. I wish with all my heart that it had, because I know exactly what it is like for the IRA gun to be fired, not at someone else, but at my own. I know what it is like for a bomb to come to my own house; I know what it is like to face terrorist

  149
  activity; I know what it is like to sit with those who have constantly experienced that. The IRA are still going on. Why else were they bringing in guns? Was that for a Christmas party? No, it was for murder and destruction. IRA and Sinn Fein know that their arguments will never turn the Unionist majority into republicans, and they know that only one weapon can screw the heart out of the Unionist population—the gun. They have never been able, through the power of their oratory, to change the hearts of Unionists, who believe in the right of democracy and the right to decide their destiny and democratic future through the ballot box alone.
  Irrespective of whether terrorists are so-called republicans or so called Unionists, there is no place for arms in their hands. That is why law-abiding people want all terrorist arms to be removed from everyone; no one should be left with arms, except the security forces, who have the right to defend the law-abiding people of the United Kingdom. I am therefore telling the House that the provos have blackmailed the Government and told us that they will go back to what they know best. When the stream of concessions stops, they certainly intend to move back to the path of brutality, murder and destruction. The only way to stop that is to have terrorist weaponry removed from terrorists. I know that the Secretary of State—and the Minister of State, who will reply to the debate—will tell me that they believe that this order is the best way to bring that about. In my opinion, and in the opinion of those who elected me to this House, that is totally naive, because the provos never intended to give up their weapons. That is why they are stockpiling more.
  There were those who suggested that there was a seepage of weapons—to the Real IRA or the Continuity IRA. Is that why the provos were bringing weapons in? Is that why they had to renew their stockpile? It is said that they have espoused democracy, but no true democrat can have the Armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other.
  I believe that the people of Northern Ireland deserve peace—a real and lasting peace—and that that will come about when terrorism and the terrorists, whoever they are, are defeated, and the democrats can rule.
  11.41 pm
  Mr. Ingram: I shall try to deal with all the points that were raised in the debate, and I shall deal first with those raised by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I accept the fact that he welcomes the order in principle, and I understand some of the reasoning that he used to set himself a position slightly different from that of the Government. I know that he understands that the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, and the way in which the amnesty flows from it, were set up by the previous Administration, so this is continuum.
  At that time, it was decided that five years was the period over which such a process was likely to be conducted, after which the Act would come up for further consideration by the House if no progress had been made. Of course, there was no suggestion then that we were likely to achieve the Good Friday agreement. That was a major step forward, as everyone, including the hon. Gentleman, recognised at the time.
  In one sense, I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the possibility that some people may take the wrong signals from the extension. That may happen.
  150
  There is not unanimity of opinion in Northern Ireland; not everyone marches to the same tune. There will be those who seek to exploit what we are doing for their own ends—although I do not say that that is the spirit in which he raised the matter.
  Neither the IRA nor Sinn Fein is under any such illusion. They both know that the Government are determined to deliver on the commitment given last May that June is the target date, and remains our objective. That is the way in which the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and of the Republic of Ireland have gone about their business, time after time, constantly seeking to get all the parties round the table and move the process forward. No pro-agreement party should be under any illusion about the Government's determination.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about the on-going discussions that there may or may not have been between the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and the various groups with which it is in contact. It is for the de Chastelain commission to advise the Governments on meetings with the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Freedom Fighters or any other group to which it may be talking.
  The commission's most recent report, on 22 March, said that its meeting with the IRA representative had been in good faith. It also stated the commission's expectation that further meetings would occur soon. That was how it reported not only to the Governments but publicly. I would analyse that as progress, and that was how the commission set things out in its statement; it used a word that could lead us to that conclusion. This was not the end of the process, but again, it was part of a momentum towards achieving what we all hope will be the end result.
  Further to that, General de Chastelain has made it clear on a number of occasions that if he believes that progress is not possible, he will say so. He has not said that, but he would do so if that is how matters appeared to him. The general's integrity and judgment are beyond question. I know that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey would accept that. There are no secret deals and no secret knowledge. That which the commission obtains from its points of contact is eventually reported on. It is then for the House and the wider community to consider that.
  I repeat that if General de Chastelain makes an assessment of the situation and concludes that no progress has been made, he would say so. I am sure that that would resonate widely and deeply in everything that we are doing, but he has not said that yet, nor is there an indication that he is likely to do so. A textual analysis of what he reported on 22 March shows the opposite to be the case.
  I pay tribute to the resolute way in which the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has stuck to his task. It has not been an easy task, and I know that he receives many plaudits, but it is worth constantly paying him such compliments, because he has a difficult job trying to lead his party down a route that is difficult for him and for many in the Unionist community.
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that he has stuck to his task, as has the Prime Minister. The way in which the two Governments have dealt with the issue and the determination that they have shown is what the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want.

  151
  They may not necessarily have voted for it or even in support of the Good Friday agreement, but ultimately the objective that we seek is what they want, even those who at present may give electoral support to parties that have not yet totally turned away from violence. That is the mood of wider opinion in Northern Ireland. I am conscious of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was not present for my opening comments. The June target date remains the operative date for the Government as well.
  I shall not spend too long on the comments of the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), and for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea), or even those of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I have heard their argument time and again. It contains no solution. I understand their criticism. I understand that they say that we offer hope, rather than delivering anything more substantial, but what is the alternative? Is it to go back to the violence and back to war? Is that what they want? Is that what they want to impose on the people of Northern Ireland?
  Dr. McCrea: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ingram: In a moment. I shall deal with some of the offensive comments that the hon. Gentleman made. [Interruption.]
  If bombast alone could remove the bullet from Northern Ireland, it would have gone long ago, but shouting, ranting and raving at it does not deliver peace. That will be achieved by careful analysis of the situation, by considering where the problems exist in Northern Ireland, by trying to find points of agreement and by creating the inclusive society envisaged in the Good Friday agreement.
  The hon. Member for South Antrim has been shouting at me, but I hope that I have silenced him, for the first time.
  Dr. McCrea: It was the provos, not the Minister of State, who tried to silence this hon. Member. It was the provos who tried to murder my family and me. Does not the right hon. Gentleman know how hurtful it is to suggest that we are going back to violence, when we have been the butt of the terrorist violence? We are not taking up any gun. We never pointed any gun at them. We are not doing so now. I find it extremely insulting for him to suggest to someone who believes in democracy and whom the provos have tried to murder that we want to go back to the gun. We want the guns stopped.
  Mr. Ingram: I do not for one moment deny the threats that have been suffered by the hon. Gentleman and his family, but I can look around the House and see others who have suffered similar threats. They might not have suffered to the same extent, but the potential was there. Many families have had to accept the possibility of such violence being visited upon them because a member of their family—perhaps a Member of Parliament—had taken the arguments on.
  That is the reality that is faced by all of us who deal with these issues, so the hon. Gentleman is not unique. I recognise the sensitivity that is involved. I have not been
  152
  Minister for victims for so long without understanding the extent and depth of the grief that exists in Northern Ireland. We have tried to tackle that grief sensitively and not to turn our face away from it. We have tried not to exploit the situation, but to heal it. We do not want to create divisions or continue to exploit the sectarian bitterness in Northern Ireland. Instead, we want to try to achieve a better and more decent society. I think that my objectives are different from his.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about the visit made to the Maze by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, she did not visit the republican prisoners. She met the so-called loyalist prisoners. He might have recognised some of them, as he shared platforms with some of those very evil people. That is the reality. It was widely recognised that her brave decision ensured that the loyalist groups remained on ceasefire. As we have said consistently, we are not involved in a perfect peace. There are major difficulties—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I say to the hon. Members for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) that they should keep quiet while they are in a sedentary position. There are strong opinions and they can be expressed strongly in this House, but they must be expressed within the rules of order.
  Mr. Ingram: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  There are heated views to be expressed, and the temperature has been raised by DUP Members. We are on a difficult road, and this is an imperfect peace. We are seeking a more perfect solution as best we can, so I ask them the same question: if we do not pursue that, then what? Is it more Army, more violence and more of what we had in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s? Is it more of what the DUP does when it says that it does not share government with Sinn Fein, but joins it in Assembly committees? They try to have it both ways. They say publicly that they do not support such arrangements, but I have met joint delegations consisting of DUP and Sinn Fein councillors, as well as other representatives of those two parties. If the DUP is not going to have dealings with Sinn Fein, that should be complete and total; it should do so in no way at all.
  I accept that DUP Members understand the importance of democracy and are aware that there is sometimes a need to talk to one's enemy to further one's own political ends. That is what DUP representatives are doing when they participate in joint delegations to meet me as a Minister, as they have done a number of times. I shall not accuse them of hypocrisy, because I cannot use that word. I am sure, however that many people outside the House will question why they do not serve on the Executive with Sinn Fein, but join it in making a variety of other representations.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I would certainly not walk out of this House if Sinn Fein came into it, and I doubt whether any other hon. Member would do so.
  The Minister asked about an alternative. I am not sure whether he heard the view that was belatedly expressed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble),

  153
  who said earlier that it is only pressure that has forced Sinn Fein to change its view. Of course, there is no pressure, because, as he conceded he gave in to everything, and that has always been his position. If pressure is the way to achieve progress, could not the utmost pressure be applied to Sinn Fein simply by saying, "You don't get into government until you have decommissioned", rather than by putting it into government first and then asking it to decommission?
  Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman does not support the Good Friday agreement; he is therefore out of synch with the majority who supported it. The Good Friday agreement did not make the requirement that he outlined, and the people did not sign up to such a requirement. A series of iterative processes had to he undergone. Some were required of the Government and the Irish Government; others were required of other parties. They are all being taken forward.
  Does the hon. Gentleman have a blueprint instead of the Good Friday agreement other than being resolute or saying "No" at a time when republicanism is writ large in the form of the dissident Real IRA? We have never hidden from the fact that violence exists, but we must determine the way in which to overcome it. All of us who are taking forward the Good Friday agreement are trying to achieve that. It would help the process of moving towards a different, better Northern Ireland immeasurably if members of the Democratic Unionist party found it in their hearts to be inclusive, and acknowledged that they might have to sit round a table with those who have opposed them in the past.
  Absolutism will not succeed in Northern Ireland; it has not succeeded in the past, and it will not succeed in future. That is why the people of Northern Ireland voted for the Good Friday agreement in such large numbers. They knew the difficulties and problems.
  Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Ingram: No, I have only a few more minutes.
  We have said time and again since May last year that June remains our target date. We are set on that course, which was decided at our last engagement with Sinn Fein at Hillsborough. It remains our position. The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported on 22 March that progress had been made. Much more needs to be made.
  I set out the reasoning behind extending the amnesty until February next year. It does not alter the target date; it simply takes the amnesty period to the point at which the five years outlined in the Act expire. As I tried to explain earlier, it avoids our retuning to the House time and again to renew the amnesty.
  I also pointed out that some so-called loyalist groups said that they would begin their decommissioning only after they witnessed some tangible movement from the IRA. There is therefore a requirement for a period that extends beyond 19 May and the few weeks after that, which some hon. Members requested.
  I accept that the order may not be wholly welcome, but we must agree to differ on that. The Government have shown that we can move forward. We have a much more peaceful Northern Ireland with an economic position that makes it stand out from many other regions of the United
  154
  Kingdom. That would not have happened without the Good Friday agreement and without basing our economic approach on what the agreement will achieve. I therefore ask hon. Members to accept the order, which provides a framework for moving forward.
  Question put:—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 4 April, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together motions 8 and 9.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  RATING AND VALUATION
  That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Public Houses and Petrol Filling Stations) (England) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 80) on 2001–02 Special Grant for Rate Relief in respect of Hardship Caused by Foot and Mouth Disease (HC368), which was laid before this House on 27th March, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

  OLIVE OIL
  That this House takes note of the European Union Document No. 9431/00, Special Report No. 11/2000 of the Court of Auditors on the support scheme for olive oil; and supports the Government's aim of pressing for further reform of the regime to reduce its costs, complexity and opportunities for fraud.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

  WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 10802/00, draft directives on waste electrical and electronic equipment and on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment; notes the Government's current negotiating line on the Document; and supports the Government's actions.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 4 April, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

  Lupus
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  12 midnight
  Mrs. Janet Dean: I am delighted to have been successful in securing this Adjournment debate. Several weeks ago, I tried without success to secure a debate on brewing, which is important to my constituency. Tonight, I am pleased to address the House on an important issue, about which people's awareness needs to be raised.
  We are all familiar with awareness weeks as they seem to occur for one thing or another throughout the year, and we wear our ribbons and badges with pride. Lupus awareness week, which is between 14 and 21 April this year, is special because awareness of lupus needs to be raised. It needs to become more well known than it is.
  I want to pay tribute to Lupus UK for its work in trying to raise the profile of systemic lupus erythematosus, which is the name of the condition. I also pay tribute to Cheryl Marcus, who founded the British SLE Group—the forerunner of Lupus UK—in 1978. The current chairman, Ronnie Gourley, and the vice-chairman, Yvonne Norton, work hard to make the general public and the medical profession more aware of the condition. They were also a great help in supporting the formation of the all-party group approximately a year ago.
  Systemic lupus erythematosus is difficult to say, and difficult to live with. It is an auto-immune disease. "Systemic" means throughout the system. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) just asked me what the derivation of "lupus" was. It is the Latin word for "wolf". Some people with the condition have a wolf-like rash across their cheeks. "Erythematosus" simply means a reddening, or an inflammation. People with systemic lupus erythematosus can have inflammations of many parts of the body—a few parts or a lot—with organs such as the heart, the brain and the kidneys being affected. The skin and the joints can also be affected—you name it, and it will probably be involved in some cases, although not in others.
  There are some interesting facts about lupus. One in 750 women in the UK have the condition. Worldwide, lupus is more common in some races than in others. It affects about one in 1,000 white women. In black women, the figure is as high as one in 200. Asian races have a higher tendency to lupus as well. It predominantly attacks women of childbearing age, but young children and men can also be affected, and 10 per cent. of lupus patients are male.
  Although the disease is little known in this country, it is better known elsewhere. Worldwide, it is more prevalent than leukaemia, muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis. It is estimated that some 50,000 people in the UK have lupus, many of whom have not yet been diagnosed. Twenty per cent. of recurrent miscarriages have a direct link with lupus and the associated Hughes syndrome.
  When I first heard of lupus, back in 1970, I had to write it down on a piece of paper to remember it. Very few people seemed to have heard of it in those days. Sadly, I heard about the disease because my mother was diagnosed with it. For many years—probably from the time of my birth—she had had such illnesses as arthritis,
  156
  pleurisy, Raynaud's, syndrome and severe headaches, but nobody had put all that together. It was 21 years later, in 1970, that her illness was diagnosed when it began to affect her heart—I suppose that it had to be diagnosed.
  Ironically, in 1978, my husband Alan also developed lupus. We sometimes hear of siblings or a mother and daughter who have it, because there is an hereditary tendency to the disease, but it is unusual to have such an illness on both sides of a family. Alan was seriously ill with cerebral and kidney complications and I pay tribute to Dr. George Cochrane and Dr. Christian Murray-Leslie, who treated him. It is essential that people with such a chronic and severe illness have a good relationship with consultants.
  I do not want my speech to be all doom and gloom and it is important to recognise that, at one time, only the severe cases were found. Nowadays, doctors find more cases because, thankfully, they are looking for them. Tonight, I want to ensure that even more people are assessed and, if they have lupus, diagnosed correctly.
  For those with severe illness, steroids and immuno-suppressants are often used. Those who have milder lupus can be treated with aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Nowadays, more cases, including mild ones, are being diagnosed and a lot of people are treated, recover from the illness and go on to live a full life, so there is good hope for them. However, we must also acknowledge that lupus can kill. It is a severe illness, which is a reason why diagnoses must take place.
  Besides my family involvement, I have attended constituency functions in aid of lupus and have been involved in helping to set up the all-party lupus group, so I have become even more aware of how lonely a condition it is. Some sufferers who have come to coffee mornings in aid of lupus have told me, "I have never met anyone else with it." They perhaps do not know about Lupus UK, nor do they know how to get information, so it is critical that that knowledge is conveyed to the general public.
  It is also important that knowledge of lupus is conveyed to general practitioners and consultants throughout the medical profession Lupus is a great mimic of other conditions, which is a reason why it is not always recognised, so I pay tribute to Lupus UK for recently publishing a guide for nurses. Last November, at the reception we held here at the House of Commons, it launched a guide for GPs.
  I urge the Government to ensure that there is sufficient training of doctors in many of the rheumatic conditions, because lupus is often treated by rheumatologists. The Government must also ensure that awareness of lupus is raised and that there are enough specialists to concentrate on the disease. Sufficient resources must go towards research to continue to develop better treatments and to increase knowledge of this and other auto-immune diseases.
  I pay tribute to Dr. Graham Hughes, whose name has been given to the associated condition of anti-phospholipid syndrome, or Hughes syndrome. Across the river is St. Thomas's, which has a famous lupus clinic and is also a centre of excellence. Doctors throughout the country refer patients to that world-renowned clinic, and I understand that it currently treats some 2,500 people with lupus.

  157
  I think that the clinic will be pleased about the Government's bed review. There have been difficulties in the past, but I believe that a couple of beds are now reserved for lupus patients. That means that the clinic can be sure of admitting people from regions throughout the country. We would not want people to think they were going into hospital when, in fact, then were no beds for them. It seems that there has been some improvement, but I hope that the Government and the health authority involved will keep the position under review.
  Another issue that I urge the Government to keep under review is charging for prescriptions in relation to chronic diseases such as lupus. I know that if the glands no longer produce cortisone because of steroid treatment, a test can show that and prescription charges can cease; but because lupus affects various parts of the body, many different drugs are often needed at any one time. Dressings may also be needed if there are skin lesions. As a consultant once said to me, people should not have to pay to be ill.
  I thank members of all parties for the support that they have given to the formation of the all-party group that we set up last year. There seem to be all-party groups for everything, but we felt that there was a real need to ensure that lupus was more readily known about, and I think that the all-party group will bring that about.
  We decided at an early stage to conduct a survey of Members to establish how much they knew about lupus. I think that they may be more aware of the condition than people outside. I am pleased to say that 23 per cent. of Members, including interested peers, replied, which is quite a good response here. It was probably better than normal because we asked only four questions. Perhaps there is a message there for anyone who surveys Members of Parliament: if the questions are kept to a minimum, we are more likely to fill at the forms. The responses were interesting. Of the 153 who replied, 128 had heard of lupus, 51 were aware of constituents with the disease, five had family members affected by it, and 24 had friends who suffered from it.
  I hope that the debate will add to the knowledge and awareness of this chronic, debilitating condition, which can devastate families.
  12.13 am
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on obtaining the debate and selecting this subject. It gives me an opportunity to say something about the Government's position in regard to treatment of lupus.
  I am aware of the valuable work that my hon. Friend does in the all-party group that was formed in November 2000. I now know—which I did not before tonight—of her personal family experiences, of which she spoke movingly.
  I, too, want to put on record a recognition of the contribution made by the voluntary sector in supporting people with lupus. The work of Lupus UK and its regional network is important. I hope that this year's lupus awareness week will build on the success of last year's event and succeed in its aim of raising public awareness of this distressing condition.
  I was surprised to hear the results of the survey—one of the few surveys not sunk by a message from the Whips Office saying that we do not normally respond to surveys.
  158
  I would not have adjudged awareness to be so high. I must admit that, before I was in my present post, my personal knowledge and constituency experience of lupus would have been nil. The work of the all-party group is important and supports that of the outside groups. I also want to mention the valuable work being carried out by the lupus research unit at St. Thomas's hospital.
  Lupus can occur at any age, and in either sex, although it is nine times more frequent among adult females than among adult males. The symptoms of the disease, though, are the same in men and women. Among children, lupus occurs three times more commonly in females than in males. Nine out of 10 patients with lupus are female. It is usually triggered between the ages of 15 and 50. The best estimate is that there are about 50,000 people with lupus in the UK, as my hon. Friend said.
  Lupus is a chronic debilitating disorder of the immune system which is incurable and painful. Symptoms can range through the whole medical textbook, but certain symptoms predominate, such as joint pains and swelling, fever and skin rashes.
  Lupus is one of the many diseases whose cause is not known. There is probably a genetic predisposition, although episodes can be triggered by environmental agents—for example, infections. Despite years of research, no virus or infectious cause can be identified; nor is there evidence of an environmental cause. Whatever the trigger, the basic problem is an alteration in the immune system. The normal immune system makes antibodies directed against the patient's own body, and this causes tissue damage.
  Diagnosis of the disease is difficult because, as my hon. Friend said, many lupus symptoms mimic other illnesses, such as rheumatoid arthritis. There is no single laboratory test that can determine whether a person has lupus. Normally, diagnosis is made by a careful review of a person's entire medical history, together with an analysis of results obtained from laboratory tests and some specialised tests related to immune status. As my hon. Friend rightly said, that does not mean that nothing can be done to help patients with lupus. In the majority of patients, it can be controlled. Treatment aims to suppress the overactive immune system and diminish inflammation.
  Treatment may initially be aggressive, perhaps involving the use of steroids, but often milder drugs, such as antimalarials, can be used later. With time, the aim is to treat the disease and use drugs that produce the fewest side effects. Patients may experience a fluctuating course of lupus, but most remain quite well and live at home rather than going into hospital.
  I have already mentioned that lupus has no cure at present, that its cause is not fully understood and that diagnosis is often very difficult. That is why it is important to improve our understanding of how to treat and manage it by research. I am pleased to say that the Government, through our support for the Medical Research Council and other research streams, are helping in the drive to understand the causes.
  In England, the main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council, which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. We keep our priorities for research under review. In the NHS, priorities are identified through widespread consultation with

  159
  those using, delivering and managing services, taking into account the burden of disease, potential benefits and Government objectives, as well as the responsibilities and work of other funders.
  It has long been a principle that Governments do not prescribe to research councils how they should distribute resources. That is best decided by research and research users. The Medical Research Council takes all those factors into account.
  The current edition of the national research register—issue 1, 2001—shows that there are 73 on-going projects, with another 95 recently completed, considering various aspects of lupus. The NHS helps all the projects by paying the hospital support costs of the units involved.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the lupus research unit at St. Thomas's hospital. It is open to lupus patients from all corners of the United Kingdom, and runs special clinics each weekday, with dedicated staff who are trained in all aspects of lupus and related diseases. In addition to medical clinics, the unit has nurse-led clinics and make-up clinics. It provides patient advice services, including weekly lupus pregnancy counselling clinics, information booklets, a CD-ROM, and a hotline telephone service for patients and doctors. The unit now has the largest number of lupus patients on register in the world.
  The unit is fully committed to treating this condition. Led by Dr. Graham Hughes, it undertakes research, supported by the St. Thomas's lupus trust. This research is world renowned and has already made major contributions to the understanding and treatment of this devastating illness. Last year, at the annual scientific meeting of the American college of rheumatology, the lupus unit was awarded first prize for a collaborative study with a unit in Milan. The research unit is clearly doing vital work in increasing our understanding of this complex illness. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health attended the launch of the Hughes syndrome foundation in February of this year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burton mentioned a couple of specific issues. She spoke about the training of doctors and the provision of consultants. My understanding is that training and awareness of lupus should be part of the core training of doctors which is reviewed regularly with the royal medical colleges and the medical schools and universities. There is no evidence of a shortage of consultants in this area. If she has concerns that she wishes to write to me about, I shall be happy to look into the matter further, but that is my understanding of the position.
  Entitlement to help with prescription charges is based on the principle that those who can afford to contribute should do so while those who are likely to have difficulty in paying should be protected. For example, children under 16 and people aged 60 or over are entitled to free NHS prescriptions. As my hon. Friend recognised, people suffering from certain medical conditions are also exempt from prescription charges.
  NHS charges and all other aspects of Government spending were reviewed in 1998 as part of the Government's comprehensive spending review. Following that review, the Government made the commitment that all current prescription charge exemptions would be protected
  160
  for the rest of the Parliament and that existing charges would rise by no more than the rate of inflation over the following three years.
  The list of medical conditions conferring prescription charge exemption was introduced in 1968 after being agreed with the medical profession. The list has been reviewed on a number of occasions, but no clear-cut case for extending it has since emerged or attracted consensus.
  When the medical exemptions were introduced, only 42 per cent. of all NHS prescriptions were dispensed free of charge. Now the figure is more than 85 per cent. As a result, many people with medical conditions not on the exempt list already get free prescriptions on other grounds.
  We do sympathise with people who require regular or extensive medication, such as those with lupus, but we have no plans to extend the list of medical conditions that confer exemption from prescription charges. People who have to pay prescription charges can seek help under the NHS low-income scheme or through the purchase of a prescription prepayment certificate that offers considerable savings to those who need regular medication.
  One of the aspects of lupus is the pain involved. Pain is a major problem and a common consequence of ill health; indeed, it is a major cause of ill health. It is important that good quality pain management be provided to patients to improve their health care and quality of life. We are committed to providing equity of access to health care and to reducing variations in the availability of services. Patients who suffer pain should have access to services that provide management programmes of proven effectiveness. In reviewing local provision, account should be taken of the needs of adults and children and should include patients with acute pain resulting from sudden illness or accident, as well as post-operative and chronic pain, including lupus.
  The clinical standards advisory group report has shown that many NHS trusts have developed excellent services, but we recognise that, in some places, more needs to be done to drive up standards. We expect the NHS to take full account of that report when reviewing local provision to meet the needs of both adults and children.
  Lupus can, as I said, be managed by drug regimes and also by careful monitoring and a flexible treatment programme. Patients can learn to manage their condition through information, by pursuing daily routines and by resting regularly, thus reducing stress and pain. We know from research that self-management schemes for people with chronic long-term medical conditions can have beneficial effects, including improved health status and fewer hospital admissions. The "Saving Lives—Our Healthier Nation" White Paper signalled our intention, reaffirmed in the NHS plan, to introduce a programme to help such people to manage their own health better, with specialised support from health care professionals and other agencies.
  A specialist taskforce, chaired by the chief medical officer, has been examining in detail how an expert patients programme might be designed and embedded within mainstream NHS activity. The taskforce has examined a wide range of issues, including the role of patients as experts in managing their chronic disease,

  161
  the relationship between self-management programmes and the support required from the NHS, quality assurance and accreditation, and issues of best practice. Now that the expert patients group has examined many diseases, the challenge will be to apply the lessons learned in the management of lupus. A first draft of an expert patients report has been produced, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has recently announced his intention that the final report will be published in the summer of 2001.
  I understand that a drug called Aslera has recently been developed in the United States as a potential treatment for lupus. It is the first new drug to be developed for use in lupus treatment for about 40 years. However, it is at an early stage of development, with further trial evidence being required on both long-term clinical and cost effectiveness. I understand also that it may be submitted for European licensing in the next two years. It is envisaged that, once licensed, it would be recommended as treatment for severe cases of lupus and prescribed alongside existing drug therapy.
  162
  My right hon. friend the Secretary of State recently announced that we shall develop a national service framework for long-term conditions. We intend that that framework will be used to produce specific standards for treating long-term neurological conditions. It will also provide generic standards for people with long-term chronic conditions such as lupus. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton will agree that that is a positive step forward.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will also agree that the Government are sympathetic to the needs of patients with lupus. We have supported research into the causes of the disease through the Medical Research Council, and we hope that the standards produced by the national service framework and the work on the development of an expert patient programme will help to improve services for people with lupus. Finally, as I said, I hope that lupus awareness week will prove to be a success.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve midnight.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the meetings and conferences organised by his Department and agencies of his Department which have been(a) cancelled and (b) postponed owing to foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [155365]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]There have been a very small number 01 reported occasions of which I am aware where meetings or conferences organised by my Department have had to be either cancelled or postponed owing to foot and mouth disease.

  They are:
  A seminar and site visit for industry to Northumbrian Water due to be held on 22 March was cancelled.
  One of the series of Small Business Service (SBS) Imagine events (aimed at developing Vision and Values for Business Links and partner organisations) due to take place on 8 March in Exeter was postponed.
  Visit by the Minister for Trade to the launch in Plymouth of the Objective Two Programme to support the economic and social conversion of areas facing structural difficulties on Tuesday 13 March was cancelled.
  Sustainable Livestock Production LINK R&D Programme Management Committee meeting due to take place on 15 March was cancelled.
  The Small Business Council open evening due to take place in Belfast on 15 March was cancelled on the advice of the Northern Ireland Executive.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date he received the environmental impact assessment relating to the Ilisu Dam; what assessment he has made of the project; and if he will place a copy of the assessment in the Library. [156282]

  Mr. Caborn
  My officials at ECGD received a copy of the original Environmental Impact Assessment Report in August 1998. This report was reviewed by Environmental Resources Management in July 1999, and copies of that review are in the Library of the House. We are currently awaiting the final version of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report. We expect that a presentation on the Environmental Impact Assessment Report will be made to the export credit agencies shortly and that after this presentation the Environmental Impact Assessment Report will be made publicly available. As we are not the owners of the reports we cannot be more specific about timing.

  Mercedes-Benz
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer the decision by Daimler 2W
  Chrysler UK to serve termination notices to all Mercedes-Benz dealers in the UK to the Director General of Fair Trading. [156406]

  Dr. Howells
  Change to the sales structure for Mercedes-Benz vehicles is a commercial decision for Daimler Chrysler UK.

  The European Block Exemption on vehicle distribution outlines the procedures which suppliers must follow when terminating dealerships.

  Under UK competition legislation, it is for the Director General of Fair Trading to decide whether any matter merits investigation.

  Mobility Products
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evidence he has collated on the use of pressurised sales methods in relation to the sale of mobility products for elderly people. [155879]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 28 March 2001]My Department holds no recent evidence on this subject. The Government share concerns about the targeting of vulnerable consumers with particular sales and marketing techniques and officials in my Department have recently agreed to participate in research on the subject commissioned by Age Concern.

  Postwatch
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the role, powers and funding of Postwatch. [156275]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]The Consumer Council for Postal Services (or "Postwatch" as it calls itself) has been established to promote the interests of users of postal services within the framework now created by the Postal Services Act 2000. It is intended that the Council should have a central role in the new regulatory framework, monitoring service standards and acting as a focus for consumer issues and complaints.

  The Act requires that the Council is consulted on key decisions including variations in the services for which licences are required, the granting and modification of licences, and the enforcement of licence conditions. The Act also requires the Council to represent (particularly to the Government, the Postal Services Commission, and licensed postal operators) the views of users, and to provide advice and information to consumers on postal matters. It is expected that the Council will seek to ensure licensed operators have effective complaints handling procedures and compensation and redress systems, and will investigate complaints which have not been satisfactorily handled by licensed postal operators. It will also monitor service quality against standards set by the Postal Services Commission and, with the Postal Services Commission ("Postcomm"), monitor and advise on the Post Office Counters network.

  In accordance with a direction given under section 39 of the Act, the costs of the Council are to be recovered from licensees.

  Post Office Users' National Council
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total expenditure by the Post Office Users' National Council was in the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000; what the total budgeted expenditure by the Post Office Users' National Council was in 2000–01; and what the total expenditure requested by Postwatch is for 2001–02. [156273]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]The Annual Reports of the Post Office Users' National Council (excluding the Post Office Users' Councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) show total expenditure of:

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  386,133

  1997–98

  402,711

  1998–99

  652,907

  1999–2000

  785,353

  The Post Office Users' National Council's Annual Report for financial year 2000–01 will be laid before Parliament in the usual way in the summer.

  I have agreed a budget of £6.9 million for Postwatch for financial year 2001–02. This includes provision for Postwatch's regional structure including its new regional committees in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Economic and Physical Regeneration
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what ways the region by region allocation of his Department's funds for economic and physical regeneration initiatives is influenced by the availability of previously developed land and buildings.[156196]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]In making the DTI's allocations from the Regional Innovation Fund to the Regional Development Agencies, full account was taken of their regional economic strategies. These followed the guidance issued by government on the use of brownfield land and sites. In particular, the Regional Innovation Fund took into account the wealth of each region, unemployment and relative levels of R&D expenditure.

  Departmental Policies (Southwark)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the London Borough of Southwark, the effects on the London Borough of Southwark of his Department's policies and actions since May 2 1997. [155975]

  Mr. Caborn
  The London Borough of Southwark has benefited from a range of initiatives since May 1997. Direct business advice and support to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) has been provided by the DTI through core programmes and the Business Links. While my Department does not collect detailed statistical information on a borough basis, over 2,900 requests for advice, information and support from SMEs in Southwark have been handled by the Business Links since May 1997.
  4W
  During the same period, grants totalling over £127,000 have been awarded to SMEs for innovation and technology under the Smart scheme and a contribution of £67,000 was made towards a TCS programme for a small software company.

  All wards in the constituency are eligible for the Enterprise Grant Scheme which was introduced in 2000.

  Departmental Policies (Luton, South)
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Luton, South constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156163]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department does not maintain statistical information at constituency level.

  My hon Friend's constituents, like many others throughout Bedfordshire, will have benefited from my Department's Employment Rights policies which include the National Minimum Wage, Working Time Directive, Part Time Working Regulations and improved Maternity Leave.

  In addition, the wards of Biscot, Crawley, Dallow, Farley, High Town. South and Stopsley are eligible for Regional Selective Assistance and the Enterprise Grant Scheme.

  In the East of England region, my Department's policies have contributed to growth in employment by 105,000 and a fall in unemployment by 44,908; reductions in youth employment (under 24) by 43.3 per cent. and long-term unemployment (over 26 weeks) by 65.4 per cent.

  In the constituency of Luton, South there has been a drop in unemployment by 2.1 per cent. (1,143 people), a reduction in youth unemployment (under 24) by 42 per cent. and a reduction in long term unemployment (over 26 weeks) by 59.3 per cent.

  New Deal
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people have been employed in his Department and its agencies under the New Deal Scheme. [156888]

  Mr. Byers
  The number of New Dealers employed within my Department and its Executive Agencies since the programme began is 69.

  Paypoint Terminals
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that sub-postmasters have the right to have Paypoint terminals on their premises. [156516]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  This is an operational matter for the Post Office Network. However, I understand from the Post Office that Paypoint, as a bill payment network provider, competes directly with the bill payment facilities offered by post offices.

  In order to protect the sustainability of the network, particularly in rural areas, it is Post Office Network commercial policy not to permit sub-postmasters to offer,

  5W
  through their private business, products or services that compete with the core business activities of their post office, such as the bill payment service.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria he uses in determining the eligibility of exporters of defence equipment for ECGD cover for the sale of their manufactures overseas. [156477]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD assesses the risks associated with underwriting defence business in the same way as for equivalent civil business. Where an export licence is required, it is a pre-condition of ECGD cover.

  Hollis Industries
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) for what reason the conclusions of the report by Hugh Aldous delivered to his office on 12 December 1999 were not communicated to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; and if he will list the hon. Members who were informed of the conclusions of the report and the dates on which they were informed; [154853]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his actions relating to the allegations contained in the Daily Mail on 19 March in respect of his official responsibilities. [154952]

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he informed the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) of the contents of the report on Hollis Industries; [155838]

  (2) if he received and read the Section 447 report on Hollis Industries. [155840]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]The following statement was issued by my Department on 23 March 2001:"The following statement sets out the facts in relation to the conduct of the 1999 investigation into companies associated with Geoffrey Robinson (principally Hollis Industries plc) and the involvement of Stephen Byers.
  In the light of allegations made about the activities of Geoffrey Robinson and companies associated with him, a decision was taken by officials of the Department of Trade and Industry on 12 January 1999 to conduct an investigation under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985.
  The decision to conduct an investigation under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985 was taken in accordance with the Department's normal procedures when such allegations are made. Informal inquiries into these matters had been earlier undertaken by the Department itself, and it was now decided to go beyond this to the appointment of an independent investigator under section 447. A section 447 inquiry is essentially fact finding and carried out in confidence. Depending on the outcome of the investigation, further action could be taken for example to launch a more wide ranging investigation under section 432. The Department did not consider the appointment of inspectors under section 432 was justified at this stage: section 432 inspections are rare, and are undertaken in respect of alleged major frauds or irregularities.
  This decision was taken by officials in accordance with the Department's normal procedures, and because on 8 January 1999 Stephen Byers had been advised by Sir Michael Scholar that neither he nor any of his Ministerial colleagues should be involved in the inquiries into companies associated with Geoffrey
  6W
  Robinson, or in any decisions that needed to be taken, but that this matter should be delegated to officials. Stephen Byers accepted this advice.
  On 9 December 1999, officials informed Stephen Byers that the inquiries into companies associated with Geoffrey Robinson had been completed; that no further action was to be taken; and that Geoffrey Robinson, through his solicitors, had already been informed of this outcome.
  Because Stephen Byers had taken the advice of his Permanent Secretary and decided that he should not be involved in the inquiries, at no time did he see any papers or other documents obtained by the Department during the course of the inquiries.
  On 21 December 1999, Parliament was informed of the outcome when Stephen Byers replied to a Parliamentary Question from Ian Pearson MP about the progress of the Department's inquiries into Hollis Industries with the answer
  'There have been thorough inquiries in line with the Department's normal procedures in these matters. These inquiries have now been completed and the solicitors acting for my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) have been informed that the Department does not propose to take any further action.'
  In line with the practice under successive administrations, no papers or documents arising from the inquiry were published because information obtained under section 447 of the Companies Act is confidential and may not be published or disclosed except in strictly defined circumstances under section 449 of the Companies Act 1985.
  The way in which the inquiry was conducted was in accordance with the usual procedures for investigations under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985. Over 200 such inquiries are carried out every year in this way. The Department throughout has acted wholly in accordance with its normal procedures, notwithstanding the fact that the business affairs of a former Minister were being investigated."
  I also wrote to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on the same day in the following terms:
  "Thank you for your letter of 21 March 2001.
  I attach a copy of a statement made by my Department, setting out the facts in relation to my involvement in the conduct of the 1999 investigation into companies associated with Geoffrey Robinson (principally Hollis Industries plc).
  I hope this answers the points raised in your letter. But the key facts which concern my role are as follows.
  Acting on the advice of Sir Michael Scholar, I ruled myself out of involvement in the inquiries into companies associated with Geoffrey Robinson and any decisions that needed to be taken; the matter was delegated to officials.
  Had I not taken this advice, and insisted on playing a personal role in the investigation then I am sure you would have been amongst the first to question such a decision—and rightly so.
  Officials decided to appoint an independent investigator under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985. I saw no papers or documents arising from the inquiry. I am not nor ever have been in possession of or seen a report into the affairs of Hollis Industries plc. I had no role in the decision to take no further action as a result of the inquiry.
  My role was limited to that of responding to Parliamentary Questions and dealing with correspondence from Parliamentary colleagues, in accordance with my duties as a Minister".

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he plans to designate under section 449 1(c) of the Companies Act 1985, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards as a public authority to whom the report on Hollis Industries plc can be disclosed. [155841]
  7W
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]I am advised that as the law and facts stand, there is no gateway under the Companies Act 1985 which would allow information obtained under the section 447 investigation in relation to Hollis Industries plc to be disclosed by my Department to the Parliamentary Commissioner.

  I am presently considering the general issue of access to information obtained under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985 being made available to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the legal procedures which would be necessary to enable this to happen. I would hope to be able to make a statement on this shortly.

  On the specific issue of the disclosure of documents or information obtained under section 447 in relation to Hollis Industries plc, my Permanent Secretary has written to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards suggesting how other people, bodies or institutions who are not constrained in the same way as my Department by section 449 of the Companies Action 1985 may be able to provide documents or information which will assist the Commissioner in her investigation.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to establish how information in the report on Hollis Industries was published in the Daily Mail. [155842]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]The Daily Mail's sources are a matter for the newspaper.

  Daily Mail Allegations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the legal action being taken by him concerning allegations made in the Daily Mail on 19 March; and what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of this action. [154953]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]I have engaged the solicitors Goodman Derrick to act on my behalf in response to the Daily Mail allegations made on 19 March. These allegations relate entirely to my conduct as Secretary of State of Trade and Industry. In line with Treasury advice published in response to a Public Accounts Committee Report in 1993 which states that
  "it is appropriate to use public resources to deal with matters arising in the course of, or as a direct result of, the officials duties of Ministers and civil servants", the reasonable costs of my present action will be funded publicly.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Byker Incinerator
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many employees have worked at the Byker incinerator in each year since 1979. [155381]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]The Health and Safety Executive do not hold the requested information and do not have the power to obtain the information for this purpose. It is therefore unavailable. The hon. Member would be best advised to approach Byker directly to gain the figures he asks for.

  Litter/graffiti Fines
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will seek to amend the law to permit local authorities to retain fines levied on people(a) dropping litter and (b) responsible for graffiti. [155439]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]Under the local Public Service Agreement pilot, the DETR has agreed that two local authorities, Middlesbrough and Stockton-on-Tees, can be paid grants equal to the Fixed Penalty Notice (FN) income they collect for litter offences to offset their costs of providing enforcement services. If the pilot trial demonstrates improvements in the levels of cleanliness in these authorities, consideration will be given to extending this provision to other local authorities.

  There are no plans at present to make fines income from graffiti cases payable to local authorities: local authorities have the opportunity to apply to the courts for compensation for damage in the usual way.

  Railway Network
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have for enhancements to the railway network. [156325]

  Mr. Prescott
  Following decades of under-investment, our 10-year plan stresses the need to enhance the rail network to accommodate passenger and freight growth with less passenger overcrowding and better punctuality and reliability.

  At the same time, it is necessary to improve the day-to-day maintenance and renewal of the core network.

  I have reached agreement in principle with Railtrack on the rephasing of some £1.5 billion of grants. This brings forward money already allocated under the Rail Regulator's review of access charges. In addition to delivering long-term savings to the taxpayer, this agreement provides the basis for a new relationship between the company and Government, including a commitment from Railtrack to proceed to appoint a non-executive director to its main Board with a remit to provide a powerful public and consumer voice. The agreement has been enshrined in an agreed general Statement of Principles published today, copies of which are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Railtrack has agreed that the immediate financial implications of last October's tragic accident at Hatfield should fall on its shareholders. It has also agreed that one of the lessons from Hatfield is that it needs to give more attention to the management of the core rail network.

  To progress the enhancements, this means bringing in third party finance and project delivery skills to supplement Railtrack, through public-private partnerships. The Strategic Rail Authority has today committed a new joint venture project finance and delivery vehicle for the East Coast Main Line upgrade, which will provide valuable new passenger and freight capacity on this key route.
  9W
  At the same time, the Government have made available to the SRA an additional £155 million over the next two years to enable it to meet its commitments in taking forward the 10-year plan.

  The SRA is continuing its programme of franchise renewal to bring benefits to passengers through more frequent services, longer trains and new rolling stock. They are today announcing progress on the East Coast Main Line, South West Trains and Chiltern franchises.

  I have also reached agreement to secure the funding and construction of the second and final stage of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link from North Kent to London's St. Pancras Station. This agreement provides for Railtrack to be the operator of the whole line, but for the construction of Section 2 to be funded and overseen by London and Continental Railways, in a new risk sharing arrangement with the project management company, Bechtel.

  Trees (M6)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what specialist advice the Highways Agency used in reaching its decision to cut down trees between the M6 motorway and Devon Way at Stafford on 8 March; [156327]

  (2) if he will instruct the Highways Agency to consult with local residents over its plans for planting trees and shrubs at Devon Way, Stafford. [156328]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. David Kidney, dated 2 April 2001:
  The Transport Minister, Keith Hill, has asked me to reply to your two Parliamentary Questions about the removal of trees and proposed new planting on land between the M6 and Devon Way, Stafford.
  The trees were cut down on the advice of aboricultural consultants, working for our managing agent, and our own horticultural specialist. On the same basis, we are shortly to recommence the removal of other unsafe trees and prune branches overhanging gardens in Devon Way. This latter action is in response to requests, including a petition, from many local residents.
  It is intended to undertake further pruning, thinning and replanting in the autumn, after the nesting season, and we will consult adjoining residents in advance.
  If you would like any additional information please contact Peter Adams at our Birmingham office. His telephone number is 0121 678 8215.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has received from the European Commission for motorists to retake driving tests at the age of 50 years. [156370]

  Mr. Hill
  The European Commission is known to be considering making proposals for a Third Council Directive on driving licences. The proposals are yet to be published and we are unclear about what they contain.

  Regional Chambers and Assemblies
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary a State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) male and (b) female members there are on each of the regional chambers and assemblies. [156254]

  Ms Armstrong
  Following is a table showing the gender balance of each regional chamber or assembly, as of 28 March 2001.

  Chamber

  Male

  Female

  Vacancies

  South East Regional Assembly

  96

  15

  —

  North East Regional Assembly

  51

  11

  1

  North West Regional Assembly

  64

  15

  1

  Yorkshire and the Humber Regional Chamber

  25

  9

  1

  East Midlands Regional Assembly

  88

  23

  —

  West Midlands Regional Chamber

  54

  11

  —

  South West Regional Assembly

  68

  17

  —

  East of England Regional Assembly

  30

  11

  —

  Total

  476

  112

  3

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the(a) budgeted running costs, (b) staff numbers and (c) expenditure were in 2000–01 for the regional offices of the Highways Agency. [156228]

  Mr. Hill
  The question relates to operational matters within the Highways Agency. I have accordingly asked the Chief Executive, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 2 April 2001:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about budgeted running costs, staff numbers and expenditure in 2000–01 for the regional offices of the Highways Agency.
  The Agency's running cost budgets are allocated and monitored primarily by function, but we will undertake some work to transform these to a regional basis for you. On expenditure, we will not be able to supply you with the final position for 2000–01 until early April.
  I am sorry not to be able to provide the information you requested immediately but I will aim to give you a full response within 15 working days.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations his Department has received concerning the European Union COWAM project on the decision-making process for radioactive waste repository siting. [156373]

  Mr. Meacher
  The National Radiological Protection Board has contacted my officials to discuss the timetable for the COWAM research project in relation to my Department's forthcoming consultation exercise on radioactive waste management.

  COWAM is an EU project on public participation in nuclear siting decisions, which will suggest methods of improvement to the decision-making process for siting radioactive waste management facilities. While the

  11W
  Government are content to liaise with the NRPB and its project partners, it is not promoting the use of repositories as the UK waste management option.

  Mobile Phones (Drivers)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce legislation to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones by drivers while their vehicles are moving. [156187]

  Mr. Hill
  At present the Government share the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers that current road traffic legislation provides sufficient powers to enable the police to prosecute irresponsible drivers. However, as promised in its Road Safety Strategy "Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone", the Government will keep the need for specific legislation under review.

  Best Value Plans
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what monitoring his Department carries out of the level of public inquiries received by local authorities about the indicators and targets in local best value plans. [156443]

  Ms Armstrong
  This information is not collected centrally. It is for local authorities themselves to promote and monitor the level of public interest in their performance. The Department has commissioned general research to assess the effectiveness of the new best value regime, which will include the way in which local authorities engage with their communities.

  Sellafield MOX Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the application by BNFL to open a MOX plutonium fuel production plant at Sellafield. [156399]

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for further consultation on the economic viability of the Sellafield MOX plant; and if he will make a statement. [156666]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friends to my answer of 28 March 2001,Official Report, columns 629–30W.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary
  of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reach a decision on the future of the Sellafield MOX plant. [156643]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 28 March 2001,Official Report, columns 629–30W.

  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Secretary of State for Health will reach a decision as soon as possible after all relevant information has been considered.

  Railway System
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the cost to public funds was of(a) the railway system in the last year
  12W
  of public ownership and (b) the subsidy paid each year since privatisation (i) in total and (ii) to Virgin Trains Ltd. [156725]

  Mr. Hill
  In 1953–94, the last full year before the British Railways Board was restructured in preparation for privatisation, we Board's total external finance requirement was £1,461 million. The railway industry was progressively privatised over the following three years, during which period total Government support was:

  Cash prices £ million

  Central Government grants

  Other elements of Government support

  Total Government support excluding PTE grants

  1994–95

  1,815

  -464

  1,497

  1995–96

  1,712

  -643

  231

  1996–97

  1,809

  -1,044

  775

  Virgin Trains Ltd. commenced operation of its CrossCountry franchise on 5 January 1997 and its West Coast Trains franchise on 9 March 1997. Since 1997–98 (the first full year of franchised operations), Support for Passenger Rail Services (SPRS) paid by the Franchising Director has been:

  Cash prices £ million

  SPRS paid to all train operating companies

  Including: SPRS paid to Virgin Trains Ltd.

  1997–98

  1,425

  193

  1998–99

  1,196

  172

  1999–2000

  1,033

  146

  Groundwater Directive
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in the forthcoming review of the EU Groundwater Directive, if he will apply for derogations for(a) the burying of fallen stock in the event of the present foot and mouth crisis and (b) general disposal of fallen stock; and if he will make a statement. [156439]

  Mr. Meacher
  The review of the Groundwater Directive under the Water Framework Directive is not yet under way, and therefore is unlikely to be negotiated on a timescale relevant to the foot and mouth outbreak. However, the existing Groundwater Directive is intended to protect groundwater sources. The current foot and mouth outbreak does not reduce this need but does require speedy investigation and authorisation of burial sites. The Environment Agency is operating such a procedure and is cooperating closely with MAFF.

  Home Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many homes have benefited from the home energy efficiency scheme in Shrewsbury and Atcham; and if he will make a statement. [156511]
  13W
  Mr. Meacher
  The number of households in Shrewsbury and Atcham benefiting from the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) since its introduction in 1991 is 5,219. Of this figure, 168 households have received measures since the introduction of new HEES.

  The new HEES for England was launched on 1 June 2000. It replaced the more basic scheme, which had operated since 1991, providing low income and disabled households with a single insulation improvement such as window and door draught-proofing.

  New HEES provides packages of insulation and heating measures, linked to the condition of the property and the type of householder. To provide thee packages the grant maximum has been raised from the previous £315 to up to £2,000 in the case of low-income households aged 60 years or more. The latter may also receive a package of basic security measures, funded through the Home Office 'Locks For Pensioners' initiative, if they live in an area experiencing above the national average burglary rate for England.

  Two regional scheme managers manage the scheme. They are responsible for marketing the scheme and surveying homes to identify the improvements required. Once these are agreed with the householder, a works order is placed with local contractors.

  Train Services (Shrewsbury)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the ways in which the Strategic Rail Authority proposes to improve the(a) frequency and (b) quality of train services between Shrewsbury and London. [156567]

  Mr. Hill
  The Strategic Rail Authority is in active discussion with local stakeholders about through services from Shrewsbury to London. A number of options which are emerging from franchise replacement are being considered. These will be assessed on a value for money basis.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people lived in fuel poverty in Shrewsbury aid Atcham(a) in May 1997 and (b) on the most recent (late for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [156509]

  Mr. Meacher
  The common definition of a fuel poor household is one that needs to spend in excess of 10 per cent. of household income in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime.

  Data on the number of households living in fuel poverty are derived from the English House Condition Survey, which is carried out every five years. The Survey allows estimates to be made of the number of fuel poor households at a regional level, but not at local authority level.

  Using data from the latest English House Condition Survey (1996), the table shows the effect of different options for calculating household income on the number of households defined as fuel poor in the West Midlands Government Office region in 19961.
  14W

  West Midlands Government Office region England (Thousand)

  England (Million)

  (a) Income including Housing Benefit and Income Support for mortgage interest

  550

  4.3

  (b) Income excluding Housing Benefit and Income Support for mortgage interest

  640

  5.3

  1 Assumes fuel costs include those for non-heating purposes.

  Since the last English House Condition Survey, the Government have implemented a range of measures that have reduced the number of fuel poor households in England by an estimated 1 million between 1996 and 1999.

  Further measures to end the blight of fuel poverty for vulnerable households by 2010 are set out in the Government's Fuel Poverty Strategy, which was published for consultation on 23 February 2001.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made to combat fuel poverty among pensioners. [156574]

  Mr. Meacher
  On 23 February 2001, the Government published its Fuel Poverty Strategy for consultation. The Strategy sets out our commitment to end the blight of fuel poverty for vulnerable households—which includes pensioners on low incomes—by 2010.

  The Government have already taken action to tackle the main causes of fuel poverty—low income and poor energy efficiency—to help those suffering from fuel poverty.

  The Winter Fuel Payment, which has been increased to £200 for this winter, will help many older households in, or at risk from, fuel poverty. For the poorest pensioners we have introduced the Minimum Income Guarantee, which is already helping 1.6 million pensioner households.

  We have also reduced the level of VAT on fuel and on the installation of energy saving materials, so that people can more easily afford to keep warm. Further reductions in energy bills have resulted from the reform of the energy market.

  But the permanent solution is to provide better insulation and heating. We have made available substantial additional capital funds for housing investment by local authorities. We have also launched our radical new Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES). The scheme now provides grants for packages of heating and insulation improvement measures, including high efficiency central heating systems for low—income households aged 60 years or more. With a budget of over £600 million, HEES is expected to have reached some 800,000 vulnerable households by 2004, 480,000 being over-60s.

  In addition, the Energy Efficiency Standards of Performance schemes (EESOPs) run by the energy suppliers have been doubled to some £50 million a year. Around two-thirds of this help is going to pensioner and

  15W
  low-income families. From 2002, the Government are proposing to increase the scale of the scheme to around £150 million a year, continuing its focus on disadvantaged consumers.

  As this is a devolved matter, it is the responsibility of the respective Parliament and Assemblies to comment on the situation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Regional Funding
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much European Union regional funding aid has been made available to London since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [156700]

  Ms Armstrong
  The table gives details of European Regional Development Funding (ERDF) and European Social Funding (ESF) made available in the London region from 1997:

  £ million

  ERDF

  ESF

  Objective 2

  48.980

  15.709

  Konver II

  7.198

  1.068

  Retex

  0.460

  0.105

  Urban Heart of the East End

  4.340

  0.928

  Urban Park Royal

  4.135

  0.974

  SME Community Initiative

  1.318

  0.254

  Objective 3

  0

  165.000

  Objective 4

  0

  16.000

  Total

  66.431

  200.038

  A further £560 million of ERDF and ESF is being made available in the London region for the new round of Objective 2 and 3 programmes (2000–06).

  Public Open Space
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy on public open space in

  £

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Revenue Support Grant2

  176,612,000

  181,475,000

  192,015,000

  193,464,000

  205,566,000

  Income from national Non-Domestic Rates2

  50,648,000

  52,327,000

  56,862,000

  64,389,000

  63,936,000

  Housing Investment Programme

  20,129,000

  27,752,000

  29,229,000

  45,946.000

  52,921,000

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  130,861,916

  122,044,327

  115,504,573

  3117,290,559

  n/k

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  3,224,337

  11,386,000

  12,088,000

  n/a

  n/a

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  3,253,000

  2,029,000

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  SRB Funding

  15,979,290

  16,105,921

  11,868,091

  10,017,991

  46,865,558

  New Deal for Communities Funding

  n/a

  13,050

  545,024

  367,218

  1,509,623

  Neighbourhood Renewal Funding

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,978,000

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  325,000

  279,000

  230,000

  0

  —

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  325,000

  279,000

  230,000

  0

  —

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  2,141,000

  2,536,000

  3,409,000

  51,996,000

  n/k

  Capital Challenge (Supplementary Credit and Basic Credit Approvals)

  1,983,000

  4,182,000

  4,195,000

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Where known

  2The figures for all Settlements prior to 2001–02 are unadjusted for transfers of services. Authorities are responsible for a slightly different mix of services this year compared to previous years. Consequently a comparison based on last year's actual grant figure would not form the basis of an accurate comparison.

  3Provisional figures

  4Projected

  5As at 28 March 2001

  16W
  inner-city areas; and if he has decided to call in the extension of a bus depot on to public open space at Stalyford, Newcastle. [156468]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government believe that everyone should have access to good quality open space close to where they live, and attach high importance to their retention in urban areas. Our Urban White Paper: "Our Towns and Cities: The Future" sets out a range of measures for improving the quality of urban parks and green spaces, including the setting up of the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce. On 21 March we issued, for consultation, "Revised Planning Policy Guidance note 17: Sports, Open Space and Recreation." The guidance provides a clearer framework for improving provision of open spaces and ensuring such spaces are better protected from development.

  No decision has been taken in relation to the application to extend the bus depot in Stalyford, Newcastle.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what recent assessment he has made of the health and safety implications connected with the use of asbestos in the brake systems of London Underground trains; [156559]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the quantity of asbestos utilised in the brake systems of London Underground trains. [156560]

  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for London Underground who inform me that there is no asbestos in the brakes used on London Underground trains.

  Departmental Policies (Southwark)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the London borough of Southwark, the effects on the London borough of Southwark of his Department's policies and actions since May 2 1997. [155979]

  Ms Armstrong
  The principal funding that this Department has provided to the London borough of Southwark is shown in the table. This includes grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.
  17W Single Regeneration Budget (SRB)1. Peckham Partnership (SRB Round 1)The Peckham Partnership is a Round 1 SRB scheme, and the largest to have been approved to date. The scheme is currently in its sixth year of operation.The majority of funding has been spent on the physical renewal of the notorious 1960s built 'Five Count it Estates' in the Liddle Ward of Peckham, originally covering a residential population of 11,000. A large scale programme of decanting, demolition, refurbishment and re-build has led to a demonstrable improvement of the physical appearance of the area, leading to improved levels of resident satisfaction aid improved community safety resulting from changes in estate layout and street-scape. The Partnership has also achieved its aim of increased housing tenure mix, with the success of the first phase of the homes for sale (open market and shared ownership) hailed as a particular success, particularly in attracting local people to stay in the area.2. Greater Peckham Alliance (SRB Round 6)Following on from the mainly physical renewal work of the Peckham Partnership and the desire by the local community to work with statutory agencies to improve the social and economic fabric of the area. The Greater Peckham Alliance (GPA), a newly formed community based partnership, has successfully secured funding under SRB Round 6.The main purpose of the GPA is to initiate a range of capacity building projects, build community involvement and commission community-led projects with the central aim of improving local residents educational attainment and economic status plus developing the social fabric of the overall community in Peckham.3. Aylesbury Plus Initiative, Southwark (SRB Round 4)This is a six-year scheme that aims to improve the overall physical and social conditions on the Aylesbury estate through a package of education, training, employment and community safety measures. The scheme builds on Southwark's experience of major regeneration work in the nearby Peckham Partnership area and will therefore input into the wider regent ration of this part of the borough. Housing problems will also be tackled.4. Southwark Campaign Against Hate Crime (SRB Round 6)Led by the London borough of Southwark, the purpose of this seven year programme is to develop and resource a resilient and sustainable integrated community based approach to the reduction of hate crimes in Southwark—acts of violence and abuse motivated by prejudice. This will include fully resourced services for victims and challenging interventions with offenders, to secure improved social cohesion and ongoing regeneration of the borough.5. Elephant Links (SRB Round 5)Led by the London borough of Southwark the purpose of the programme is to catalyse major commercial and public investment and release potential sustainable local regeneration in the Elephant and Castle area.6. Cross River Partnership—Southwark (SRB Round 2 & 3)The London borough of Southwark is one of the four accountable bodies for the early Cross River Partnership schemes, the others being the London borough of Lambeth, the City of Westminster and the South Bank Employers' Group t which comprises private and public sector employers in the South Bank area of both Lambeth and Southwark). The Partnership comprises these four bodies together with the Corporation of London, Railtrack, Focus TEC, Groundwork, TfL, PLA and the LTB. CRP's overall objective is:"to improve and protect the environment of the Cross River area, reinforce London's status as a world class centre for leisure, the arts and business, offer education and training and create job opportunities for local people and improve the quality of life for those who live, work and visit the area".

  Local Authorities (Members Allowances)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment 18W
  has made of variations in the level of members allowances in local authorities with a population of over 100,000; and if he will publish this information. [156687]

  Ms Armstrong
  This information is not held centrally, and no assessment has been made.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many inspections have been made of the releases of GM crops involved in the farm-scale evaluations; and how many breaches of the consent conditions have been detected. [156462]

  Mr. Meacher
  Forty four inspections have been undertaken of farm-scale evaluations sites in England. No breaches of consent have been detected.

  Local Authority Publicity
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to issue alterations to the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity; and if he will make a statement. [156819]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have today issued, to all county councils, district councils and London borough councils in England, alterations to the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity, a draft of which was laid before the House on 15 February 2001. These alterations reflect the new council constitutions and the introduction of referendums and petitions under the Local Government Act 2000.

  As announced by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State on 15 February 2001, Official Report, column 220W, we also intend in the future to review further the Code, having regard to councils' experiences of operating their new constitutions over a reasonable period of time. This further review will also cover the Code's application to those authorities—such as police authorities—which are not adopting new constitutions.

  A copy of the alterations have been placed in the Library of the House.

  British Waterways Board
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the external financing limit for the British Waterways Board. [156854]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The 2000–01 External Financing Limit for the British Waterways Board will be increased by £3,680,000 from £61,240,000 to £64,920,000. £3,130,000 has been made available to help the Board meet increased costs associated with recent flooding. £550,000 will enable them to carry out additional major repairs to the canal network. These costs will be funded by an increase in grant-in-aid to the Board arising from savings on Class III, Vote 3 and from transfers from the non-voted element of DETR's main DEL.

  Street Works
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will activate powers under section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 to allow highway authorities to charge utilities whose works overrun. [156855]

  Mr. Hill
  Regulations activating the powers under section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 to allow highway authorities to charge utilities whose works overrun came into force on 1 April. We will be monitoring very closely the effect which the new powers have on the level of disruption to road users caused by street works. We have made clear that if it becomes apparent that these have not led to a sufficient reduction in disruption, then the Government are prepared to introduce further measures to address this problem.

  We are also issuing today two related publications. The first of these—"Best Practice in Street Works and Highway Works"—is designed to encourage utilities and highway authorities carrying out works in the street to make sure that these are completed speedily and to a high standard. Copies are being sent to every utility and highway authority. The other—a revision of the existing "Code of Practice for the Co-ordination of Street Works and Works for Road Purposes and Related Matters" is intended, among other things, to ensure that works carried out by different bodies are co-ordinated effectively, so as to minimise disruption.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to provide compensation for(a) zoos which are forced to close as a foot and mouth disease precaution and (b) supplies of goods and services to zoos. [156582]

  Mr. Meacher
  I recognise that some Zoos, in common with other enterprises relying on visitor income, have been badly affected by the impact of foot and mouth disease and our first priority is to encourage visitors to return, where it is safe to do so. Zoos, together with other affected businesses can benefit from the package of short term measures which I announced on 20 March 2001,Official Report, columns 191–210, including the deferral and rearrangement of payments to Customs, Inland Revenue and of business rates. The Rural Task Force is continuing to look at the scope for additional measures to help rural businesses severely affected by the economic impacts of foot and mouth disease.

  Garage Fuels
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the chemical content is of(a) ultra-low sulphur fuels and (b) other types of fuels used in UK garages. [156351]

  Mr. Hain
  I have been asked to reply.

  Four main types of fuel are sold at UK garages. These are 95 octane unleaded petrol, 97 octane unleaded petrol (superunleaded), lead replacement petrol (LRP) and diesel (DERV).

  The technical requirements for these fuels, including chemical composition, are covered by the European Fuels Directive 98/70/EC, as transposed into UK law by the
  20W
  Motor Fuels (Composition and Content) Regulations 1999. The fuels al so meet the requirements of the following British Standards: for 95 octane unleaded, BS EN228:2000, for 97 octane unleaded BS 7800:2000, and for DERV BS EN 590:2000.

  Ultra-low sulphur fuels are required to meet the following additional requirements: for petrol of any type listed above a maximum sulphur content of 50ppm as opposed to 150ppm allowed in 98/70/EC, and a maximum aromatics content of 35 per cent. vol. as opposed to 42 per cent. in 98/70/EC, for diesel fuel a maximum sulphur content of 5Oppm as opposed to 350ppm allowed in 98/70/EC, and a maximum density of 835 kg/m3 as opposed to 845 kg/m3. The requirements for autogas (LPG), which is now available at nearly 700 sites around the UK, are covered by 13S EN 589:2000.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Minister for the Environment will answer the letter of 14 March from the hon. Member for North Essex, concerning discretionary powers for highway authorities to close roads to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease. [156276]

  Mr. Meacher
  I will reply to the hon. Member's letter very shortly.

DEFENCE

  Hercules W. Mark II
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the 'Snoopy' Hercules W Mark II aircraft at Boscombe Down. [156004]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 29 March 2001]The 'Snoopy' aircraft, although owned by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), has been used exclusively for research trials by the Met Office using RAF crews. The current contract with the Met Office expired on 31 March 2001, after which DERA has a short term contract with the Met Office for the controlled removal of their equipment. In parallel DERA is actively seeking alternative customers for the aircraft. The situation will be reviewed in March 2002.

  From July 2002 the Met Office will carry out the meteorological research role, currently performed by the DERA Hercules, In partnership with the Natural Environmental Research Council and University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, using a British Aerospace 146–300 region jet operated by British Aerospace Systems from Woodford, Manchester.

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency. [156889]

  Mr. Spellar
  When my predecessor announced the creation of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency (DARA) as a Defence Agency, with effect from 1 April 1999, he stated the intention to move the organisation to Trading Fund status as soon as practicable. Following the approval
  21W
  by this House and the enactment of the requisite Statutory Instrument, DARA will now become a Trading Fund from 1 April 2001.

  In allowing DARA to move to Trading Fund status, we untie it from the Vote funding system. DARA will now be able to earn revenue directly from its customers and reinvest its trading surplus in new plant or machinery to meet its customers' requirements.

  Customers will now have a clear and transparent pricing structure that will allow them to choose the services that offer the best value for money while helping to maintain robust and healthy competition in the aviation repair industry.

  The current Chief Executive will continue to fill that position.

Service Personnel

  (Sexually Transmitted Diseases)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of service personnel were suffering from(a) HIV/AIDS and (b) sexually transmitted diseases in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [153170]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]The proportion of Service personnel known by the Ministry of Defence to be suffering from HIV/AIDS in each of the past five years is shown in Table 1. Table 2 shows the proportion of Service personnel referred to military Genito-Urinary clinics in each of the last five years. It is not possible to identify separately referrals relating to sexually transmitted diseases but they represent the majority of the referrals. No information is held on members of the armed forces who may have received advice or treatment outside the Defence Medical Services.

  Table 1

  Year

  HIV/AIDS(percentage)

  1996

  0.003

  1997

  0.005

  1998

  0.004

  1999

  0.005

  2000

  0.006

  Table 2

  Year

  Sexually transmitted diseases(percentage)

  1995–96

  2.1

  1996–97

  2.9

  1997–98

  2.7

  1998–99

  3.2

  1999–2000

  3.3

  Notes:

  1. For HIV/AIDS, the figures are recorded for each calendar year and the percentages are calculated against armed forces strength in April of that year.

  For Genito-Urinary clinic referrals, financial year periods are used, as most (but not all) data were readily available only on that basis. The percentages are calculated against the strength at the end of each financial year.

  3. Figures for Genito-Urinary referrals In Northern Ireland are available only for the first and last years of the sequence. Intermediate years have been estimated by extrapolation from these.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on reports of recent incursions into the northern no-fly zone in Iraq by military aircraft from the Turkish air force. [156407]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave him on 26 March 2001,Official Report, columns 447W and 526W.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the sources were of the uranium used in the manufacture of depleted uranium-based ammunition used by UK forces. [156209]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]I refer the right hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), on 27 February 2001,Official Report, columns 608–09W, and also to the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), on 15 March 2001, Official Report, column 675W.

  Colchester Garrison
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 2001,Official Report, column 14, when his Department sought approval from Colchester borough council for temporary residential accommodation for the Parachute Regiment; when approval was given; when construction will commence; when the accommodation will be ready for occupation; and if he will make a statement. [156526]

  Dr. Moonie
  The application for the erection of temporary accommodation was submitted to Colchester borough council on 24 November last year. The local authority gave approval on 26 February 2001, subject to the temporary accommodation being removed as soon as permanent accommodation is available or before 28 February 2005, whichever is sooner. Construction is due to commence by the end of April and as stated to the hon. Member in my answer of 19 March 2001,Official Report, column 14, the accommodation should be available for occupation by the Parachute Regiment by mid-August this year.

  Warships
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which UK companies have the capacity to design and build destroyers and frigates for the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement. [154045]

  Mr. Hoon
  Currently BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd. are the only UK shipbuilders with the capability to undertake both the detailed design and build of such vessels, though other companies could acquire the capability.

  However, the most challenging aspect of modern warship procurement lies in the ability to integrate highly complex weapon systems, which is why we seek to place prime contracts on companies with this broader systems capability. Such companies may or may not be shipbuilders themselves.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ministerial meetings with hon. Members have been cancelled by Ministers since 1 January. [155233]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence Ministers' diaries are all maintained electronically and information on cancelled diary appointments is not retained by the system.

  MOD Police (Housing)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department's police officers who transfer to the Ministry of Defence Police lose their entitlement to housing allowances; and if he will make a statement. [155119]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]In answering this question I have assumed that the reference is to Home Department police officers who join the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP). In the event of an officer from a Home Department police force joining the MDP, the Chief Constable may, at his discretion, recognise any entitlement to housing allowance earned through service with the Home Department force.

  Royal Marines (Whale Island)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the total costs of setting up HQ Royal Marines at Whale Island, Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement. [155799]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]HQ Royal Marines was the result of an amalgamation and rationalisation of three former Royal Marines Headquarters organisations: the Department of Commandant General Royal Marines from London, the Headquarters Commando Forces from Plymouth and the Headquarters Training and Reserve Forces from Poole. The total cost of setting up the HQ, including the interim relocation to HMS Vernon, is not readily identifiable and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. However, the capital cost of the build at Whale island, including VAT and fees, was some £4.5 million.

  Armoured Vehicle Training
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the training of crews for armoured vehicles takes place; which locations will close as a result of training being put out to contract; and if he will make a statement. [155803]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]Individual training for crew members of armoured vehicles takes place within armoured unit locations in the UK and Germany and at the Armour Centre, Bovington. The proposal to introduce a partnering arrangement for the delivery of such training will not result in the closure of any existing locations.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people will be made redundant as a result of training for crews of armoured vehicles being put out to contract; and if he will make a statement. [155804]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]The proposals from the three consortiums bidding for the partnering arrangement to deliver individual training for 24W
  crew members of armoured vehicles will not be received until the end of May but are not expected to result in significant redundancies. Trades Unions have been consulted over the PFI and civil servants involved will have the option to transfer to the selected Partner under TUPE—Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1998—arrangements or will be redeployed within the Department.

  Nuclear Contamination
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many bases which are(a) operational, (b) closed and (c) leased to the United States in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) British overseas territories are contaminated with pollutants; and what action has been taken to remediate and restore contaminated areas. [156401]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally. However, it is Ministry of Defence policy to undertake decontamination of contaminated land where there is a significant risk to health and safety or to the environment, or where land is earmarked for disposal. On sites earmarked for disposal, remediation is generally confined to the removal of ordnance and other defence-specific contaminants where a civilian contractor might not have the relevant experience. Where appropriate, provision is made within the sale agreement for the purchaser of surplus defence land to remediate it to a standard fit for the proposed new use.

  Chinook
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the FADEC-related nuisance faults experienced on the Chinook Mk2 helicopter fleet in the six months up to and including 2 June 1994, indicating in each case their safety significance and whether this was understood by the crows. [156367]

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

  Service Accommodation (Council Tax)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the basis for calculating contributions in lieu of council tax for(a) single serviceman's accommodation and (b) service family accommodation, (i) at home and (ii) overseas; and if he will make a statement. [156393]

  Mr. Spellar
  All service accommodation in England, Scotland and Wales is formally exempt from the council tax regime. Instead, the Ministry of Defence pays contributions in lieu of council tax (CILOCT) to local authorities, broadly equivalent to the amount of tax that would otherwise be due. The average contribution, determined by the type of property occupied, is then recovered from service occupants with their accommodation charge. The system allows a uniform payment wherever personnel are posted, including overseas. In Northern Ireland CILOCT is not paid as domestic rates are still in force.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, for each local authority in(a) England and Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland, he will list the contribution paid in lieu of council tax in the latest year for which figures are available; and the total sum paid in each country. [156394]
  25W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence pays approximately £40 million in respect of contributions in lieu of council tax (CILOCT) to some 240 local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. CILOCT does not apply in Northern Ireland where domestic rates are still in force. I will write to the hon. Member with details for each local authority and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average sum recovered in contributions in lieu of council tax from(a) married and (b) single armed forces personnel, by rank, (i) at hone and (ii) overseas, in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement. [156395]

  Mr. Spellar
  All members of the armed forces pay the same amount of contributions in lieu of council tax (CILOCT), in relation to the type 01 property occupied, wherever they are serving. The only exception is for those serving in Northern Ireland where domestic rates are still in force. For those living in a Service Family Accommodation, the current CILOCT charge is between £526 and £1,161 per annum depending on the type of quarter. Personnel occupying single accommodation pay a lower annual CILOCT charge of between £22 for other ranks and £69 per annum for officers, because of the lower valuation of this type of accommodation.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel, in addition to their contribution in lieu of council tax, pay council tax on an unoccupied private residence; and if he will make a statement. [156392]

  Mr. Spellar
  We do not keep records of how many Service personnel own private properties. All Service personnel living in Service accommodation who also own a private property remain liable to pay council tax on their own property to the local authority concerned. It is for local authorities to interpret the relevant regulations regarding "sole or main" residence criteria. There have been a handful of cases in which they have refused to allow Service home owners a reduction on their private property when they also have a Service family quarter and pay a full council tax contribution for that quarter via the Contributions in Lieu of Council Tae scheme. Although the Ministry of Defence is not in a position to determine the actions of local authorities, my officials have raised individual cases with the relevant local authorities.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the results of recent studies into the feasibility of providing an effective alternative to plastic baton rounds for use in crowd control situations in Northern Ireland; and what have been the costs of these studies in the last 10 years. [144690]

  Mr. Ingram
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 February 2001, c. 679W]Phase one of the research programme aimed at finding an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the plastic baton round has now been completed. I have today placed a copy of the Report, and 26W
  a letter my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has issued to Northern Ireland party leaders, in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date he received a report from Dr. Keith Scupton on the foot and mouth outbreak; and if he will make a statement on Government policy on its contents. [156534]

  The Prime Minister
  I have read the report which is in the public domain.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Policies (Southwark)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will set out, with statistical evidence relating as directly as possible to the London borough of Southwark, the effects on the London borough of Southwark of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [155982]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Camberwell and Tower Bridge branch of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) deals with all adult cases emanating in the London borough of Southwark. The Youth and City branch of the Crown Prosecution Service deals with most youth cases emanating in the London borough of Southwark.

  In November 1999, in line with national policy, the Camberwell and Tower Bridge branch and the Youth and City branch, introduced procedures to implement the Narey proposals. They did this in liaison with a number of other criminal justice agencies (including courts, police and defendants representatives). All defendants charged with a criminal offence, where a guilty plea is anticipated, now make their first appearance before the Magistrates or Youth court within five working days.

  Both the Camberwell and Tower Bridge and the Youth and City branches have fast track procedures in place to deal with Persistent Youth Offender cases. They are working towards the Government's 71-day target for disposing of those cases.

  In November 2000, the Crown Prosecution Service at Camberwell and Tower Bridge branch began changing its structure in line with implementation of the Glidewell review. As a first step towards a Trial Unit, it established a Crown Court Committal section. This enables the Crown Prosecution Service to place greater emphasis on serious crime cases, which are heard at both the Inner London Crown court and the Central Criminal court.

  The Camberwell and Tower Bridge branch are involved in the Direct Communication with Victims initiative. This provides a written explanation when the Crown Prosecution Service either discontinues or substantially alters a charge. In some circumstances the Crown Prosecution Service will meet with victims to explain why a particular decision was taken.
  27W
  Action and polices of the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office do not directly affect my right hon. Friend's constituency.

  Diplock Hearings
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will list the criteria he uses in deciding whether a Diplock court hearing has been prejudiced by(a) public comment and (b) other matters outside the court. [156537]

  The Solicitor-General
  It is not for the Attorney-General, or Solicitor-General, to consider whether a trial has been prejudiced by any matter. If, following a conviction, there is any question as to the fairness of a trial, it is exclusively for the Court of Appeal to consider by way of appeal or referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

  Racist Literature
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make it his policy to prosecute those who produce literature including the phrase "Kill the Jews". [156391]

  The Solicitor-General
  Each case which the police send to the Crown Prosecution Service—whether involving an allegation of anti-Semitic literature or any other offence—is reviewed by a Crown Prosecutor. All cases are carefully considered to make sure that they meet the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which is issued under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

  There are two stages in the decision to prosecute. The first stage is the evidential test. The Crown Prosecutor must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a 'realistic prospect of conviction'. He must consider objectively whether the evidence can be used and is reliable. The Crown Prosecutor must also consider what the defence case may be and how it is likely to affect the prosecution case. A 'realistic prospect of conviction' means that a jury or bench of magistrates, properly directed in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged.

  If the case does not pass the evidential test, it must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it may be. If the case does pass the evidential test, the Crown Prosecutor must then consider the second stage test to decide if a prosecution is needed in the public interest. In cases of any seriousness, a prosecution will usually take place, unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. The Crown Prosecution Service will only start or continue a prosecution when the case has passed both tests.

  Offences under part III of the Public Order Act 1986, which include offences of producing and distributing racially inflammatory material, require Law Officer's consent. Where the evidential and public interest tests are met consent to prosecute will be granted.

  Since the heightened tensions in the Middle East there have been a number of reported incidents of the publication/distribution of racially inflammatory material targeting the Jewish Community in London.
  28W
  The police have arrested individuals and seized leaflets. Files have been submitted to the CPS and are either ongoing, the decision to prosecute having been made, or under review.

  Advocates
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement about the arrangements for instructing advocates to prosecute cases on behalf of the Government. [156818]

  The Solicitor-General
  Last year the Attorney-General set up a working group, chaired by David Nissen, CB, the Solicitor to the Department of Trade and Industry, to conduct a review of the arrangements for instructing advocates to prosecute cases on behalf of the Government. Following that review and consultation within Government and the legal profession, new arrangements come into force today that will govern the instruction of advocates (whether barristers or solicitor-advocates) in private practice in prosecution cases for the following Government Departments and non-departmental public bodies:HM Customs and Excise; Departments of Social Security/Health; Inland Revenue; Department of Trade and Industry; Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Intervention Board; Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency.

  A single panel will be set up of advocates for prosecution cases divided into three lists: A, B and C according to the level of experience of the advocate. Appointments will be for three years with the possibility of further renewals. I hope to announce the first recruitment exercise for the new single panel in the autumn. Further details about the application and selection process will be given closer to that time. There will be annual recruitment exercises and advertisements for applications to the new panel will be published. There will be equal opportunities monitoring of the application and selection process and particular care will be taken to encourage applications from women and member of the ethnic minorities. Appointment to the panels will be open to solicitor-advocates.

  From today, as a transitional arrangement until the new single panel is set up, my current Lists of advocates for the Departments named will be operated as a single List with instructing solicitors in those Departments free to instruct advocates oil the other lists. Those currently on a list will be expected to apply to join the new panel in due course.

  Also from today, the role of my clerk in nominating advocates from the lists for instructions/briefs, the reallocation of returns and off-list nominations of counsel will cease. This was a considerable burden placed upon the chambers of each Attorney-General, which in these times can no longer be justified. From now on, Departments will be responsible for dealing directly with clerks concerning the delivery of instructions and the reallocation of returns. Departments will be responsible for monitoring the fair spread of instructions across the lists and the quality of performance of advocates. There will be an Administrative Unit, based at HMCE, responsible for central monitoring that will report to me.
  29W
  I am confident that the new arrangements will serve prosecuting departments and NDPBs well. The system will be open and fair and will offer greater opportunities than in the past for prosecutors to do Government work.

  Chesswood Harris
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Solicitor-General for what reason the Treasury Solicitor has not provided the substantive reply promised on 6 January 2000 in the case of Chesswood Harris v. Ministry of Defence; when the Treasury Solicitor will provide the reply; and if he will make a statement. [156066]

  The Solicitor-General
  I regret that the Treasury Solicitor has not provided the substantive reply referred to in the letter of 6 January 2000. I have today written to the hon. Member.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sudan
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will increase her Department's funding for NGOs working in southern Sudan. [156155]

  Clare Short
  We increase funding to NGOs for humanitarian purposes in any part of Sudan when circumstances dictate this is necessary, and where we believe NGOs will provide the most effective channel to relieve urgent needs. We are also willing to consider support for grass-roots peace-building initiatives.

  Palestinian Authority
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for International Development if she will place copies in the Library of(a) European Union and (b) United Kingdom assessments of the effectiveness of aid given to the Palestinian Authority since 1995. [156069]

  Clare Short
  I have arranged for copies of the following reports to be placed in the House of Commons Library:Evaluation of the European Community's programme of development assistance to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, 1999.
  European Court of Auditors Special Report 19/2000 on the management by the Commission of the programme of assistance to Palestinian society.

  My Department has included as assessment of UK aid effectiveness in its draft Country Strategy Paper on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. We are reviewing our programme of bilateral co-operation with the Palestinians in the light of the current troubles and the terrible deterioration in economic and social conditions in the West Bank and Gaza. When the Strategy Paper is published a copy will also be placed in the Library.

WALES

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on compensation for 30W
  consequential losses being suffered by (a) the tourist industry and (b) rural business in general as a result of foot and mouth disease; and if he will made a statement. [154180]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I maintain close contact with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a variety of issues including foot and mouth disease.

  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales is a member of the UK Government Rural Taskforce set up to examine the effect of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease across the rural economy as a whole. Following the initial meetings of this taskforce, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced on 20 March a package of UK-wide measures to help businesses cope with the impact of foot and mouth. These included a new information campaign to get the public back to areas of the countryside which they can safely visit and an immediate package of short-term practical help for rural businesses, involving the Small Business Service and the banks.

  In addition, the National Assembly for Wales has already issued a Tourism Charter and announced a £1.5 million marketing package through the Wales Tourist Board aimed at reassuring visitors to Wales. They have also made available £12 million to local authorities to enable them to grant rate relief to businesses affected by foot and mouth disease, £1 million additional funding to help the agri-food sector in Wales recover from the effects of foot and mouth disease, and £0.5 million to match pound for pound voluntary donations from the public to help relieve rural distress.

  Aiwa Factory
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the prospect of job losses at the Aiwa factory in Newbridge in Wales. [156577]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None and I understand that the company has issued a statement rebutting the reports of possible job losses at Newbridge.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Policies (Southwark)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the London borough of Southwark, the effects on the London borough of Southwark of his Department's policies and actions since May 2 1997. [155980]

  Mr. Wills
  The details have been placed in the Library.

  School Funding (Bury)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the total allocation of direct payments to(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Bury local education authority for 2000–01 and 2001–02. [156668]
  31W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The tables show the amount of School Standards Grant and devolved formula capital grant payable in 2000–01, and the estimated amounts payable in 2001–02, by sector.

  School standards grant

  £

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Nursery

  3,000

  7,000

  Primary

  552,000

  1,482,000

  Secondary

  544,000

  956,000

  Pupil Referral Units

  6,000

  14,000

  Special

  45,000

  68,000

  Note:

  A typical primary school will receive £24.000 School Standards Grant in 2001–02, and a typical secondary school, £70,000

  Devolved formula capital grant

  £

  12000–01

  2001–02

  Nursery

  3,941

  6,976

  Primary

  859,749

  692,622

  Secondary

  436,045

  360,645

  Pupil Referral Units

  8,493

  27,360

  Special

  34,763

  15,043

  1 Part of the 2001–02 grant is intended to be spent in 2001–02 and reflected a once-off increase in the Pre-Budget report

  Note:

  A typical primary school will receive £9,750 in devolved formula capital grant in 2001–02 and a typical secondary school, £28,500.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will indicate the(a) areas, (b) total sums allocated in each area, (c) number of modern apprenticeships to be created and (d) number of additional computer training places in each of the five information technology pilot areas. [156472]

  Ms Jowell
  The Ambition:IT initiative will run in five pilot areas which will be selected from a current shortlist of 10: London, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, South Yorkshire, Liverpool, Tyneside, Cardiff, Glasgow, and Edinburgh and the Forth area. We will announce the five pilot areas later in the Spring.

  Allocations have not therefore been made to individual areas. Details of overall funding and opportunities for each of the three prongs of Ambition:IT are:
  Career Ambition—a total of £34 million over three years for a technician training pilot to place 5,000 individuals in the ICT sector over those three years;
  First Ambition—a total of £15 million over three years to train New Deal participants to European Computer Driving Licence standard, starting in October 2001 and help 15,000 in its first year; and
  A £2.5 million Challenge Fund to test the use of innovative technology to increase the quality and efficiency of services throughout the New Deal.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many ministerial meetings with hon. Members have been cancelled by Ministers since 1 January. [155236]
  32W
  Mr. Wills
  None, although various meetings have been rescheduled.

  School Governing Bodies
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will publish the results of his most recent consultation on school governing bodies. [155946]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 March 2001]My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced on 17 March 2001 that he has asked me to set up and chair a high level group, which will include governor, head teacher, local authority and church representatives, to consider the responses to the consultation. The Group will look particularly at the proposals for changing governor responsibilities and governing body constitutions.

  In accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultation, we are proposing to publish a summary of the rest tits of the Consultation in due course. As we received over 6,500 responses a full analysis will not be ready for publication until early June. We are planning to send out interim feedback summarising headline data to chairs of governors and head teachers in the April mailing to schools.

  New Deal (Crewe and Nantwich)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people in the constituency of Crewe and Nantwich have benefited from(a) disabled students' allowances, (b) the New Deal for lone parents, (c) the New Deal for partners of unemployed people, (d) the New Deal for people aged 25 plus, (e) the New Deal for young people, (f) Jobseeker's Allowance and (g) jobfinder's grant since May 1997. [156227]

  Ms Jowell
  (a) In the academic year 1997–98, 81 disabled students' allowances worth £110,488 were paid to students from Cheshire. Figures are not available for subsequent years.

  (b) During the period October 1998 to December 2000, 272 people in Crewe and Nantwich have joined New Deal for lone parents. This has resulted in 119 people moving into employment during the same period.

  (c) Constituency level figures for New Deal for partners are not yet available.

  (d) In Crewe and Nantwich, from July 1998 to January 2001, 355 people joined New Deal for people aged 25 plus. 70 people left the programme for jobs.

  (e) 826 young people in Crewe and Nantwich have entered New Deal for young people during the period April 1998 to January 2001. 423 of these have found employment.

  (f) The only available constituency level Jobseekers Allowance statistics are based on a 5 per cent. sample of the population. As a broad indication, 2,800 people in the Crewe and Nantwich constituency have claimed Jobseeker's Allowance since May 1997. This does not include people who receive nil benefit who sign on for National Insurance credits only.

  (g) Constituency figures for jobfinder's grant are not available. However in the North West Employment Service Region, from April 1997 to February 2001, 27,262 people have received assistance from the jobfinder's grant.

  Disability Rights Commission
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what the average length of time is for processing an application under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 at the Disability Rights Commission; [156353]

  (2) what the backlog of applications under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is at the Disability Rights Commission; and if he will make a statement. [156354]

  Ms Hodge
  These are operational matters for the Disability Rights Commission. I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member and to place a copy of his letter in the House Library.

  British Sign Language
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to grant official recognition to British Sign Language. [156649]

  Ms Hodge
  I have received many representations on this issue and have met disability organisations to discuss the best way forward. The UK ratified the Council of Europe's Charter for Regional or Minority Languages on 27 March and will be appointing the UK representative to the Charter's Committee of Experts. The Committee of Experts will be able to consider whether indigenous sign languages should come within the terms of the Charter.

  Working Age Agency
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in setting up the new agency for working age people. [156803]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and I are establishing the new agency for working age people later this year. We announced on 14 March the locations of around 50 pathfinder offices bringing together labour market and benefit services for people of working, age. These offices will be the first stage in the launch of this new Agency.

  We can further announce today that the new Agency and its local offices will be called "Jobcentre Plus". We shall be introducing the name "Jobcontre Plus" in local offices as they roll out the integrated benefit and employment service, starting with the first pathfinder offices in October. But, more widely, the new Agency will be referred to as "Jobcentre Plus" from today.

  Digital Education Delivery
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to develop the delivery of education in schools through digital formats. [156805]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am today publishing a consultation paper "Curriculum Online", which sets out our proposals for the next steps in the use of technology to raise standards of education, including consulting on the future of the National Grid for Learning. Copies of the paper have been placed in the House of Commons Library. We are seeking views on the best way to achieve our vision of a consistent and coherent set of electronic resources available across the curriculum. All teachers will have access to the best available resources to support their 34W
  lesson planning and all pupils will be able to use the same materials at home as they do in the classroom, to support their homework and revision, for example.

  As a first step towards achieving our vision, I am also announcing today the outcome of our competition for the provision of digital course materials for GCSEs in English, mathematics, science, history, geography and French. We will be investing £42 million over three years in these materials, to be delivered over digital television and other channels. The proposals were assessed against criteria including their educational merits and their value for money and the BBC and Granada Media were judged to have submitted the best proposals. Subject to the necessary DCMS approvals, they will be working together to deliver the six GCSEs, split equally between them.

  In addition, I can announce that we will be developing a "Cybrarian"—a virtual librarian service for learners of all ages—using £17.5 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund and a further £5 million of DfEE funding. It will offer much more effective ways of connecting learners with the rich electronic content that they need and will be a powerful tool in efforts to bridge the digital divide, particularly for those traditionally poorly served by electronic resources.

  Together these announcements represent another important step forward in our plans to use the potential of technology to reinforce and support our commitment to the best of traditional teaching methods.

HEALTH

  Local Health Services
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the establishment of local health services. [153485]

  Mr. Denham
  Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are key agents for securing services that better meet the needs of their population. They are able to play a leading role in improving the health of their community and delivering more integrated local services. PCTs are starting to make this happen. 124 new PCTs have become established this year, bringing the total now to 164. Further PCTs will be established next year.

  In addition, £100 million will be provided to Primary Care Groups (PCGs) and PCTs to develop primary care service, an average of £10,000 per general practitioner practice, that are aimed to promote new ideas or ways of working that deliver improved patient services. This might include funding, extra clinics, extended opening hours, training GP specialists or developing other primary care clinicians to deliver, for instance, better heart and cancer services.

  We recognise that GPs and other primary care health practitioners are dealing with illness and disease now, which in the recent past could only be dealt with in hospitals. This trend will continue and investment is being made now to make sure that GPs have the time and the expertise to deliver top class care in our communities. Therefore, in addition to existing funding and the new resources available to all PCGs and trusts, from April

  35W
  2001 each PCG and PCT will receive £5,000 to support the lead GP or nurse engaged within the local cancer clinical network.

  New Personal Medical Services (PMS) pilots are also providing an opportunity to test different ideas for delivering existing primary care focusing on local services problems and bringing about improvements. PMS has proved to be very successful in reaching deprived areas where help is often most needed, making service provision more responsive and equitable.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make available summaries of information submitted to NICE on a commercial-in-confidence basis; and if he will make a statement. [154779]

  Mr. Denham
  Details of the appraisal process and the publication of evidence are matters for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE has recently consulted on changes to its appraisal process. I understand that it is proposing that, where information submitted to the institute is designated by a consultee as being 'commercial in confidence', the institute will undertake not to release this information to a third party. However, the institute may ask the consultee to forego such restrictions on release where either there appears to be no obvious commercial reason for the restrictions; or such restrictions would make it difficult or impossible for the institute to show the evidential basis for its guidance.

  Local Pilot Schemes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what local pilot schemes he funds in relation to(a) congestive heart failure and (b) asthma in London; and when he will receive reports on their progress. [156102]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 29 March 2001]The National Service Framework for coronary heart disease sets out standards and models of care for heart failure treatment which health authorities together with local stakeholders will be developing as part of the local implementation of the National Service Framework. All health authorities have addressed the issue of heart failure through their three year local delivery plans.

  As part of this roll-out-local pilot schemes are being developed in London. One pilot project that will be specifically dealing with both congestive heart failure and asthma is the health networks initiative. This pilot project will look at new models of care for treating chronic illness in the Waltham Forest area of London. The project is jointly managed by the Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority, Forest Healthcare National Health Service Trust and the Walthamstow, Leyton and Leytonstone Primary Care Group. Congestive heart failure and asthma were chosen as the most suitable to consider for new ways of care management. The funding for this project is being provided by regional primary care money. It is hoped that the first pilot scheme will commence in June of this year. It is not clear when a report will be available.

  In addition heart failure clinic pilots have been developed at the Whittington Hospital, St. George's Hospital and Barnet and Chase Farm NHS Trust.
  36W
  There are also a number of local pilot schemes for asthma in London which are outlined as follows:

  The Bronchial Boogie Project in Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority. This project will provide singing and breathing tuition for young asthmatics and may include tuition with wind instruments and time with local youth rap and other bands. The project will provide professionals with an opportunity to impart general and respiratory specific health education and for the young people to teach the professionals good practice from the patients' point of view. This project is being funded through health action zone money. The report is expected in March 2002.

  Free to breathe pilots have been set up by both Camden and Islington health authority and Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority. Each of the pilots has been taken forward by local primary care groups. The pilots were set up last year to improve the care and treatment of patient; with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These projects have been funded through health authority money. The Camden and Islington health authority report is currently available. The report by Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster will be completed during 2002.

  Child Maltreatment
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning "Child Maltreatment in the UK: A Study of the Prevalence of Child Abuse and Neglect", published by the NSPCC; and if he will make a statement. [156146]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has made, and continues to make, a significant contribution in raising public awareness and understanding of the problem of child abuse.

  We acknowledge the value of "Child Maltreatment in the United Kingdom". This is the first report of this most authoritative and contemporary prevalence study of child abuse and neglect. We have studied the findings of the report very carefully, and my officials have benefited from learning about the early findings of the study over the past two years. I ant aware that there will be a major national conference on the implications of the report in April. We look forward to further findings that may be drawn from this study.

  Computer Failures
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been issued to(a) health authorities and (b) NHS trusts regulating requirements for disaster recovery strategies in the event of massive computer failure; and if he will make a statement. [156142]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service information authority has published comprehensive guidance on information security management methods, including business continuity management, to NHS health authorities and trusts within the generic United Kingdom standard BS7799 part 1 and related NHS documentation. These are available from the authority and also online from the authority's website to all NHS staff.

  PFI Contracts
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the disposal by Hyder of its PFI contracts with George Eliot and South Warwickshire hospitals to IBA; and if he will make a statement; [156216]

  (2) what PFI contracts have been awarded to IBA by South Manchester and Kettering hospitals; and if he will make a statement; [156263]

  (3) if his Department has taken steps to ensure the accuracy of information published by IBA on its website regarding the awarding of NHS PFI contracts. [156264]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]IBA has been appointed preferred bidder under the Private Finance Initiative procurement process for the provision of Information Technology (IT) services at South Manchester University Hospitals National Health Service Trust and Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust. Contracts will be signed if the trusts are satisfied that the final proposals are affordable and provide value for money solutions for the NHS.

  George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust and South Warwickshire NHS Trust are currently taking legal and financial advice on IBA's proposal to take over the prime IT contracts which they currently hold with Hyder plc.

  The accuracy of information produced by private sector companies is a matter for the companies themselves. Government bodies expect to be fully consulted about the use of information supplied by them to other parties in good faith during the course of a procurement process.

  Newcastle Hospitals Trust
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what numbers of acute and intermediate beds he has agreed for the Newcastle Hospitals Trust PFI; what target date he has set for the replacement of the Northern Centre for Cancer Treatment; and when he plans to put the PFI into open advertisement for bids. [156469]

  Mr. Denham
  No target numbers of beds have yet been agreed for the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals Trust's Private Finance Initiative (PFI) scheme, as this is an aspect of the refinement of the outline business cases that is now being undertaken by the trust.

  The scheme's business cases advocate the new Northern centre for cancer treatment being procured as one part of the overall PFI developments proposed at both the Freeman Hospital and Royal Victoria Infirmary. Subject to satisfactory progress being made in progressing the scheme, the new facilities at Freeman Hospital should be operational in 2005.

  The date for placement of the advertisement will be dependent on the completion of the refinement of the outline business case.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the number of prescriptions per head of population was; and what the value of such GP prescribed 38W
  prescriptions per head for (a) anti-depressants and (b) tranquillisers was in each of the last three years for each health authority in England. [156470]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested for 1998 and 1999 will be placed in the Library. Information for 2000 will not be available until June 2001.

  Mental Health Patients
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental health patients detained in hospital received ECT(a) having given informal consent in advance, (b) not having given consent but having had the matter put to a second opinion appointed doctor and (c) having given no consent and not having the matter referred to a second opinion appointed doctor between November 2000 and February 2001; and how this data compare to that for the period November 1999 to February 2000. [156671]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not available in the form requested. A survey covering the period from January 1999 to March 1999 was undertaken to provide an up to date and accurate snapshot picture of the use of electro-convulsive treatment (ECT) in England. During that period 2,800 patients received ECT treatment, 75 per cent. of ECT patients were not formally detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and of those patients formally detained while receiving ECT treatment, 29 per cent. consented to ECT, 12 per cent. were treated as an emergency and 59 per cent. did not consent to treatment but were treated after a second opinion was obtained. The latter figure represented those patients who were unable to consent because of the serious nature of their illness. As a proportion of all ECT patients, those not consenting represented about 15 per cent.

  The results of the survey are contained in the Department of Health Statistical bulletin "Electro Convulsive Therapy: Survey covering the period from January 1999 to March 1999, England", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Broadmoor Hospital
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place with the staff social club at Broadmoor Hospital to resolve the difficulties raised over the future provision of services at the hospital. [156672]

  Mr. Hutton
  Broadmoor Hospital Authority has been in protracted negotiations over the past 12 months with the privately managed staff recreation club regarding relocation.

  The hospital authority has also consulted staff and staff side representatives about proposals for the future provision of staff recreational facilities.

  Bayer Plant (Closure)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the World Drug Federation regarding the closure of the Bayer plant in the USA. [156358]
  39W
  Mr. Denham
  I have had no discussion with the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA). The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) has discussed the temporary curtailment of supply of the Bayer synthetic Factor VIII product with the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA). It is licensed by the EMEA under the European centralised licensing procedure and accordingly the agency has responsibility in Europe for co-ordinating relevant licensing issues. The MCA understands that the EMEA was only recently advised of these supply problems.

  Haemophilia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he is giving haemophilia patients regarding the safety of human plasma-derived factor 8 with respect to(a) hepatitis A, B, C, (b) Aids and (c) CJD. [156360]

  Mr. Denham
  Since the mid 1980s, blood products for haemophiliacs have been treated to destroy hepatitis C and HIV as well as a range of other viruses. The United Kingdom haemophilia centre doctors organisation guidelines state that all patients who are not immune to hepatitis A or B and who receive blood products should be vaccinated. There is no evidence world-wide that CJD of any type has been transmitted via blood or blood products, although the possibility cannot be ruled out entirely. All blood products used by the National Health Service in England are made from imported plasma.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to obtain supplies of synthetic Factor VIII for the treatment of haemophilia in the United Kingdom while the Bayer plant in the USA is closed. [156359]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department has been advised by Bayer that the rate of supply of their synthetic Factor VIII has been curtailed for a limited period following an inspection of their manufacturing facility in the United States by the Food and Drugs Administration. During this period officials are working closely with the United Kingdom haemophilia centre doctors organisation and other suppliers of clotting factors to manage the situation in a way that best meets the needs of haemophilia patients.

  Health Professions
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he proposes to take to develop a comprehensive health service for health care professionals. [155966]

  Mr. Denham
  Occupational health services are of major importance to the National Health Service. 99 per cent. of NHS workers in the acute sector have access to some form of occupational health, the extent and the quality of which varies greatly from region to region. As part of the improving working lives initiative, service delivery standards will shortly be introduced to trusts and health authorities.

  To date there is no provision for occupational health for the primary care sector. However, £21 million over the next three years will be invested in occupational health for general medical practitioners and their staff.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his proposals for the future regulation of health professions. [156890]
  40W
  Mr. Denham
  We have today published draft orders under the Health Act 1999 containing provisions to set up a new Nursing and Midwifery Council and a new Health Professions Council. These will replace the existing United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and the four national Boards, and the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine. The orders will be published for three months before debate in Parliament. A period of consultation will last until 1 June 2001. Copies of bah draft orders will be placed in the Library.

  Appointments to the shadow Nursing and Midwifery Council and Health Professions Council are under way. These appointment; should be made in early April for the shadow Councils to start work as soon as possible afterwards. The shadow Councils will have the status of advisory groups until the new Councils are statutorily established in April 2002.

  Spectacle Fees
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on dispensing fees for contact lens and spectacle dispensing from 1 June; [155736]

  (2) what plans he has to charge VAT rates on (a) medicine dispensing and (b) spectacle and contact lens dispensing; and if he will make a statement. [155735]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no plans to charge VAT on the specific dispensing services of pharmacists or opticians. A House of Lords ruling given in January this year in the "Card Protection Plan" case has far-reaching implications for the VAT treatment of supplies made by many businesses, where one supply is incidental to another.

TREASURY

  Private Pensions
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of the abolition of advanced corporation tax dividend credit on the future provision of private pensions. [154882]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 5 March 2001,Official Report, columns 91–92W.

  Departmental Policies (Southwark)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the London borough of Southwark, the effects on the London borough of Southwark of his Department's policies and actions since May 2 1997. [155978]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The London borough of Southwark, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the General Election, claimant unemployment in the borough has fallen by
  41W
  5,235 or 36 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 74 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 58 per cent.

  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of December 2000, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 5,052 young people in the London borough of Southwark gain valuable skills and experience–1,883 (37 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 3,800 families in the borough were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies that enable pensioners to share in tile country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 32,000 in the London borough of Southwark, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have aim, been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000-including around 20,000 in the London borough of Southwark.

  Lump Sum Tax Payments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what factors the Inland Revenue takes into account when deciding whether to allow an individual to make an agreed lump sum payment in lieu of submitting a tax return; [152506]

  (2) pursuant to his reply of 26 February 2001, Official Report, column 510W, on lump sum tax payments, in how many of the agreements entered into the initiative came from (a) the Inland Revenue and (b) the taxpayer; [152507]

  (3) pursuant to his reply of 26 February 2001, Official Report, column 510W, on lump sum tax payments, how many agreements were entered into in each year since 1988; and how many were in respect of the same individual. [152500]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The agreements in question do not absolve individuals from their obligations to file tax returns. They establish the tax liability or tax treatment of certain income or gains for future years, which must then be reflected in the returns for those years. The circumstances in which these agreements have been made are varied. Typically they agree a practical basis for taxing future income or gains where there would otherwise be particular difficulties in establishing an exact figure.

  Most of the agreements currently in existence were entered into in the periods 1988–91 and 1995–97.

  Fuel Duties
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual change in the cost to an average low user of variations in fuel duties between 1992 and 1997; and if he will make a statement. [156504]
  42W
  Mr. Timms
  In April 1992, the duty on a litre of unleaded petrol was 23.42 pence. In April 1997 it was 36.86 pence per litre. If the duty rate had been revalorised in line with inflation since 1992 it would have been 26.55 pence per litre.

  Compared to revalorisation, the additional annual cost for a driver covering 5,000 miles per annum at 6.6 miles to the litre would have been £92 in duty and VAT.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the landfill tax credit has been delivered to community projects. [156347]

  Mr. Timms
  Contributions totalling £184 million have been spent under the landfill tax environmental bodies credit scheme since the introduction of the tax on 1 October 1996 to 21 March 2001. Of this amount £106 million has been spent on community projects carried out in the vicinity of landfill sites. Landfill site operators can claim 90 per cent. of contributions as landfill tax credits subject to this not exceeding 20 per cent. of their annual liability.

  Budget Transport Package
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average savings to Welsh(a) vehicle owners and (b) hauliers, introduced by the pre-Budget statement will be in the next financial year. [156350]

  Mr. Timms
  The value of the Budget transport package to motorists is £1.6 billion, equivalent to 4 pence per litre cut in fuel duty. For hauliers the value of the Budget transport package is £660 million, equivalent to 7 pence per litre cut in fuel duty.

  These savings are made across the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Energy-Saving Materials
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the reduced rate of VAT on energy-saving materials is not applied to such materials sold direct to the public; and if he will make a statement. [156405]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Energy-saving materials sold direct to the public are not included in the list of goods and services to which, under agreements with our European partners, a reduced rate of VAT may apply.

  Tourism (VAT)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce VAT permanently on tourist accommodation and visitor attractions. [156331]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have no current plans to reduce VAT on tourist accommodation and visitor attractions.

  Tax Credits
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the constituency of Crewe
  43W
  and Nantwich have been awarded (a) disabled person's tax credit and (b) working families' tax credit since May 1997. [156257]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC) and Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC) were introduced in October 1999. For each parliamentary constituency, the number of people receiving DPTC, and an estimate of the number of families receiving WFTC, are shown in the Quarterly Inquiries from April 2000. Copies of these Inquiries are in the Library, and on the Inland Revenue website, www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk. However, the estimates for WFTC are based on five per cent. sample of awards, and are therefore subject to substantial sampling error; particular caution is needed when comparing such estimates over time.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in respect of each tax credit(a) the number of successful claims and (b) the average size of each tax credit payment. [156100]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the Working Families' Tax Credit and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit, the number of recipients and the average weekly amounts are shown in the respective Quarterly Inquiries, copies of which are in the Library.

  Construction Projects
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will ensure that, whenever public money is being spent on construction projects, holiday entitlement and exemplary site conditions and safety systems and practices are made an essential part of the terms of employment of contractors and sub-contractors; [152474]

  (2) if he will ensure that, whenever public money is being spent on construction projects, holiday entitlement and exemplary site conditions and safety systems and

  UK spending by function for selected years

  £ billion

  Health

  Education

  Transport1

  Law and order

  Other

  Total spend on services

  1979–80

  11

  10.5

  3.6

  3.2

  49

  77.3

  1980–81

  13.9

  12.8

  4.1

  4

  56.7

  91.6

  1981–82

  15.6

  13.9

  4.6

  4.6

  64.3

  103.1

  1994–95

  46

  34.7

  11.5

  15.4

  151.9

  260

  1995–96

  48.6

  35.6

  11.3

  15.7

  158.1

  269.6

  1996–97

  50.7

  36.1

  11.1

  16.2

  160.5

  273.6

  1997–98

  53.1

  37.2

  11.2

  16.9

  160

  276.3

  1998–99

  56

  38.4

  11.2

  17.4

  166.7

  287

  1999–20002

  61.2

  41.4

  12.4

  19.1

  172.9

  303.3

  1Transport figures from 1994–95 onwards include Private Finance Initiative expenditure on transport in England.

  2 Estimated outturn.

  The Government's forward plans for public spending are set out in the 2000 Spending Review, "Prudent for a Purpose: building opportunity and security for all", July 2000, Cm 4807.

  Financial Services and Markets Act
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the next stage of public consultation in respect of orders implementing the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 will involve; and when it will be carried out. [156488]
  44W
  practices are made an essential part of the terms of employment of contractors and sub-contractors procured for the project. [152473]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Working Time Regulations already provide most workers with a minimum entitlement of four weeks paid annual leave as set out in "Your Guide to the Working Time Regulations". This is available in the House of Commons Library.

  A framework addressing site conditions and safety systems and practices, within which Central Government clients may operate when appointing and managing their suppliers, is currently being considered.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers failed to submit their tax return by the deadline specified in 2001. [152505]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of taxpayers who failed to submit their 1999–2000 tax return by the filing deadline specified in the cut rent year was just under 949,000.

  Public Service Spending
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was(a) spent and (b) allocated for future use on (i) health, (ii) education, (iii) transport, (iv) law and order and (v) other public services (A) since 2 May 1997, (B) for a similar period starting on 4 May 1979 and (C) for a similar period ending on 1 May 1997. [146478]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The table provides details of total Government (central government and local authority) spending on health (including personal social services), education, transport, law and order, and all other public services for financial years 1979–80 to 1991–82, 1994–95 to 1996–97 and 1997–98 to 1999–2000. Figures are available only for complete financial years.

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We are today publishing a further batch of consultation documents:Disclosure of Confidential Information Regulations 2001
  Mutual Societies Older 2001
  Communications by Auditors Regulations 2001
  Control of Business Transfers (Requirements on Applicants) Regulations 2001
  Transitional Provisions, Repeals and Savings (Financial Services Compensation Scheme) Order 2001.
  Transitional Provisions (Ombudsman Scheme and Complaints Scheme) Order 2001.
  45W
  These documents will be available shortly on the Treasury website (www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pub/html/reg/index.html). Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Hard copies are available from Deirdre Barrie at the Treasury on 020 7270 1634. Responses to consultation are requested by 25 May 2001.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the first year take-up in the north-west of the 150 per cent. advance payable tax credits for contaminated hind. [154612]

  Mr. Timms
  No regional estimates tire available for the take up of this tax credit. First year take-up is estimated at £15 million nation-wide.

  National Insurance.
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the dates on which the(a) operational and (b) policy making divisions dealing with national insurance were transferred from his Department to the Treasury. [156073]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions etc.) Act 1999 transferred National Insurance policy functions from the Department of Social Security to the Treasury and operational functions from the Department of Social Security to he Inland Revenue on 1 April 1999. Policy officials and staff in the Contributions Agency transferred into the Inland Revenue on that date. Northern Ireland officials working on National Insurance also transferred into the Inland Revenue on that date.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the gain in(a) cash terms and (b) percentage terms for each income decile of people of pension age from change in the level of the basic rate income tax introduced in April 2000; [151311]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the (a) average and (b) median gain to pensioners from cutting the basic and lower rates of income tax on (i) savings income, (ii) dividends income, (iii) pension income, (iv) earnings income and (v) all other income to zero and if he will make a statement. [151313]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The average (mean) gains to people over state retirement pension age from cutting the starting and basic rates of income tax in 2001–02 are given in the table. The median gains would be zero as some six to 10 pensioners pay no tax at all.

  For people of state retirement pension age, cutting basic and starting rates of tax to zero for income from:

  Average (mean) annual gains (£)

  (i) savings

  118

  (ii) dividends

  22

  (iii) pensions

  333

  (iv) earnings

  76

  (v) other

  7

  46W
  For people over state retirement pension age in 2001–02, estimates for the gains from a 1p cut in the basic rate of income tax by each income decile are shown in the table.

  Decile

  Gain for each decile group (£ million)

  Percentage gain

  Lowest

  0

  0

  2nd

  0

  0

  3rd

  0

  0

  4th

  0

  0

  5th

  0

  0

  6th

  0

  0

  7th

  Neg

  0.5

  8th

  15

  8.5

  9th

  40

  21

  Highest

  135

  70

  All

  195

  100

  These estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2000 pre-Budget report.

  Motorcycling (VAT)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 2001,Official Report, column 34W, on VAT, if he will extend VAT exemption on motorcycle helmets to vital replacement parts and to the safety clothing worn by motorcyclists. [156112]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Under agreements with our European partners we cannot introduce a zero rate for accessories to motorcycle helmets or for safety clothing worn by motorcyclists.

  Departmental Policies (Luton, South)
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Luton, South constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156159]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Luton, South, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the General Election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 1,315 or 40 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 85 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 75 per cent.

  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of December 2000, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 966 young people in Luton, South constituency gain valuable skills and experience—386 (40 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 1,500 families in the constituency were benefiting from WFTC.
  47W
  The Government are also committed to policies that enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 12,900 in Luton, South, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic State pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 7,900 in Luton, South.

  Departmental Policies (Great Grimsby)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Great Grimsby constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156241]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Great Grimsby, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the General Election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 970, or 22 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 72 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 74 per cent.

  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of December 2000, the New Deal for 18–24 year olds had helped 1,974 young people in Great Grimsby constituency gain valuable skills and experience—991 (50 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 3,400 families in the constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies that enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 15,500 in Great Grimsby, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic State pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 10,000 in Great Grimsby.

  Retirement Statistics
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the numbers of(a) men and (b) women due to retire in each of the next 10 years. [156104]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 29 March 2001]The information is given in the following table provided by the Government Actuary's Department. It shows the projected number of men and women who will reach state retirement age in each of the next 10 years. The calculations take account of the change to women's state retirement age from 60 to 65 years which will be phased in between 2010 and 2020.
  48W

  Projected number of males and females reaching state retirement age. United Kingdom

  Thousand

  Mid-year to mid-year period

  Males

  Females

  2001–02

  271

  305

  2002–03

  275

  333

  2003–04

  276

  349

  2004–05

  273

  346

  2005–06

  258

  350

  2006–07

  279

  447

  2007–08

  304

  411

  2008–09

  319

  385

  2009–101

  316

  316

  2010–111

  321

  184

  1 The number of women reaching state retirement age in these years is affected by the change to women's state retirement age from 60 to 65 years which will be phased in between April 2010 and April 2020.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department: calculations based on 1998-based national population projections.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) personal computers, (b) servers, (c) printers, (d) fax machines and (e) vehicles were based with the Inland Revenue in (i) Scotland and (ii) the United Kingdom in (A) 1998–99 and (B) 1999–2000. [155309]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]The information requested is as follows:

  Scotland

  UK

  1998–99

  (a) Personal Computers

  7,160

  63,173

  (b) Servers

  105

  1,228

  (c) Printers

  1,497

  13,787

  (d) Fax Machines1

  n/a

  —

  (e) Vehicles2

  —

  1,282

  1999–2000

  (a) Personal Computers

  7,159

  63,268

  (b) Servers

  85

  711

  (c) Printers

  1,408

  12,753

  (d) Fax Machines1

  n/a

  —

  (e) Vehicles2

  1,653

  —

  1No central records are available

  Central records do not give a separate figure for Scotland

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Inland Revenue spent on education and training of employees in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom in (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000. [155316]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]A comprehensive breakdown of the total amounts spent on training by the Inland Revenue in Scotland is not available.

  The figures for the United Kingdom as a whole were £27,933,596 and £34,308,279 for 1998–99 and 1999–2000, respectively.

  Education Expenditure (Wales)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of his Budget allocation to Wales was calculated to match the money to be paid directly to schools in England. [156533]
  49W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government announced an additional £100 million over the next three years for the National Assembly for Wales representing the share for Wales of the overall additional public spending announced in the Budget. It is for the Assembly to decide how it allocates this additional provision reflecting its priorities.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the forecasts his Department has made of the impact on the economy of reducing national public spending by specified increments over the next three years. [156580]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Forecasts for the UK economy were set out in Budget 2000, based on all relevant information including the Government's spending plans.

  Spending Review 2000 provided £43 billion extra resources for public services and infrastructure. Cuts to these affordable plans would harm key services as well as threatening the necessary renewal and modernisation of the country's capital stock.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what major advertising campaigns his Department is carrying out; and what the cost and duration of each is. [154267]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]At the present time HM Treasury is not conducting any major advertising campaigns.

  Promotional Campaigns
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the television, newspaper and radio advertising and other promotional campaigns conducted

  HM Treasury

  IT project

  Expected date of completion

  Cost (£000)

  Upgrading the Treasury's desktop to incorporate Windows and Office 2000 products

  March 2001

  2,500

  Redevelopment of the Treasury's public web site (www.hm-treasury.gov.uk)

  June 2001

  1250–300

  Replacement for FAMIS, the Treasury's domestic accounting system

  October 2001

  1700–900

  Procurement of a Treasury search engine to provide a single access point to information in the electronic document management system, the intranet, the GSI and sites of particular Treasury interest on the internet

  November 2001

  500

  Replacement of the Treasury Accounting System (TACSYS) which manages the Consolidated Fund, the National Loans Fund and related activities

  October 2002

  1,100

  1Cost range given as cost is dependent on chosen functionality.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the IT projects his Department plans to undertake in the next year; and if he will state in each case the(a) expected date of commencement and completion and (b) cost. [151466]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]The information is in the table.
  50W
  by (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its departmental public bodies, in each of the past five years, showing for each the expenditure incurred by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [153422]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]With regards to the advertising campaigns by HM Treasury, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 15 December 2000,Official Report, column 297W, and the reply given to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) on 18 May 2000, Official Report, column 257W. by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. Information on advertising costs for the agencies and departmental public bodies of the Treasury could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental IT Projects
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the IT projects currently undertaken in his Department; and if he will state the(a) expected completion date and (b) cost of each project. [151513]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]The information is in the table.

  The costs shown for each of the IT projects cover externally provided hardware, software and implementation costs and may, in addition, cover other costs such as training where this has been purchased as part of the initial contract placed with the external contractor. The costs of in-house project development are not included. Support and on-going maintenance costs are excluded.

  Probity and value for money in contracting for IT projects is ensured through compliance with EC public procurement rules, UK Government domestic procurement policy and best practice guidance, Government accounting rules and National Audit requirements.

  Only IT projects with estimated costs of over £250,000, on the basis described above, are included in the table.

  The costs shown for each of the IT projects cover externally provided hardware, software and implementation costs and may, in addition, cover other costs such as training where this will be part of the initial contract to be placed with the external contractor. The costs of in-house project development are not included. Support and ongoing maintenance costs are excluded.
  51W
  Probity and value for money in contracting for IT projects is ensured through compliance with EC public procurement rules, UK Government domestic procurement policy and best practice guidance, Government accounting rules and National Audit requirement.

  HM Treasury

  IT project

  Expected date of commencement

  Expected date of completion

  Cost (£000)

  Adding electronic records management capabilities to the Treasury's electronic document management system

  April 2001

  November 2001

  1250–300

  The installation of a Treasury management information system to collect and process data in order to produce a set of consolidated financial accounts eventually encompassing the whole of government

  2Summer 2001

  3—

  4—

  1 Cost range given as cost is dependent on chosen functionality

  2 The intention to procure was advertised via OJEC in August 2000 with planned contract signing to take place in early summer 2001

  3 The roll out/implementation of the solution will be dependent on the solution adopted. Therefore no completion date is provided.

  4 As the evaluation of tenders received is being undertaken at the moment any publication of likely costs will prejudice future negotiations. Therefore no costings are provided.

  Securities Market
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which proposals by the European Commission relating to the regulation of the securities market will require legislation in the UK to be implemented. [156144]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Proposals that are formulated as directives, if adopted, would be implemented by UK legislation.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the amount of time businesses are required to take providing data for the Office for National Statistics; and if he will examine ways of reducing it. [155750]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Patrick Nicholls, dated 2 April 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the amount of time businesses are required to take providing data for the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and if this can be reduced (155750).
  The ONS is extremely conscious of its responsibility to reduce the costs to business of complying with its surveys. Minimising the burden on suppliers of data is one of the ONS's key aims. The ONS produces an Annual Compliance Plan which charts the compliance costs by inquiry. This contains details of compliance-reducing initiatives that are either being undertaken, or are in the pipeline, the compliance target for the current year and the profile of compliance costs over a four year timescale. A copy of the Compliance Plan for 1999–2000 is available in the House of Commons Library.
  Regular reviews of surveys are carried out to examine wither there is a continuing need for them. Long term plans for bringing down compliance costs include greater use of administrative data, collecting data over the internet, developing commercial accounting software to include a statistics module and sharing the burden more equally among medium size firms.
  52W
  Only IT projects with estimated costs of over £250,000, on the basis described above, are included in the table.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the rate of compliance is with the annual business inquiry financial questionnaire circulated by the Office for National Statistics; and what penalties exist for non-compliance. [155749]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Patrick Nicholls, dated 29 March 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the rate of compliance with the Annual Business Inquiry Financial Questionnaire and what penalties exist for non-compliance (155749).
  In 1999, 86 per cent of the businesses included in the Annual Business Inquiry completed the Financial Questionnaire. The Annual Business Inquiry is conducted on a statutory basis using powers provided by the Statistics of Trade Act 1947. Businesses that do not respond are liable to prosecution under section 4(1) of the Act. The maximum penalty is a fine of £2,500. However, enforcement action is only used as a last resort when all other efforts, such as postal and telephone reminder action, have failed to secure the return.
  The Office for National Statistics uses statutory powers because voluntary surveys would have very low response rates. This would lead to unrepresentative samples and biased results, larger sample sizes with many more businesses receiving questionnaires, and to those businesses which chose to reply being unfairly burdened.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ministerial meetings with hon. Members have been cancelled by Ministers since 1 January. [155238]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To the best of my knowledge no meetings with hon. Members have been cancelled by my Ministers since 1 January 2001.

  If meetings need to be rescheduled, alternative dates are offered as a matter of course.

  Peter Tatchell
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has protested to the Belgian Government at the failure of its uniformed police and security officials to protect Mr. Peter Tatchell against assault and to arrest his assailants. [155754]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Embassy in Brussels has raised the matter with the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has protested to the Government of Zimbabwe over the assault on Mr. Peter Tatchell by members of President Mugabe's entourage in Brussels. [155753]

  Mr. Wilson
  As the incident took place in Belgium, and we have raised the matter with the Belgian Authorities.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press the Belgian authorities to seek the prosecution of those responsible for assaulting Mr. Peter Tatchell in Brussels. [155755]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Embassy in Brussels has raised the matter with the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is a matter for the Belgian police. It is their decision whether or not to prosecute.

  Surveillance
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the competence of(a) the EU and (b) Governments of member states in surveillance and interception-related matters. [155468]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]Directive 97/66/EC concerning the Processing of Personal Data and the Protection of Privacy in the Telecommunications Sector deals with certain issues relating to the confidentiality of communications and is implemented in the United Kingdom by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This Directive was made under Article 95 TEC (previously Article 100a) which provides for legislation for the establishment and functioning of the Internal Market.

  The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 also implements the relevant provisions of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the member states of the European Union.

  Treaty of Nice
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) of 20 March 2001,Official Report, column 109W, on the treaty of Nice, if he will define the term "uniting of Europe"; and if he will indicate to which previous generations he refers. [156274]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]Europe has been divided for generations by wars and the Iron Curtain. Enlargement is an historic opportunity to end that division and entrench peace, stability, free markets and democracy across our continent.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many visa applications the Minister for Europe(a) reviewed and (b) overturned since he took office; [156105]

  (2) how many visa applications were (a) received and (b) overturned by Ministers responsible for entry clearance between May 1997 and October 1999. [156126]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) on 22 March 2001,Official Report, column 316W.

  Iranian Jews
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Iranian Government regarding the condition of the Iranian Jews imprisoned on charges of spying; and if he will make a statement. [156390]

  Mr. Wilson
  We and our European partners take every opportunity to raise with Iran our concerns about the unsatisfactory nature of the case, and will continue to do so. The subject was last raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) in a meeting with the Iranian Ambassador on 22 January. I note that one of the prisoners, Mr. Ramin Nematizadeh, was released on 5 March when his prison term expired. Our Embassy in Tehran has also reported on the treatment of the prisoners; they have access to newspapers, kosher food, visits from their families twice a week and a group cell.

  Science and Technology Unit
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will include engineering within the title of the Science and Technology Unit to be established in his Department. [156017]

  Mr. Battle
  The remit of the Science and Technology Unit will include responsibility for supporting the international science, engineering and technology (SET) activities of the UK research community and industry. It will work closely with other Government Departments and external organisations, including the engineering institutes and university engineering departments. Its designation as Science and Technology Unit covers all aspects of SET, by analogy with the designation of the Office of Science and Technology.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the terms of reference for the Science and Technology Unit to be established within his Department. [156016]

  Mr. Battle
  The new Unit will be responsible for supporting wealth-creation in the United Kingdom by the provision of information about science, engineering and technology developments in key overseas countries to a customer base in UK industry and the research community; for the FCO input into policy and intergovernmental work in a number of areas related to science, engineering and technology; and for ensuring that the work of the FCO Science and Technology network is carefully co-ordinated within partner organisations and promotes the UK as a
  55W
  modern, technologically advanced country in order to encourage R&D collaboration, inward investment and trade in high-tech sectors.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Policies (Ilford, North)
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what initiatives embarked upon since May 1997 have benefited Ilford, North; and if he will make a statement. [152034]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since May 1997, my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on my hon. Friend's constituency and which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published our strategies to take this forward in "Tomorrow's Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by the Government's Plan for Sport. We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas, which is recognised within the most recent progress report Building on PAT10.

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and Lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over 60s and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a Taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the Lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.
  56W
  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next 10 Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including Ilford, North.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.

  Ilford, North

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 29 national lottery awards to Ilford, North, totalling £4,227,008. This includes an award from the Millennium Festival of £25,000.

  Nine Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Ilford, North and between them they have received grants totalling £23,357.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 7,000 people aged 75 or over living in the Ilford, North constituency.

  Redbridge Library Authority, which includes libraries in the Ilford, North constituency, was a partner with nine other authorities in a consortium which received an award of £160,739 from the 2000–01 DCMS/Wolfson funding round for a project promoting family reading.

  Since May 1997, Ministers have stressed the importance of all museums in the delivery of key services such as education and in encouraging social inclusion. The London borough of Redbridge is one of the local authorities that picked up this message I was pleased to open the new Redbridge Community Museum last September following a £182,000 Heritage Lottery Fund grant and £260,000 of council support. The London Museums Agency (funded by Resource) was pleased to offer its expertise in the development of this project.
  57W
  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the region which may have an effect on the Ilford, North constituency. These are:
  London Arts Board has received an additional £12,153,000 from the Arts Council this year to support arts and cultural activity across the region.
  From 1 April 1999 Redbridge residents under 16 were able to benefit from free admission to the Science Museum, the Natural History Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Imperial War Museum, HMS Belfast, the Cabinet War Rooms, the National Maritime Museum and the Museum of London. From 1 April 2000 Redbridge residents over 60 were able to gain free admission to most of the above. Consideration is being given to how access to all the museums and galleries sponsored by DCMS might be extended further.
  Under the Space for Sport and Arts scheme Essex local education authority has been allocated up to £2.2 million towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community.

  Free Television Licenses
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate the cost of giving free TV licences to all pensioners aged over(a) 65 and (b) 70 years. [156239]

  Janet Anderson
  The estimated cost of providing free television licences for everyone aged 65 years or over is £714 million a year, while providing free television licences for everyone aged 70 years or over would cost an estimated £529 million a year, excluding administrative costs in both cases.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which overseas countries are being targeted most extensively with Come to Britain publicity since the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [156333]

  Janet Anderson
  The British Tourist Authority (BTA) has identified the following nine key markets as the focus for its most intensive campaign of reassurance and information for prospective visitors to Britain: USA, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Switzerland, Ireland and Canada.

  The BTA is also offering additional information in all 27 of its key markets and on its 'visitbritain.com' website.

  Regional Tourist Boards
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) male and (b) female members there are on each regional tourist board. [156232]

  Janet Anderson
  The answer is set out in the table:

  Regional Tourist Board

  Male Board Members

  Female Board Members

  Cumbria

  10

  6

  East of England

  14

  2

  London

  13

  4

  Northumbria

  19

  1

  North West

  38

  3

  Southern

  12

  4

  South East

  9

  3

  South West

  5

  4

  Yorkshire

  25

  15

  Heart of England

  13

  1

  Regional Cultural Consortia
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) male and (b) female members there are on each of the regional cultural consortia. [156230]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information is in the table.

  Region Cultural Consortium

  Male

  Female

  Living East

  8

  8

  East Midlands Cultural Consortium

  17

  7

  Culture North East

  9

  10

  North West Cultural Consortium

  14

  6

  South East England Cultural Consortium

  10

  7

  Culture South West

  9

  6

  West Midlands Life

  16

  7

  Yorkshire Cultural Consortium

  12

  7

  Note:

  These figures include the Chairs of the Consortiums.

  Listed Events
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on paragraph 9 of the ITC Code on Sports and Other Listed Events, regarding live transmission coverage of listed events. [156240]

  Janet Anderson
  Listing an event seeks to ensure that live rights are made available to free to air terrestrial broadcasters on fair and reasonable terms. As paragraph 9 of the ITC code explains, it does not guarantee that the event will be broadcast live. Rights holders are not obliged to sell live rights and broadcasters are not obliged to purchase them or to show the events. However, any UK broadcaster that obtains the rights to live coverage of the whole or part of a listed event cannot broadcast exclusively live in the UK without first seeking the consent of the ITC.

  Departmental Policies (Stroud)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Stroud constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152403

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on my hon. Friend's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published our strategies to take this forward in "Tomorrow's Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by the Government's Plan for Sport. We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report Building on PAT10.

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–4. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational

  59W
  potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and Lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over 60s and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a Task Force which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the Lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public Internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including Stroud.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.
  60W
  Stroud

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 137 national lottery awards to Stroud, totalling £2,287,534.

  Twenty Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Stroud and between them they have received grants totalling £55,981.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 7,500 people aged 75 or over living in the Stroud constituency.

  English Heritage (EH) have offered repairs grants to Frampton Manor Barn—£140,000 and Tanhouse Farm Barn—£146,456 (no payment has yet been made). They have also approved a Heritage Lottery Fund grant under the Joint Places of Worship Scheme to St George's Church, Nailsworth—£150,300; and awarded Stroud Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme £50,000 in 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  Stroud is a partner in the Gloucestershire Active Sports Partnership. The County benefits from £31,000 of Exchequer funding for this programme per annum. I understand that a total of £1.53 million of Lottery funding spread over seven years is the planned investment figure for the Active Sports Partnership for the County.

  South West Arts Board has received an additional £1,778,000 from the Arts Council this year to support arts and cultural activity across the region.

  Departmental Policies (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Warrington, North constituency, the effects on Warrington, North of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152314]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on my hon. Friend's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published our strategies to take this forward in "Tomorrow's Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by the Government's Plan for Sport. We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report Building on PAT10.

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing creative partnerships; we have established through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an

  61W
  additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and Lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over 60's and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums is in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the Lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the people's network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years". setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including Warrington, North.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.
  62W
  Warrington, North

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 85 national lottery awards to Warrington, North, totalling £3,112,071. This includes an award from the Millennium Festival of £218,000.

  Three Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Warrington, North and between them they have received grants totalling £16,741.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 5,000 people aged 75 or over living in the Warrington, North constituency.

  Warrington Library Authority, which includes libraries in the Warrington, North constituency, was a partner with 17 other authorities in a consortium which received an award of £215,992 from the 2000–01 DCMS/Wolfson funding round for a project promoting reading to young people.

  English Heritage have offered £12,000 to St Oswald's Church, (£10,427 paid to date).

  Sport England Exchequer Funded Programmes in Warrington, North are:
  41 primaries plus one special school have received whole school TOPS training
  352 members of staff trained in generic TOPS
  39 schools have received £20k worth of equipment plus training 17 schools have attended TOPS Athletics training
  11 schools have received whole school gymnastics training
  three secondary schools accessed Challenge Funding linking with two local sports clubs
  five secondary schools and 27 primaries plus the special school have been involved in a cricket development programme which has provided equipment, coaching, competitions and links to local clubs
  subsequently a cricket development forum has been established
  over 1000 young people, from the Warrington, North area, have participated in trials, training and competition related to local and county youth games
  two out of the six secondary schools have achieved Sportsmark Awards.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the region which may have an effect on the Warrington, North constituency. These are:
  North West Arts Board has received an additional £5,595,000 from the Arts Council this year to support arts and cultural activity across the region.
  From 1 April 1999 Warrington residents under 15 were able to benefit from free admission to the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside and to the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester. From 1 April 2000 Warrington residents over 60 were able to gain free admission to both of the above. Consideration is being given currently to how access to the national collections might be extended further.

  Departmental Policies (Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the
  63W
  constituency, the effect on the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency of his Department's policies and action since 2 May 1997. [153286]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on my hon. Friend's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published our strategies to take this forward in "Tomorrows Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by "The Government's Plan for Sport". We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report "Building on PAT10".

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and Lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one-in-four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over 60s and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the people's network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the network.

  We have set up a regional cultural consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a "Green Paper Culture and Creativity: The Next 10 Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.
  64W
  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.

  Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 114 national lottery awards to Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East totalling £6,476,562.

  Eighteen millennium award winners have been identified from Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East and between them they have received grants totalling £34,488.

  On 21 February, I announced the 16 areas in which it is hoped creative partnership pilots will be developed. Tees Valley is one of these areas. The Arts Council of England, which is delivering the initiative, will be consulting schools and creative organisations in each location over the next few months to establish which bodies will be involved. Details on how school and cultural organisations can take part in creative partnerships will be available from the Arts Council from early May. Funding for the initiative will come on stream in April 2002.

  Under the Space for Sport and Arts scheme, Middlesbrough local education authority and Redcar and Cleveland local education authority have both been allocated up to £1.75 million towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community.

  School sport co-ordinators will be based in families of schools, in areas of greatest need, linked wherever possible through Local Education Authorities to specialist sports colleges. They will provide opportunities for young people to compete regularly for their school and take part in a wide range of sports. By 2004, there will be about 250 families established with 1,000 secondary schools and up to 6,000 primary schools benefiting directly from this programme. Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East was awarded £341,830 in the second round of awards. It has one partnership development manager, four school sport co-ordinators and 17 primary link teachers.
  65W
  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 census indicate that there were approximately 5,000 people aged 75 or over living in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency.

  Middlesbrough Library Authority was a partner in the Information North consortium which received £498,000 in 1998–99 for an ICT Project.

  Northern Arts has received an additional £2,936 million from the Arts Council this year to support arts and cultural activity across the region.

  Departmental Policies, (South Shields)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the South Shields constituency, the effects on South Shields of his Department's polices and actions since 2 May 1997. [153091]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 13 March 2001]Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on my right hon. Friend's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published our strategies to take this forward in "Tomorrow's Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by the Government's Plan for Sport. We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report Building on PAT10.

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–4. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing creative partnerships; we have established through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and Lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over 60's and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the Lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the people's network, which will
  66W
  enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a regional cultural consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including South Shields.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.

  South Shields

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 95 national lottery awards to South Shields, totalling £3,469,732. This includes two awards from the Millennium Festival totalling £100,000.

  Thirty-Six Millennium Award Winners have been identified from South Shields and between them they have received grants totalling £82,128.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 5,800 people aged 75 or over living in the South Shields constituency.

  English Heritage have offered Marsden Limekilns £5,000.
  67W
  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the region which may have an effect on the South Shields constituency. These are:
  Northern Arts Board has received an additional £2,936,000 from the Arts Council this year to support arts and cultural activity across the region.
  all Northern constituencies will be influenced by the Youth Music Action Zone in Gateshead, who have been offered £350,878 from the National Foundation for Youth Music for work across the whole region.
  a joint project to create a large objects store with Beamish—the joint project has been awarded £800,000 over the three years of the Designated Challenge Fund.
  Under the Space for Sport and Arts scheme South Tyneside local education authority has been allocated up to £2.2 million towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community.
  South Tyneside Library Authority was a partner in the Information North consortium which received £498,000 in 1998–99 for an ICT project.

  Poetry
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support his Department gives to supporting and promoting poetry. [156219]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My Department has supported a range of poetry initiatives including National Poetry Day, Poems on the Underground and the T. S. Eliot Prize.

  In 2000–01, the Arts Council of England spent £1.649 million directly on literature. Of this nearly two-thirds has been spent either directly or indirectly on promoting and supporting a variety of poetry organisations including the Poetry Society and the Poetry Book Society, poetry publishers including Carcanet Press and Anvil Press Poetry and poetry magazines including PN Review.

  The Arts Council recently announced the biggest ever increase in literature funding from 2002–03. This increase includes a 57 per cent. increase for the Poetry Book Society and a 42 per cent. increase for the Poetry Society.

  Poetry has also benefited from support to cross-artform initiatives such as the New Audiences programme and the National Lottery which awarded the Poetry Society £450,000 for an initiative which employed poets throughout England to encourage the reading and writing of poetry.

  Finally, the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts is making awards directly to individual poets to support their creative development. To date, it has awarded Carol Ann Duffy, Lavinia Greenlaw, Gwyneth Lewis and Tom Paulin nearly £300,000 to enable them to create new work and develop their talent.

  Trafalgar Square
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to preserve the Standard Units of Measurement embedded in the north wall of Trafalgar Square when the new steps are built; and if he will make a statement. [156018]

  Mr. Hill
  I have been asked to reply.
  68W
  Trafalgar Square is now a matter for the Mayor of London. He took control of the Square on 1 October last year. I understand from TfL who are to manage the works associated with the "World Squares for All" project that the Standard Units of Measurement will be preserved. The wall plaques will be re-sited in the wall to the east of the new staircase and the foot marker plates can be inset into the bottom step of the new staircase.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Baton Rounds
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the development of a new baton round. [156852]

  Mr. Straw
  The then Under Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), announced on 10 June 1997,Official Report, column 372W, that the Government had put in hand a programme to develop improved baton round equipment with reduced injury potential. A new baton round, designated the L21A1, is now available and has been issued to police forces in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and to the Army. The existing baton round will be withdrawn once all personnel have been trained in the use of the new round. It is planned to begin to deploy the new round on an operational basis from 1 June. Revised guidelines for the use of baton rounds in situations of public disorder which apply in the same terms in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were issued to the police on 1 August 1999.

  Used, as it will be, with a new optical sight, the new baton round is more consistently accurate than the old, and the probability of it causing serious or life-threatening injury has been reduced. This has been verified by an independent medical assessment, a copy of which has been placed in the Library today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Although there will be smaller risk of serious injury or death when the new baton round is used, that risk has not been eliminated, and the new round, like the old, will be used in situations of public disorder only in accordance with the existing strict guidelines. Details of use in Northern Ireland will, as now, be reported on every occasion and be copied to the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and to the new Policing Board when it is established.

  In addition to its possible use in situations of public disorder, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) considers that the improved accuracy of the new baton round makes it suitable for use in dealing with people who are posing an immediate threat to life in circumstances in which use of a firearm would otherwise be necessary.

  The Government share the view of the ACPO and of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland that efforts should continue to find an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the plastic baton round. A research programme to that end has been embarked upon, and a document reporting the outcome of its first phase and setting out the next steps in the work programme has also been placed in the Library today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the fees to be charged for disclosures issued by the Criminal Records Bureau. [156867]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I announced on 6 February 2001,Official Report, column 504W, that Standard and Enhanced Disclosures would be issued free of charge to volunteers, but that work was continuing on the general fee levels. We have now completed that task. As I have made clear, it remains our intention that the Bureau will be self-financed by means of the charges that it makes, but we have been determined to keep fees as low as possible. We propose to charge a fee of £12 per disclosure. Regulations will be laid in due course.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in relation to the implementation of the recommendations contained within the Review of Crime Statistics [156869]

  Mr. Straw
  Following the end of the consultation period in October 2000. the Review of Crime Statistics—which aims to enhance the accuracy and consistency of crime recording and to improve the quality of statistical data—has been subject of a review by a group of experts drawn from key stakeholder organisations and academia. The group's function was to consider the continued relevance and appropriateness of the recommendations in light of the consultation. The Expert's Group report indicates their continued support for the Review of Crime Statistics recommendations. A copy of their conclusions is being made available on the Home Office website (www.homeoffice.gov.uk), and has been placed in the Library.

  An Implementation Group with representation from the main stakeholders, including the Association of Chief Police Officers, has been established by the Home Office, to oversee the delivery of the review's 66 recommendations over a five year period. Its key deliverables will include:
  More consistent recording of crimes by police forces throughout England and Wales
  The use of internet to collect and disseminate statistical data
  Collection of new information and better use of existing information to help explain crime trends
  Improving the machinery of government to help limit the demands on police officers.

  In July 2000, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) published its report "On the Record", which also included eight recommendations relating to crime recording and associated issues. As the two pieces of work serve to support a consistent view on the subject, it has been agreed to take forward work on the HMIC recommendations within the implementation of the Review of Crime Statistics.

  Rail Station Safety
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many violent incidents against members of the public have taken place at(a) Wandsworth Town
  70W
  railway station and (b) Wandsworth Common railway station in the last month; and what action the Metropolitan police have taken to deal with such incidents. [156172]

  Mr. Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  The British Transport Police (BTP) are responsible for policing the railways. Between 1 January and 31 March only one notifiable offence of 'violence against the person' has been reported to the BTP. This was a robbery that occurred at Wandsworth Town station on 23 March. This incident is being investigated within Operation Fraser. This is an ongoing operation by the BTP following an increase in robberies throughout the South London area. It involves high profile uniform patrols, intelligence gathering and post incident investigation.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) of 22 March 2001,Official Report, columns 323–28W, on police numbers, if the data provided for the period up to 31 January relied on projections of (a) overall numbers, (b) wastage, (c) recruitment or (d) other factors, in place of the actual outturn; [155938]

  (2) what the difference is between the calculation of interim police strength figures and the final figures; and if he will make a statement; [155845]

  (3) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gravesham of 22 March 2001, Official Report, columns 323–28W, on police numbers, for what reason the figures given in his answer (a) were described as interim figures in Home Office Press Release 076/2001 and (b) were not described as interim figures in his answer to the hon. Member for Gravesham; and when he expects to publish final figures for 31 January; [155943]

  (4) on how many occasions since 2 May 1997 he has published detailed police strength figures which were not previously available in any form (a) other than in a Home Office statistical bulletin, (b) for any date other than 31 March or 30 September and (c) in interim form. [155844]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]The figures published on 22 March were supplied by police forces. They were actual police and civilian full-time equivalent numbers as at 31 January 2001, not projections.

  The quality of the January data is comparable with that in the standard Statistical Bulletins. All such returns are potentially subject to revision in the light of subsequent amendments received from forces. The revisions appear in subsequent Statistical Bulletins. The next return from forces will provide the six monthly figures from October 2000 to 31 March 2001.

  The numbers were described as interim because they were produced between the normal publications for September 2000 and March 2001. They were not full year figures, nor did they purport to be projections of full year figures.

  The statistics were produced by a special monitoring exercise undertaken by the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. The exercise was

  71W
  to enable us to assess the impact on police service strength of the Crime Fighting Fund in its first year of operation, supported by details of recruitment and wastage. As the Crime Fighting Fund is in its first year of operation, the need for such an exercise has not previously arisen.

  Details of police strength have been, and continue to be, provided in response to Parliamentary Questions.

  Sex Abuse Inquiries
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police authorities are conducting sex abuse inquiries. [155970]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There is no central record of the number of forces currently conducting sex abuse inquiries. According to a database maintained by Gwent Police, 31 forces are currently carrying out investigations into allegations of historical child abuse.

  Asylum Support
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the use of asylum support vouchers for the purchase of(a) cigarettes, (b) petrol and (c) items beyond basic necessities; and if he will make a statement. [156091]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Sodexho Pass vouchers supplied to asylum seekers supported by the National Asylum Support Service can be exchanged for any goods available in stores participating in the scheme. It is for asylum seekers to determine their individual requirements.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the food voucher system for asylum seekers. [156357]

  Mrs. Roche
  A review of the operation of the National Asylum Support Service's voucher scheme is under way.

  Jewish Cemeteries
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of Jewish cemeteries that have been desecrated in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [156071]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information about offences in cemeteries is not held centrally, but I understand that a number of Jewish graves suffered damage last year in various parts of the country and that the details were reported to the police.

  I deplore such desecration, whether racially motivated or not.

  Al-Muhajiroun
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the activities of Al-Muhajiroun and Khalifah. [156070]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are well aware of the statements made by the Al-Muhajiroun organisation. It would be a matter for the police to investigate whether any criminal offences had been committed.

  Departmental Policies (Southwark)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the London borough of Southwark, the effects on the London borough of Southwark of his Department's policies and actions since May 2 1997. [155976]

  Mr. Charles C1arke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as those on recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the London borough of Southwark constituency or the immediate locality:

  Targeted Policing Initiative

  Under round 1 of the Targeted Policing Initiative the Metropolitan police in partnership with the London boroughs of Islington, Camden and Southwark were awarded £597,000 for a scheme covering these boroughs targeting autocrime through Operation Arrow, which is aimed at 'hotspots' in the three boroughs.

  Under round 2 of the initiative the Metropolitan police were awarded £688,000 for a project covering Southwark to tackle hate crime. Methods used will include the creation of local self-help groups defined by cultural, ethnic or lifestyle profile and supported by a dedicated co-ordinator. The use of the rapid hate crime intervention officer will be available, who would have access to a range of evidence collection methods.

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  London borough of Southwark was awarded approximately £850,000 for two schemes submitted under round 1 of the CCTV initiative. Housing CCTV Control Centre and Mobile CCTV Scheme was awarded £750,000 to provide a new control centre with the capacity to manage and record 500 cameras. In addition, 50 new mobile cameras will be situated in crime 'hotspots' across the borough. The scheme aims to significantly reduce overall crime, drug-related crime and burglary.

  The Car Park Vehicle Crime Prevention Scheme was awarded £100,000 for a 26 camera system, covering six car parks across the borough. The scheme aims to reduce all vehicle crime in the target area by 80 per cent. over three years.

  Reducing Burglary Initiative (RBI)

  The Metropolitan police in conjunction with the London borough of Southwark were awarded £65,000 under round 1 of the RBI, for a scheme in the West Camberwell area. Interventions include: establishment of

  73W
  a lock-fitting service to target burglary victims and vulnerable properties and establishment of a detached youth project. The quality of service to victims has been improved and a problem solving approach to burglary and improvements in relevant monitoring and communication systems is being developed. £65,000 was awarded to a scheme in the Parkside Plus area correcting physical vulnerability of vulnerable estates in the target area. It is also helping to develop new ways of working with offenders in the area.

  Under round 2 of the RBI, approximately £30,000 was awarded for a scheme in the Herne Hill and Croxted road, West Dulwich areas. This project aimed to tackle situational vulnerability and unmarked property by using electronic alarms and property marking as well as increasing neighbourhood watch activity. £153,000 was awarded for a scheme in the North Southwark Corridor. The scheme aims to improve property marking and to work with offenders and work towards community building.

  Youth Offending

  Southwark Youth Offending Team (YOT) covers the London borough of Southwark. The Youth Justice Board (YJB) is contributing funding for five intervention schemes and one Bail Supervision Scheme. Approximately £170,000 is being used to fund a Restorative Justice Conferencing Project. Southwark Mediation Centre works with the YOT to provide direct and indirect victim-offender mediation and family group conferencing services. Family Group Conferencing is offered to young people remanded into local authority accommodation, young people subject to throughcare and young people made the subject of Action Plan Orders.

  A Positive Parenting and Behavioural Change Programme includes the assessment of cognitive abilities. The YOT caseworkers provide consultation and life supervision via social skills training, anger management and cognitive behavioural interventions. The YJB are contributing £119,000 to this project. The YJB are also providing approximately £117,000 to an Appropriate Alternatives through Skills for Life (Cognitive Behaviour) programme. This project aims to provide integrated effective supervisory and mentoring support for 80 offenders.

  Approximately £69,000 is being provided to fund a Development Officer scheme. The Development Officer facilitates cross-borough communication and ensures congruence in development of services. A Parent Support Group has been established with a YJB contribution of approximately £43,000. This project offers support and information to parents and carers of young people who are behaving in an anti-social or criminal manner. The YOT has supervised 26 Parenting Orders since April 2000 and has received positive feedback from parents attending these groups either voluntarily or as a condition of an Order. The YJB are also providing approximately £104,000 to a Bail Support Scheme, being run in partnership with National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. This has reduced the rate of re-offending while on bail, while also reducing the numbers of young people remanded into local authority accommodation, or custody.
  74W
  A functional team within the YOT is dedicated to providing preventative and early intervention services. A multi-agency Risk Management Panel has been established, designed to manage the risks presented to the public by a small number of prolific offenders, through an intelligence led approach. This activity will be supported by the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Project to be launched in July 2001. The YOT has provided and/or co-ordinated a number of crime reduction initiatives including innovative work in schools, alongside police officers, in support of Operation Arrow—a vehicle crime reduction project; the Youth Inclusion Programme in the Elephant and Castle area; and Midnight Basketball in partnership with the Youth Service and the National Playing Fields Association. The YOT provides groupwork programmes in schools for disaffected pupils at risk of exclusion and co-ordinates monthly truancy patrols, which have dealt successfully with over 200 truants in the past year.

  Easter and Summer Splash Schemes have been run in the following estates: Aylesbury Estate, Rockingham; Astley Cooper estates; Heygate Estate and Peckham. These schemes were set up across England and Wales to address offending by young people (especially 13–17 year olds). The five areas traditionally associated with youth crime—burglary, motor crime, criminal damage, street robbery and juvenile nuisance all showed significant reductions compared with the corresponding period in the previous year. The combined drop for these crimes was 14 per cent.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of London borough of Southwark to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 66,195 by the end of December 2000; and
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  CCTV (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect CCTV cameras in Chorley have had on the reduction of crime in Chorley; and if he will make a statement on crime levels in Chorley in each of the past five years. [156696]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Police operational experience and general research studies show that Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) has considerable crime reduction and detection potential, particularly when used as part of a wider strategy.

  Lancashire Police statistics show a reduction of 34 per cent. in the overall crime levels in Chorley town centre in the year following the installation of cameras in December 1996.

  An independent assessment into the impact of the Chorley borough mobile CCTV system implemented in May 1999 will be carried out shortly.
  75W
  Schemes funded under the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV Initiative will be evaluated to build up the knowledge base of what works best in what context. Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships will also be evaluating schemes locally.

  Crime levels for local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, including Chorley, have been collected and published for the last 18 months for six types of crime: violence against the person, sexual offences, robbery, burglary dwelling, theft of motor vehicles and theft from motor vehicles.

  The latest figures are contained in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 1–01 "Recorded Crime England and Wales: 12 months to September 2000".

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the file reference N194181/2 will be released from the enforcement section of IND. [156727]

  Mrs. Roche
  Further inquiries are being made in this case and a decision will be made as soon as the relevant information has been received.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to revise the system whereby the awards made to victims of crime are reduced if they have previous medical conditions. [156361]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  If an injury sustained by a victim of a crime of violence exacerbates a pre-existing medical condition, any award made under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in respect of that injury will only reflect the degree of exacerbation. There are no plans to change this.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to revise the current Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority tariffs system. [156362]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In March 2001 Parliament approved, under the affirmative resolution procedure, a package of significant improvements to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, costing some £20 million in a full year. These included both presentational changes and changes of substance to the tariff of awards. The changes came into force on 1 April 2001.

  No further changes to the scheme are planned at this time.

  Passports
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Passport Office regarding the security of passports processed by the Post Office. [155998]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 29 March 2001]Officials in the United Kingdom Passport Agency have recently held discussions with the Royal Mail about the security of passports in the post. The Passport Agency is concerned about the number of passports which are reported as "lost in the post" and is seeking to work more closely with the Royal Mail to combat this problem.

  Police and Fire Service Training
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to improve the quality of Operational Command Training in the Police and Fire Services. [155779]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The main elements of operational command training for the police service in England and Wales are the Command Team Programme, the Strategic Command Course and the Chief Police Officers Development Programme.

  The Director of National Police Training will be leading a fundamental review of senior officer training and development over the next few months. That review will take account of the work to develop a national competency framework for the police service, which is nearing completion, and the establishment of a Police National Training Organisation (NTO) in May 2001.

  In the fire service, training in Operational Command is provided partly on a local basis in brigades and at the Fire Service College, Moreton-in-Marsh. At present the training provided at the Fire Service College is based on the current ranks and roles of the Fire Service. These ranks and roles are currently under review and part of this work is the development of National Occupational Standards for Operational Command.

  Guidance has also been issued to the Fire Service on Incident Command. In 1999, Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate produced the Fire Service Manual on Incident Command to ensure national unity in the command systems used by all the United Kingdom Fire Brigades.

  Emergency Powers Legislation
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what criteria are applied in deciding whether to declare a state of emergency; [156204]

  (2) what additional powers a declaration of a state of emergency gives to permit the Government to delay (a) county council elections and (b) a general election. [156206]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]The Emergency Powers Act 1920 (as amended in 1964) specifies in Section 1(I) that:"If at any time it appears to His Majesty that there have occurred, or are about to occur, events of such nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community of the essentials of life, His Majesty may, by proclamation … declare that a State of Emergency exists".

  Once a State of Emergency has been declared regulations may be made, by Order in Council, to secure that essentials of life, and these may confer or impose powers or duties on a Secretary of State, Government Department, or others, to preserve the peace, secure and regulate the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, light and other necessities; maintain the means of transit or locomotion, and for any other purposes essential to the public safety and the life of the community.
  77W
  Parliament needs to be sitting (or recalled within five days if adjourned or prorogued) as both Houses need to approve any regulations that have been made within seven days, otherwise they lapse. There is no reference in the Emergency Powers Act 1920 to local or general elections.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply substantively to the letter of 24 September 2000 from the hon. Member for Hereford, ref. 1597/1; and if he will make a statement. [154073]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]I replied to the hon. Member's letter m 29 March.

  Isho Judgment
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Isho judgment. [156519]

  Mrs. Roche
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the judgment by the Court of Appeal last December in the case of Isiko. This was a welcome and important judgment, and represents a helpful clarification of the legal position. Consideration of those cases which had been held pending the outcome of this case has now been resumed.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  African Meat Imports
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 2001,Official Report, column 482W, when he was first informed of the risks to animal health of meat imported from Africa. [154213]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: The possible animal health risk arising from the disease situation in some African countries has been known for many years. That is why long-standing import controls remain in place.

  Foot and Mouth
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many suspected foot and mouth disease cases have been reported in Cambridgeshire in the past three months; and, in each case, how much time elapsed between notification of the suspected case and the visit of a Ministry veterinary surgeon. [155070]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]In the past three months there has been one suspected case of foot and mouth in Cambridgeshire which proved negative. The case was notified to MAFF, investigated and resolved on 9 March 2001.
  78W
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries that have endemic foot and mouth that have exported beef to the UK in the past year. [155291]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]The importation of meat is permitted from a limited number of countries where foot and mouth disease is present and where the veterinary authorities have contained the disease in specific regions. EC rules permit imports from those regions of the relevant countries which are not considered to pose a risk to human or animal health. Fully matured boneless beef, which does not pose an FMD risk may be imported from other regions subject to veterinary certification. Countries to which these controls currently apply are Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay. Imports of beef have arrived in the UK from all of these countries in the past year with the exception of Colombia where there are no EC approved establishments. Because of their FMD situation prohibitions are currently in place on imports of meat of FMD susceptible species from South Africa, Swaziland and Argentina. All meat imported from third countries is subject to veterinary checks at Border Inspection Posts to ensure that import requirements are met.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he has in place to prevent the spread of the foot and mouth infection back from France to Britain. [155991]

  Ms Quin
  On 15 March 2001 the Government acted to make it illegal to import meat and other products of FMD susceptible species from France, unless they comply with the conditions for the export of such products from France set out in Community law.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many zoos in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland have been temporarily closed since the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [156329]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not held by central Government. However, we understand from the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland, which represents most of the larger zoos in the country, that 39 of its 61 members have been closed or part closed because of foot and mouth. Eight of these have recently re-opened, or are about to re-open. The remaining Federation zoos have either remained open throughout or have been closed for other reasons, such as flooding or the winter season.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the financial contribution the agricultural industry made to the British economy in each year from 1996 to 2000. [156265]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]The contributions of the agricultural industry in the United Kingdom to the whole economy are shown for the last five years in the table.
  79W

  Agriculture's contribution to total economy Percentage of Gross Value Added (current prices)

  Year

  Percentage

  1996

  1.5

  1997

  1.2

  1998

  1.0

  1999

  0.9

  20001

  0.8

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  MAFF: Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2000

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the average state subsidy per job is in the agricultural industry. [156267]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]Support to the agricultural sector is provided via market support and direct aid mechanisms, rather than subsidies based on the number of farm workers. The value of total public expenditure on agricultural support in the UK in 2000–01 is roughly equivalent to £5,700 per farm worker or £9,400 per full-time worker equivalent. These figures include both EU and nationally funded expenditure.

  Fishing
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a package of aid for the English fishing industry in similar terms to that operated in Scotland. [156461]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government share with fish catching and processing organisations the goal of a sustainable, viable future for the sea fish industry. We are taking firm action to address the long term needs of the industry. A key priority is to protect our fisheries resources for the future. In close partnership with the fishing industry we are taking a lead in the EU in establishing the recovery plans for key stocks such as cod and hake. We will continue to take this work forward seeking an appropriate combination of measures to provide for stock recovery.

  At the same time we must address the future direction and priorities of the industry. We all seek a sustainable industry which is economically profitable and which uses environmentally sustainable practices. The Government are ready to support and encourage the industry in pursuing these aims.

  In response to cases put to the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland the devolved Administrations have announced plans for measures to tackle the problems faced by their sectors of the fishing industry.

  The industry in England has equally put its case to us and we have concluded that a package of measures to assist the adjustments needed is appropriate.

  Accordingly, we are making available £6 million for additional assistance in England to assist restructuring in the fishing industry. We will be consulting the industry about the precise form this assistance should take. The funding has been secured from savings redeployed from elsewhere in the fisheries budget and will apply in 2001–02 only. The appropriate mechanisms for securing a better balance between fishing effort and the stocks
  80W
  available in future years will be decided in the light of discussions at EU level on the structural policy for 2002 and beyond.

  We also aim to help the adjustment of the industry through the various grants already announced and we are pleased that today we are also launching the fisheries structural fund grants scheme (FIFG) for England. Application forms will be available from my Department shortly. We have already committed £6 million to this EU scheme over the coming three years. In addition there is the separate £5 million fund for fisheries in Cornwall.

  The main aims of the structural grants are to promote the adjustments which are needed across the sea fish industry. They will encourage fishermen to improve the quality and thus the value of the fish they catch, by careful handling at sea and in land. There is grant aid to promote the use of sustainable and environmentally friendly fishing methods, through the purchase of suitable gear. Grants are also available for innovation in the processing and marketing of fish onshore.

  There is an important role for the provision of advice to the industry in responding to the situation of low fish stocks by developing their operations in viable and sustainable ways, and grant aid is available for projects to provide this support to encourage the introduction of best practice.

  A priority for all in the industry is a better safety record at sea. We are making new training courses available across England as announced on 22 March; they will be free to fishermen, funded by £1.5 million FIFG and MAFF grant over three years. We strongly urge all fishermen to take full advantage of these opportunities.

  Furthermore, we recognise the strength of the case for helping coastal communities which may be affected by restructuring of the industry. Other measures are therefore being announced by DETR to assist fishing regions in providing support for retraining and regeneration.

  Looking further ahead, the recent Green Paper on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy issued by the European Commission opens up opportunities for us to secure major changes in the way fisheries policy works in future. The Government will be consulting on this in detail with the fishing industry and other interests with the object of developing an approach which secures an economically and environmentally sustainable future to meet the needs of all with an interest in the industry in the UK. Meanwhile, the various measures we are applying will be addressing the range of problems faced by the industry.

CABINET OFFICE

  Consultants
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much the Government spent on work from outside consultants in each of the past five financial years; what expenditure is planned for the 2001–02 financial year; and if she will make a statement. [153407]
  81W
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The value of contracts let by my Department with outside consultants in each of the last four financial years is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1997–98

  6,415,000

  1998–99

  2,499,000

  1999–2000

  1,825,000

  2000–011

  2,540,000

  1 First three quarters

  The other information requested is not held centrally.

  Tourism Industry
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will request the Regulatory Impact Unit to carry out a study of ways in which the level of regulation on businesses in the tourism industry can be reduced [156330]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The independent advisory body, the Better Regulation Task Force, published on 29 June 2000 its report on the cumulative burden of regulation on the hotel and restaurant industry, "Tackling the Impact of Increasing Regulation—A Case Study of Hotels and Restaurants". A copy of the report is available at: http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/TaskForce/Programme9900.htm. In the Government response to this report, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport announced that it would set up a hotel and restaurant industry group to monitor progress on streamlining regulation affecting the hotel and restaurant industry sector. The full text of the response is available at: www.culture.gov.uk. The Regulatory Impact Unit will continue to work closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and others to ensure that forthcoming regulations do not impose unnecessary burdens on tourism or other businesses.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Community Legal Service
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what directions the Lord Chancellor plans to issue covering the budgets and scope of the Community Legal Service [156868]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor has today issued three directions. The first is a budget direction for the CLS, as required under section 5 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The budget for 2001–02 includes the following provisions:the same budget as in 2000–01 for controlled work and new services, of £232 million;
  within that budget, £5 million for the new Partnership Innovation Budget, and an increase in other support grants (from £1.5 million to £5 million);
  as last year, a minimum of £20 million to be spent on services provided by not-for-profit bodies; and
  an increase in the budget for high-cost cases, from £1 million to £4.5 million.

  The second direction brings a number of tribunals into the scope of the CLS by allowing advocacy services to be funded. They are the VAT and Duties Tribunal; the General and Special Commissioners of Income Tax; and
  82W
  the Protection of Children Act Tribunal. In the first two, the Lord Chancellor's decision is based on the need to provide representation where the interests of justice require it, because of the potential for the exercise of the tribunals' power to be interpreted as analogous to the imposition of criminal penalties. In the third, his decision is based on the overwhelming importance to applicants of being allowed to challenge decisions to place them on the Protection of Children Act List and List 99.

  The third direction revises the circumstances in which cases that are normally excluded from scope can be funded. The main changes from the Lord Chancellor's first direction, made in April 2000, are:
  excluded cases involving the liberty of the applicant will be funded, in line with the Government's obligations under the Human Rights Act;
  it will be easier to take action for professional negligence, even where the original service was provided in an area of law that is outside the CLS's normal scope;
  the treatment of cases against public authorities has been revised to make it easier to bring actions for judicial review or serious wrongdoing, and to match the direction to the way the Funding Code treats equivalent work that is in scope; and
  the treatment of mixed cases has been clarified, to restore the Government's original intention that only cases where the excluded element is minor or incidental to the main issue can be funded.

  Benchmark Costs
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects benchmark costs arrangements to commence and for what types of case; if benchmark costs will cover pre-litigated cases; what progress is being made in relation to fixed costs for fast track cases; and if he will make a statement. [156581]

  Mr. Lock
  The Department has no intention or powers to introduce benchmark costs. However, I understand that the Senior Costs Judge is currently undertaking consultation on a draft scheme for certain short and routine applications in civil proceedings. The first round produced a list of applications which might be suitable. A second round of consultation (incorporating figures for localities and grade of fee earner) is now taking place.

  The Government have an open mind on the introduction of fixed costs in the fast track but no current plans to seek their introduction. Any changes to the way in which the costs regime operates should not limit the effectiveness of conditional fee agreements and other innovative methods of funding and insuring litigation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have been made since 1997 to help pensioners on modest occupational pensions. [154861]

  Mr. Rooker
  Pensioners with modest occupational pensions will have gained from some or all of the extra increases in basic state pension, tax allowances and minimum income guarantee, together with winter fuel payments and free TV licences.
  83W
  As a result of tax and benefit measures introduced by this Government, all pensioner households will, on average, be over £11 a week, or £580 a year, better off.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have been made to the social security system to help pensioners with small occupational pensions in the last year. [154884]

  Mr. Rooker
  Pensioners with small occupational pensions will have gained from some or all of the extra increases in the basic state pension, tax allowances and minimum income guarantee, together with winter fuel payments and free TV licenses.

  In addition, many pensioners with small pensions who have managed to save will benefit from the doubling of the lower capital limit in MIG, which is introduced on 9 April.

  As a result of tax and benefit measures introduced by this Government, all pensioner households will, on average, be over £11 a week, or £580 a year, better off.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure all pensioners receive their winter fuel allowance before the end of this winter. [154877]

  Mr. Rooker
  So far, over 11 million payments have been made for this winter.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to ensure that all pensioners receive their winter fuel allowance before the end of this winter. [154893]

  Mr. Rooker
  So far, over 11 million Winter Fuel Payments have been made in respect of this winter. Claims are still being received and processed.

  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Winter Fuel Payments have been claimed in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000; how many have been paid to date; how many remain outstanding; what is the total amount of money as yet unpaid in respect of each year; and what proportion of eligible pensioner households have claimed such payments in each year. [155080]

  Mr. Rooker
  Before the current winter, 2000–01, Winter Fuel Payments were all made automatically. In each of the winters of 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 around 10 million payments were made.

  Following the European Court decision, we decided to equalise the age—at 60—from which Winter Fuel Payments could be made. Also, the need to be in receipt of a qualifying benefit was removed. As a result, up to 1.5 million people, mostly men aged 60–64, became newly eligible for the winter of 2000–01. Up to 1.9 million people could also be newly eligible for payments for the first three winters of the scheme. Most of these newly eligible people need to make a claim.

  For this winter, over 1 million claims have been made and paid, and over 11 million payments have been made overall. Claims for this winter continue to be received and processed, and payments made. For past winters, 1 million payments have been made so far.
  84W
  It is up to eligible individuals to choose whether to make a claim.

  Pensioner Poverty
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress is being made to combat pensioner poverty. [154880]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my right hon. Friend to my oral reply to our hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), at column 20.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on pensioner poverty. [154896]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our record speaks volumes. Around two million of the poorest pensioner households are now at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997. That's a real terms rise in living standards of at least 17 per cent.

  Means Testing
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the impact of means testing on Incapacity Benefit. [154879]

  Mr. Bayley
  We think it is right that some account should be taken of pensions which duplicate the purpose of Incapacity Benefit—to provide some replacement of earnings. The changes will not affect people in receipt of Incapacity Benefit on the date change, 6 April 2001, and will not affect four in five people who become eligible for Incapacity Benefit after this date. Of the people affected, nearly half will have pensions which will take them above the national average income.

  As well as making this change we will provide greater support and security through such initiatives as our carers' package of extra help worth £500 million over three years, the Disability Income Guarantee that will help the poorest severely disabled adults, and families with severely disabled children, the increase in the disabled child premium in income-related benefits, the extension of Incapacity Benefit to people disabled early in life who have not had the opportunity to earn and pay National Insurance contributions and the extension of Disability Living Allowance higher rate mobility component to three and four-year-old children.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress he has made in reducing the number of pensioners and families on means-tested benefits. [154897]

  Angela Eagle
  The Welfare State has always used means-tested benefits as part of a complementary mixture of provision alongside contributory and universal benefits. Each plays a part in meeting people's needs. Spending on income-related benefits amounted to 34 per cent. of overall benefit expenditure in 1997–98. Next year we expect this proportion to decrease to 29 per cent.

  Child Support Agency
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve the means of communicating with the Child Support Agency. [154881]
  85W
  Angela Eagle
  In preparing for the child support reforms, the Agency is providing improved telephone access over longer hours and face to face interviews where this is the best way of dealing with inquiries.

  Improved information technology will allow staff from across the Department to share information and the Agency will be making use of the internet to provide another information gateway for customers.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the assessment of existing Child Support Agency cases in line with the new legislation. [154890]

  Angela Eagle
  The new child support scheme will be introduced for new cases by April 2002. Existing cases will be transferred to the new scheme at a later date once we are sure that the new scheme is working well. Changes in the levels of assessment will be phased in.

  Pension Annuities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the requirement to purchase pension annuities by the age of 75. [154883]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to Sections 5.66 to 5.69 of our Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report published on Budget Day which sets out our views on annuities.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from financial institutions in relation to the purchase of annuities at the age of 75 years. [154888]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have received representations from financial institutions and other bodies.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he has taken to combat child poverty. [154885]

  Mr. Bayley
  "Opportunity for all" describes the full range of measures we are taking to combat child poverty, but I will highlight just a few.

  As a result of personal tax and benefit measures announced by this Government, over 1.2 million children will be lifted out of poverty and all working families will be guaranteed an income of £11,700 a year from October 2001.

  And we are ensuring all children get the best start in life by helping parents into work through the New Deals, raising education standards by investing more in schools, tackling health inequalities, and improving services through our £450 million investment in the new Children's Fund.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many letters have been sent out to pensioners who are possible candidates for the minimum income guarantee; and how many of those pensioners have made successful claims. [154886]
  86W
  Mr. Rooker
  Since the launch of the campaign last May, over 2 million pensioners have been written to and around 887,000 pensioners have responded. At the end of February the Department had received over 182,000 additional claims. Claims as a result of the campaign continue to be received and processed.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that a written explanation is provided to unsuccessful applicants for the Minimum Income Guarantee. [155009]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is standard procedure in the Benefits Agency for a written decision to be issued on all application forms that are received, irrespective of whether the claim is successful or not.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library the Government's evaluation of the Minimum Income Guarantee take-up campaign and independent evaluations commissioned by ministers. [155413]

  Mr. Rooker
  Evaluation of the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) take-up campaign is ongoing. A summary of quantitative tracking research on pensioners' awareness of MIG is due to be published shortly. A further report of research commissioned by the Department to assess the use of the MIG Claimline is due to be published in July and, in accordance with normal practice, a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on medical assessments for Disability Living Allowance. [154887]

  Mr. Bayley
  Assessment of entitlement to Disability Living Allowance is made by non medical Benefits Agency staff known as Decision Makers. Evidence is gathered by the Decision Makers from a number of sources, one of which can include a medical examination carried out by a Medical Services doctor.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of decisions on initial claims for Disability Living Allowance were made on the basis of a medical assessment by an examining medical practitioner in each of the last five years. [155627]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Percentage of decisions on initial claims for Disability Living Allowance, in each of the last five years, which were made on the basis of a medical assessment by an examining medical practitioner

  Year

  Percentage

  1996

  34

  1997

  35

  1998

  34

  1999

  39

  2000

  40

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 100 per cent. data.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of initial applications for Disability Living Allowance were successful in each of the last three years. [155626]
  87W
  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Percentage of initial applications for Disability Living Allowance, in each of the last three years, which were successful

  Year

  Percentage

  1998

  46

  1999

  47

  2000

  51

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 100 per cent. data.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what role the pension credit will play in encouraging people to save for retirement. [154889]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Pension Credit will ensure that people of modest means are rewarded from building on basic pension level through SERPS, a private pension or other forms of income and savings.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress is being made with introduction of the pension credit. [154892]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government have received over 400 responses to the consultation paper. We are considering these carefully and will announce our response to them in due course.

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on progress being made on the introduction of the pension credit. [154871]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are considering more than 400 responses to our consultation paper and we will be announcing our response in due course.

  Disabled Persons Tax Credit
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the expected take-up of the Disabled Persons Tax Credit announced in the Budget. [154891]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Disabled Person's Tax Credit was introduced in October 1999. Almost 27,000 disabled people who are in work benefited from the Disabled Person's Tax Credit at October 2000. This is over 8,000 higher than the number who benefited from Disability Working Allowance at its peak.

  Carer Support
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to increase support for older carers. [154894]

  Mr. Bayley
  We have substantially increased the carer premium in Income Support to £24.40 from 1 April. This will benefit some 36,000 low income carers aged 60 years or over.

  We also propose to extend eligibility to apply for Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) to carers aged 65 or over as soon as a legislative opportunity permits. This will enable some older carers with limited entitlement to retirement pension to receive ICA, either at the full rate
  88W
  or as a top-up. In addition, many pensioner carers will be able to receive carer premium paid on top of the Minimum Income Guarantee for the first time.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the impact has been on pensioners' incomes of changes to tax and benefits since May 1997. [154895]

  Mr. Rooker
  Personal tax and benefit changes mean that on average pensioner households will be £600 a year better off than in 1997.

  Residential Care
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to uprate the payments to residential homes to cover the cost of the care of residents. [154865]

  Mr. Darling
  From this April the maximum benefit paid to people in residential care and nursing homes will increase by 1.8 per cent. and by a further 1.9 per cent. later this year. This is the first above inflation increase since 1993 and gives a total increase of 3.7 per cent.

  It will be implemented at the earliest possible opportunity and will benefit up to 70,000 people whose care costs are met through the preserved rights arrangements.

  Child Maintenance (Disputes)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the Child Support Agency regulations to require the alleged father in disputed maintenance cases to take a second blood test. [154876]

  Angela Eagle
  The Child Support Agency cannot require an alleged father to take a DNA test and there are no plans to change this. If either parent disputes the outcome of a CSA arranged test, they can apply to the courts for a declaration of parentage.

  Computer Failures
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in receipt of(a) pension, (b) income support and (c) both have had their payment delayed as a result of the income support computer software being unable to calculate payment due to increases in retirement pension; if any such problem in making payments had been anticipated; if any similar failures in processing payments are expected at the beginning of the next financial year; and if he will make a statement. [154544]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Income Support is a matter for Alexis Cleveland the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 29 March 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking, how many people in receipt of (a) pension, (b) income support and (c) both have had their payment delayed as a result of the income support computer software being unable to calculate payment due to increases in

  89W
  retirement pension; if any such problem in making payments had been anticipated; if any similar failures in processing payments are expected at the beginning of the next financial year.
  It may help if I explain that the Income Support Computer System (ISCS) can automatically calculate and make payment due to Retirement Pension (RP) uprating for 84% of cases (up from 83% last year). The balance of the cases are not calculated automatically because they have exceptional/complex circumstances which require clerical action.
  The cases that cannot be uprated automatically are identified via ISCS and a report issued to Managers in field offices. Field Managers plan for this annual exercise and use the uprating reports to allocate resources to carry out the necessary activity on the cases listed. Further reports are produced on a monthly basis to monitor progress.
  This process only effects Income Support pensioners. Customers in receipt of Income Support or RP only are unaffected.
  The production of the initial uprating report was postponed by one week this year to accommodate Winter Fuel Payment work. There are no further delays planned, and the IS Live Support Incident Management Team has not received any reports from the Field which point to payment delays or any other problem with the ISCS with respect to uprating.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Agency Performance Targets
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what performance targets he has set his Department's agencies for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [156853]

  Mr. Darling
  The targets I have set CSA, WPA and TAS for 2001–02 are as given.

  Further information on CSA, WPF and TAS plans for 2001–02 is contained in their individual business plans, which have been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The targets I have set for BA and publication of its Business Plan will be announced shortly.

  Targets for 2001–02 are:
  Child Support Agency Targets (CSA)—2001–02
  Accuracy on the last action for all assessments checked in the year to be correct to the nearest penny in at least 78 per cent. of cases.
  To collect child maintenance and arrears from 71 per cent. of non-resident parents with maintenance liability due to be paid through the Agency's collection service.
  To collect 68 per cent. of child maintenance and arrears due for payment through the Agency's collection service.
  Preparations for child support reform to be taken forward to ensure the successful introduction of the new scheme for new cases by April 2002.
  The Agency will demonstrate improvement across the range of the customer service standards.
  To reduce the outstanding level of debt owing from full maintenance assessments at 31 March 2001 by 25 per cent. by 31 March 2002.
  By the end of September 2001 introduce and shadow a new set of balanced scorecard performance measures for all frontline business units moving to full reporting by April 2002.
  Note:
  The reforms to the Child Support Scheme set out in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 will come into force in April 2002.
  90W
  War Pension Agency Targets (WPA)—2001–02
  Putting Service First
  To deliver a quality service to war pensioners and war widows by achieving the standards published within WPA's Service First Charter.
  Working in Partnership
  To reduce the average time it takes an appeal to pass through the war pensions appeals process. By 31 March 2002 the average time should reduce by 10 per cent. from 2000–01 baseline levels.
  Modernisation and Managing Change
  To implement the recommendations of the WPA's DMA Review to the standards and timetable agreed with the DSS.
  Valuing our People
  To lead and manage people effectively through specified measures and contribute to the reduction in public sector sickness absence levels by reducing absences by 22 per cent. from 1998 PSA baseline levels by 31 December 2001.
  Efficiency
  To generate efficiencies during 2001–02 to absorb the effect of pay and price pressures; and to improve efficiency so that WPA operates within its running cost allocation.
  The Appeals Service Targets (TAS)—2001–02
  Waiting Times
  The average waiting time for an appeal to be heard will be no more than 14 weeks from the time of receipt by the Appeals Service1.
  By 31 March 2002, no more than 10 per cent. of cases will have been outstanding for more than 24 weeks.
  For cases returned by the Commissioner, the average waiting time for an appeal to be re-heard will be no more than 8 weeks from the date of return to the Appeals Service.
  Customer Focus
  By 31 March 2002, improve by 10 per cent. the measure of customer confidence in the level and quality of information provided on an appeal from the time it is received by the Appeals Service to the time of the appeal decision.
  Service Delivery Agreement Targets
  The range of waiting time variations between our local offices will be reduced by a factor of at least 5 per cent. per annum over a 3 year period.
  Identify and commission improvements in the end-to-end processing of appeals, leading to the development of cross agency end-to-end performance targets by April 2002.
  Note:
  1 For stayed cases awaiting decision in lead cases in a higher court, 14 weeks from withdrawal of stay being notified.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) of 14 March 2001,Official Report, column 606W, on national insurance numbers, how the new tests for national insurance numbers are more stringent. [154915]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]We have aligned the process for both benefit and employment inspired applications for National Insurance Numbers (NINOs). All adult applicants will be interviewed by dedicated specially trained staff using investigative interviewing techniques. Pre-interview questioning will take place prior to the specialist interview so that information can be validated.
  91W
  Post interview, the information given by an applicant in support of their application will be corroborated. Documentation supplied by an applicant will be scrutinised by specially trained staff using specialist equipment provided for this purpose. We have introduced a more stringent internal checking regime to ensure that a NINO application is valid and that the applicant does not already have a NINO. The introduction of dedicated staff will reduce the number of staff who have authority to create a NINO.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) of 14 March 2001,Official Report, column 606W, on national insurance numbers. if the new test for national insurance numbers will apply to all numbers allocated to those under 16 years of age. [154914]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]The enhanced National Insurance Number (NINO) process applies only to adult applications.

  There is no enhanced NINO process for under 16's, however before a child can be allocated a Child Reference Number, their parents have to go through this process.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many national insurance numbers there were on(a) the Departmental Central Index and (b) NIRSI/NIRS2, in each year since 1992. [152436]

  Mr. Rooker
  The figures are set out in the tables. The difference between the number of records held on DC1 and NIRS1/NIRS2 is because:DCI holds records for 12.5 million children [Child Reference Numbers]. Such records are notified to NIRS2 only as and when the children approach age 16.
  DCI holds NINOs allocated to customers who are over Retirement Pension age. These records are not notified to NIRS2 as there is no contribution liability.

  The DCI Data Cleansing work is incorporated within the current core business. This includes such activities as data cleansing, data maintenance and the removal of duplicate and surplus NINOs.

  The rise in number of NINOs reflects the fact that while additions are made each year for children who reach 16 and others who apply for a NINO. Records need to be retained in the event of a surviving spouse making a claim on their partner's contribution.

  National Insurance numbers held on DCI

  Year

  Total of NINOs at 31 December (million)

  1992

  71

  1993

  75

  1994

  76

  1995

  77

  1996

  77

  1997

  79

  1998

  80

  1999

  81

  2000

  82

  Note:

  Figures rounded to the nearest million.
  92W

  National Insurance numbers held on NIRSI/NIRS2

  Year

  Total of NINOs at 31 December(million)

  1992

  61

  1993

  62

  1994

  63

  1995

  64

  1996

  65

  1997

  66

  1998

  67

  1999

  68

  2000

  69

  Note:

  Figures rounded to the nearest million.

  Mortgage Benefits
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to reduce the time it takes for unemployed people to receive contributions from the benefit system towards mortgage payments. [154468]

  Mr. Bayley
  We believe that where possible, homeowners have a responsibility to provide for short term contingencies themselves, for example through private mortgage payment protection insurance (MPPI). We have worked closely with the industry to extend the nature and coverage of MPPI products so that they are suitable for a wider group of people.

  For the majority of people, assistance via the benefit system with their mortgage is restricted until they have served a 39 week waiting period. Exceptions to this rule are people who took out a mortgage prior to 2 October 1995, and certain vulnerable people, who are subject to a shorter waiting period, and people aged 60 and over whose interest is paid from the outset of the claim.

  We have no plans to reduce the waiting periods.

  Pensioner Organisations
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his plans for the new organisation for pensioners. [156801]

  Mr. Darling
  We are aiming to provide a service more tailored to the requirements of different groups of customers served by the Department.

  Pensioners have distinct and specific needs. It is important that we develop a modern, integrated service designed to meet these needs.

  So we are setting up The Pension Service within the Department which will be solely focused on the needs of today's and tomorrow's pensioners dealing with everything from policy development to frontline service delivery.

  The Pension Service will provide a new and radically better service for today's pensioners so that they will have a single, easily accessible point of contact for all social security benefits, making full use of opportunities provided by new technology including the internet.

  It will also provide help for tomorrow's pensioners by working co-operatively with the private pensions industry to design and regulate appropriate pensions products and providing accurate information to help them make decisions about their future pensions.
  93W
  Pension services will be designed and delivered through a combination of new centralised operations and local services. The new centralised operations will provide today's and tomorrow's pensioners with an integrated service.

  Working Age
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in setting up the new agency for working age people. [156802]

  Mr. Darling
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I are establishing the new agency for working age people later this year. We announced on 14 March the locations of around 50 pathfinder offices bringing together labour market and benefit services for people of working age. These offices will be the first stage in the launch of this new Agency.

  We can further announce today that the new Agency and its local offices will be called "Jobcentre Plus". We shall be introducing the name "Jobcentre Plus" in local offices as they roll out the integrated benefit and employment service, starting with the first pathfinder offices in October. But, more widely, the new Agency will be referred to as "Jobcentre Plus" ' from today.

  State Pension
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what checks are made to ensure that pensioners living abroad in receipt of the basic state pension are alive. [156474]

  Mr. Rooker
  All pensioners are contacted over a five year period. The certificate requires the person to confirm their circumstances have not altered and should be attested by someone of professional standing.

  Benefits (Leyton and Wanstead)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the change in the number of people dependent on social security benefits in Leyton and Wanstead since May 1997. [155390]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more
  94W
  complete than constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Leyton and Wanstead since May 1997.

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Leyton and Wanstead 10,957 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 960,600; in Leyton and Wanstead the number has reduced from 4,900 to 2,400. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally and in Leyton and Wanstead from 2,800 to 2,200.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 12,000 older people in Leyton and Wanstead have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 11,300 pensioners in Leyton and Wanstead will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 4,600 in Leyton and Wanstead. 2,600 pensioner families in Leyton and Wanstead are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  Other reforms in the pipeline include: the new Pension Credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings; the launch of Stakeholder Pensions in April this year; and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 both of which will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2001,Official Report, column 481W, on the state second pension, if he will express the table in terms of future pension entitlement in today's prices. [156253]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.
  95W

  Second tier pension entitlement in 2001 price terms

  £

  For comparison:

  Annual earnings

  State second second pension entitlement on 40-year working life

  SERPS entitlement on 40-year working life

  State second pension entitlement on 49-year working life

  SERPS entitlement on 49-year working life

  £4,000

  105

  11

  125

  12

  £5,000

  105

  18

  125

  20

  £6,000

  105

  24

  125

  28

  £7,000

  105

  31

  125

  36

  £8,000

  105

  37

  125

  44

  £9,000

  105

  44

  125

  52

  £9,500

  105

  47

  125

  56

  £10,000

  105

  50

  125

  60

  £11,000

  107

  57

  128

  68

  £12,000

  110

  63

  132

  76

  £13,000

  113

  70

  136

  84

  £14,000

  116

  76

  140

  92

  £15,000

  120

  83

  144

  100

  Departmental Policies (Southwark)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the London borough of Southwark, the effects on the London borough of Southwark of his Department's policies and actions since May 2 1997. [155977]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than data at a local authority level, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in the London borough of Southwark since May 1997.

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children nationally out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about seven million families receive Child Benefit, and in the London borough of Southwark 30,443 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit
  96W
  into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 960,600; in the London borough of Southwark the number has reduced from 13,700 to 8,900. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894.100 nationally and in the London borough of Southwark from 10,600 to 9,500.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 26,400 pensioners in the London borough of Southwark will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic state pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 11,600 in the London borough of Southwark. 7,300 pensioner families in the London borough of Southwark are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  Other reforms in the pipeline include: the new Pension Credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings; the launch of Stakeholder Pensions in April this year; and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 both of which will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Benefits (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the cost of benefits, paid as a result of unemployment in Shrewsbury and Atcham was on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [154662]

  Angela Eagle
  The available data only allow us to estimate the number of people in a Member of Parliament's constituency getting benefits as a result of unemployment. It is not possible to estimate the cost of these benefits at a constituency level.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will reply to the hon. Member for Ludlow's letter of 28 November 2000 regarding Mrs. Lingard-Lane, a constituent. [154781]

  Angela Eagle
  A reply was issued on Monday 2 April 2001.

  Flooding (Housing Benefit)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on flood victims in receipt of Housing Benefit who have been forced to evacuate their homes and move into alternative accommodation; when will the review into their circumstances will be completed; and if he will make a statement. [155113]

  Angela Eagle
  I am aware of the hon. Member's concerns. We have no record of any other representations on this subject. As stated in my written answer on
  97W
  12 March 2001, Official Report, column 460W, we are reviewing the current arrangements and this review is still ongoing.

  Gateway Benefits
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the eligibility criteria for gateway benefits are for(a) a newly unemployed UK citizen, (b) an asylum seeker awaiting determination of their case, (c) an asylum seeker whose request to stay has been granted and (d) a discharged prisoner. [155552]

  Angela Eagle
  The basic conditions for a newly unemployed UK citizen to quail y for Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) are that they must he available for and
  98W
  actively seeking employment of, normally, at least 40 hours per week. Jobseekers are also required to enter into a Jobseeker's Agreement which details the steps they will take to enable them to return to work.

  The Home Office is responsible for supporting and accommodating asylum seekers awaiting a determination of their case. Those asylum seekers in receipt of benefits prior to 3 April 2000 continue to be eligible to claim Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Asylum seekers whose applications are accepted and are awarded either refugee status or exceptional leave to stay are eligible for Social Security benefits in the normal way.

  In general, discharged prisoners are treated in the same way as any other benefit claimant and must satisfy the eligibility criteria for each benefit claimed.

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

Zimbabwe
Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What dialogues the European Union and the Commonwealth are having with the Government of Zimbabwe; and what progress has been made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the European Union has initiated a dialogue with the Government of Zimbabwe under Article 8 of the Cotonou agreement. Heads of Mission of the EU Troika (Sweden, Belgium and the Commission) in Harare have met with the Government of Zimbabwe to discuss how to take the dialogue forward. We are awaiting the government's response. As far as the Commonwealth is concerned, the Commonwealth Secretary General is responsible for taking forward the decisions taken by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group at its meeting on 19th and 20th March.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the European Union is taking steps under Article 8 of the Cotonou agreement—I recall that that allows for action and not simply for words—can the Minister confirm that Mr Mugabe has shown himself not even prepared to consider the new and more generous proposals for land reform put forward by the Commercial Farmers' Union? Even the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in October were to take new steps in the direction of better arrangements for dealing with countries that show themselves to be in breach of the basic principles of the Commonwealth, is there not likely to be a great deal more ruin in Zimbabwe before October if the world continues not to act but simply to talk?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I recognise the concern of the noble Lord about the current position, but the fact that CMAG met and suggested that there should be a three-country team to speak to Zimbabwe is important. We are waiting to see what comes of that. That is not simply talk; it is a positive action to try to ensure that Mr Mugabe understands the nature of the concern being expressed internationally.
On land reform, noble Lords know that we have said consistently that we would support a land reform programme which was transparent, fair and
596
cost-effective and which formed part of the wider programme of the Government of Zimbabwe to reduce poverty as agreed by them in the 1998 Land Conference. We are doing everything that we can, as are our international partners, to ensure that Mr Mugabe understands the nature of the concerns and addresses them with greater vigour than he has done so far.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in view of the generous nature of the offer made by the Commercial Farmers' Union, can the Minister tell the House whether the World Bank has shown any interest in matching funding for that purpose? On a different point, can she also tell the House whether the leaders of the opposition are currently safe or have fled the country?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness an answer in relation to whether the World Bank has indicated its willingness to find matching funds, but I can undertake to make inquiries, and I shall write to the noble Baroness in due course.
I can reassure the House that we are in contact with the opposition. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary last spoke to Morgan Tsvangirai, the president of the Movement for Democratic Change, on 19th March. It is important that we keep proper track of exactly what is happening, listen acutely to the advice and to what is said to us by the opposition.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, can the noble Baroness consider stretching the dialogue to include the Government of France, as it may then come to light whether President Chirac is more animated by his dislike of this country or his sudden liking for Mr Mugabe?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that France is fully engaged in the EU dialogue. I presume that the noble Lord refers to the fact that Mr Mugabe visited France to discuss these matters. However, it is right to tell the House that I do not believe that he found that an entirely satisfactory experience. Everyone was given the opportunity to explore with him the difficulties with which he is challenged in Zimbabwe. I believe that the fact that he gave himself that opportunity to hear and to listen is a matter for congratulation as opposed to commiseration.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, will the Minister undertake to talk with the Government of South Africa, who, despite criticism in some British press, have been making a tremendous effort to try to get other ministers, as well as President Mugabe, to see the damage that is being caused by the current policy to the whole of southern Africa?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly reassure the noble Baroness that we are talking seriously to our South African colleagues on these issues. The Government of Zimbabwe are clearly in breach of certain of the principles. We welcome President Mbeki's announcement that he will soon meet President Mugabe. My honourable friend Mr Wilson met the South African Deputy Foreign Minister on 6th March when they also discussed the situation in Zimbabwe. So we are taking seriously the opportunities that are available to us as a result of interest shown by our South African colleagues.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords. does the Minister have information on the position of the judiciary in that country?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is right that there has been a great deal of concern about the judiciary in Zimbabwe. We share the concerns expressed by the UN special rapporteur on the independence of the judges and lawyers. He recently issued several statements and on 12th February he said:
"The Government [of Zimbabwe] must comply with its obligations under international standards and stop harassing and pressuring members of the judiciary. The allegation that the Government has called upon judges to seek early retirement will be seen as a clear violation of Principle 2 of the UN Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary"
On 19th February, my honourable friend Mr Brian Wilson called in the Zimbabwe High Commissioner to express our concern at the harassment of the judiciary. Furthermore, members of the International Bar Association visited Harare in order to discuss the whole issue of the judiciary and the legal profession and we await their report.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, is it true, as Dr Mugabe has asserted, that his government had reached an arrangement with the previous British government on recompense for the white farmers? He further claims that that agreement was set aside by the present Government. Can the Minister help us about that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is not true. We have consistently set out the basis upon which we will assist as regards land reform. That has not changed. The fast-track programme does not meet the conditions which were set out and we have urged the Government of Zimbabwe to take immediate steps to end the illegal occupation of farms and to restore the rule of law.
Since 1980 the United Kingdom has contributed £44 million to land reform. The EU has also been a major contributor towards land reform in Zimbabwe. Commercial farms bring in about 40 per cent of Zimbabwe's foreign currency and account for 19 per cent of its GDP. We are very much doing our bit, but it means that Mr Mugabe must address the matter seriously and, if I may say so, honestly.

Glencairn
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the British Ambassador to the Republic of Ireland will vacate his official residence, Glencairn; for how much the building was sold; and what was the cost of buying a suitable alternative.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have acquired a replacement residence for our Ambassador which is presently being refurbished. Our Ambassador will move to his new residence on completion of the work. It is not our policy to reveal details of price and other terms agreed in such transactions, though I can tell the House that this transaction represented excellent value for money for the British taxpayer.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I accept that there may be occasions when it is appropriate to dispose of embassies or ambassadorial residences. However, does my noble friend agree that in some countries we occupy buildings of such historic merit and prestige that they add significantly to our diplomatic effectiveness in those countries? For obvious reasons, would it not be a pity if we were to dispose of buildings in that category? I hope that my noble friend can give some assurances to that effect.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my noble friend is right in saying that some buildings are of such enormous significance that it would be unwise to dispose of them. I can give that reassurance. However, in the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office agreed an asset recycling target with the Treasury to generate £90 million through sales of properties for the triennium financial year 1999–2000 to 2001–02 and £100 million in the triennium financial year 2001–02 to 2003–04. The proceeds are to be reinvested in capital projects. Targeted properties are those which are over scale, inefficient, poor value for money, not fit for the purpose or of considerable developmental potential.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that this is another demonstration of the Blair process of dumbing down British responsibilities and influence in other countries?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will not be disappointed to hear that on this occasion, and most unusually, I fundamentally disagree with him. It is clear that there were a number of significant difficulties with the property Glencairn. The noble Lord will know that the distance from Glencairn to Dublin caused difficulty. Indeed, a notorious murder was committed on that road and therefore security issues were involved. The advantage to be gained in selling the property, buying a most suitable Victorian property to replace it and making use of the opportunity to expand and invest was nothing other than plain good sense.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, it may have made financial sense to sell the Ambassador's residence of Glencairn, with low fixed interest rates, money cheap to borrow and booming house prices which are a consequence of Ireland's EU membership. But that aside, may I seek the Minister's assurance that this costing down is not part of an overall reduction package? Do the Government have any plans to reduce the complement of staff in Ireland?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have no indication that the complement of staff in Ireland will be reduced. If that comes to my attention I shall advise the noble Baroness of it. House prices in Ireland have risen and at the time we sold Glencairn we got good value for it and were able to purchase another property at a good rate. There has certainly been no dumbing down or costing down. We are making judicious good use of the properties available to us and to the maximum advantage. We shall continue to do that.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, given the Minister's rationale for the sale of Glencairn, can she tell us whether any embassies around the world are being closed?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, unfortunately, I found it difficult to hear the noble Lord. I wish him a very happy birthday. The noble Lord referred to the closure of various embassies. I do not know whether he has particular embassies in mind. To the best of my knowledge and recollection, to date we have not closed any without giving proper notice and opening others elsewhere.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the noble Baroness indicate whether, generally speaking, when new premises arc required for embassies the policy is to buy rather than lease them, which was the policy in the past that did not turn out to be very cost-effective over the long term?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are trying to make the appropriate decisions. To date, the market has tended to indicate that purchase is the most stable way to proceed, but the noble Lord will also be aware that sometimes we need temporary accommodation which is conveniently dealt with by leasing. There is no hard and fast rule. We shall make the best commercial decision for the long term so that we make proper use of all our resources.
Baroness Young: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us whether the policy, which I believe she described as asset recycling if I understood her correctly, includes the disposal of other buildings of comparable standing and merit to the residence in Dublin? Does the noble Baroness agree that when in the past Foreign Office buildings have been disposed of, the result has been singularly unfortunate and has not helped our diplomatic representation abroad?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness that the impact on our
600
diplomatic relations is fully taken into account before we make a decision as to whether to sell a property. The decision is not based simply on the best market price. We must look at what impact, if any, it will have on our ability to remain diplomatically in the first division.

Mongolia
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What financial assistance they have given to Mongolia following the very severe winter.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, Mongolia has been hit by two consecutive winter disasters, or "dzuds". This winter's dzud alone has affected over 300,000 herders in 20 out of 21 provinces and 1.5 million livestock have died. The Government of Mongolia have launched an appeal for £8.2 million through the United Nations. The DfID has offered £1 million for the provision of emergency relief under the framework of the UN appeal.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. Her figures for the losses are not the same as those given me by the Mongolian ambassador to London. He told me that last year nearly 3 million livestock perished in the severe winter and it was anticipated that nearly 6 million would die this year, leaving the herders with no alternative means of livelihood. Does the noble Baroness share my enthusiasm for the Save the Children Fund and will she join me in offering great plaudits for its marvellous work, which I have seen, in difficult conditions in Mongolia?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Baroness has visited Mongolia three times and is becoming quite expert in the field. The projections come from the Government of Mongolia and run until May. Therefore, the figures that I have given relate to the position as of now. As to the work of Save the Children Fund, I agree with the noble Baroness that it does an excellent job in Mongolia. That organisation manages the DfID small grants scheme to the tune of £225,000, which is in addition to the money that we provide through multilateral organisations like the World Bank, the EU TACIS programme and the UN.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, as someone who served very briefly in Mongolia, I have a particular admiration for that country, which survives between two very large super-powers. It admires us because we established an embassy there before anyone else. Can I persuade the Minister that, although we have been generous in what we have given multilaterally through the World Bank, the UN and others, direct bilateral aid means a great deal to a small country? Before the UK-Mongolia meeting in May. will the Minister consider the possibility of further

601
bilateral aid? Multilateral aid is very slow, ponderous and impersonal. Something that arrives quickly counts much more.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have been examining how we give funding to Mongolia. We believe that, because of the additional leverage we achieve through multilateral funding at this time, that is the most important aid to that country. As I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, we have a small grants programme. I do not anticipate that we shall have a bilateral programme, but we shall study the matter again in the light of the noble Baroness's comments.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, we welcome the £245,000 that DfID has given to the Red Cross for operations in Mongolia. Sadly, the recent meteorological tragedy is nothing new to central Asia; it is a recurring problem. Can the Minister tell the House what assistance the Government are offering the authorities in Mongolia in regard to long-term planning and the avoidance of catastrophe?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, long-term assistance is provided principally through the UNDP coordination mechanism in Mongolia. The recent UN disaster and assessment team report, produced after a visit in January, pointed out that it was vital to Mongolia's future to transform the entire livestock production system into a fully sustainable sector of the economy. The suggestion is that UNDP, UNEP and the FAO should together prepare an appropriate project proposal to put to donors. Our assistance is through multilateral sources like the UN, the World Bank and the TACIS programme.

Home Care Charges: Consultation
2.57 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they can give any early indication of responses they have received to their consultation paper Fairer Charging Policies for Home Care and other non-residential Social Services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Department of Health has received over 500 responses to the consultation paper and draft guidance. While some of the main principles of the draft guidance have been welcomed, concerns have been expressed over aspects of the proposed guidance, particularly on the treatment of earnings and possible disincentives for disabled people to take up paid employment. The Government are giving careful consideration to those responses.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's reply. I am glad that he makes no bones that
602
concerns have been expressed. The guidance in its current form would have a very harsh impact on disabled people in work. Fifty-five per cent of their earnings could be taken into account. Those on income support, those in receipt of disability living allowance, and even those in receipt of intermediate care services would be liable to pay charges. Does that not demonstrate the difficulty of the Government's determination not to make personal care free? Will they undertake also to examine the impact of the guidance with a view to avoiding the hardship that will be caused if it remains in its current form?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the decision on personal care was taken by the Government because they believed that resources should best be targeted, first, in ensuring that care provided or supervised by registered nurses in nursing homes was the appropriate way to spend our resources, alongside the millions of pounds that we expect to spend on intermediate care. The noble Lord will recall that the Government's decision to consult on the issue of statutory guidance was welcomed because of the widely differing policies of local authorities. The Audit Commission report said that local authority practice was wildly inconsistent, lacking rationality and often not related to service policies. Overall, I believe that the statutory guidance will lead to much greater consistency, but I give an assurance to the noble Lord that in relation to the specific issue he raised we will meet representatives of the people concerned. We are very interested in discussing these matters with them.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, is the Minister aware that great concern has been expressed that partners, not just spouses, may have their income taken into account, not for their own care but for the care of their partner? Can the noble Lord reassure the House that when the Government reach their final decisions they will ensure that such a situation does not continue?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the draft guidance sets out largely the current legal position and the circumstances in which a partner's resources may be taken into account under Section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983. In some cases it may indeed be to the advantage of a user to be assessed with his or her partner, as the draft guidance points out. But we are certainly willing to look at making the guidance clearer on this issue in the light of comments.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, for clarity, can the noble Lord tell the House precisely what freedom local authorities will have within the context of statutory guidance to do what they think is right?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 provides that local authorities must in the exercise of their social services functions, including the exercise of any

603
discretion conferred by any relevant enactment, act under the general guidance of the Secretary of State. To act legally outside the terms of Section 7 guidance, a council would need to show that it had properly considered the guidance and had good reasons for acting differently; for example, because of particular local circumstances. However, I can reassure the noble Baroness that the statutory guidance that will be issued as a result of the consultation process can be regarded as the minimum requirement. It will be open to any local authority to be more generous in its charging scheme than that which is set out in the statutory guidance.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is concern about the Government's seemingly ever-increasing use of setting national priorities and instituting ring-fenced budgets to go with them? While ring-fenced budgets have their place, they inhibit the freedom of local authorities to charge the kind of rates they might wish to charge, thereby putting an additional strain on what is an already tight social services budget.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl's charge would have more strength to it were it not for the evidence of the Audit Commission report. It found a whole host of different charging mechanisms, which showed great inconsistency between local authorities. The charges often lacked rationality. Some local authorities applied a flat rate charge to all, irrespective of their circumstances. Some charged according to the user's means with no regard for the level of service. There was great concern among users and their representatives about how that impacted on individuals. I believe that statutory guidance is justified in this case. It was certainly warmly welcomed by most, if not all, representative organisations. The fact that local authorities can decide to be more generous than the guidance leaves them with a great deal of discretion. A further point is that Torbay council, whose model the statutory guidance has worked on, has shown that where a local authority operates a rational and fair scheme it will be to the benefit of many of its residents.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I note that the Minister made no response to the concern of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones about people being required to pay charges out of income support. Would not a more informed discussion of this subject be possible if the Government were to commission research on the minimum income entitlement necessary to maintain good health?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I know that the noble Earl consistently raises the issue of good health and its relationship to wider social security benefits. It is certainly a matter that warrants consideration. The draft guidance clearly states that service users should not have their incomes reduced below basic levels of income support as a result of
604
charges. That principle has been widely welcomed by those responding to the consultation and will Improve the record of many local authorities.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the Second Reading of the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill, my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the local elections.

Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill
3.5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time
The Bill is part of the Government's response to meet the legitimate concerns of companies about the effects of aligning the income tax and national insurance treatment of employee share options. Before 6th April 1999, national insurance liability on employee share options arose solely at the date of grant of the option, to the extent that the option was granted at a discount. The income tax liability on the other hand has for many years crystallised at the date of exercise of the option. That differential treatment ended in 1999. Options granted on or after 6th April 1999 relating to shares which are readily convertible into cash are now subject to similar treatment under the national insurance rules as under the income tax and PAYE rules. Provided that the option is not capable of being exercised more than 10 years following its grant, there is no national insurance liability when the option is granted: instead, the liability arises at the date of exercise of the option, and the figure is the same as that which is chargeable to income tax.
Following that change in treatment, many companies expressed concern that the unpredictability of their secondary national insurance charge as employers has led to accounting difficulties and created uncertainty. The liability of a company as the secondary contributor is uncapped, and is dependent on the volatility of the company's share price.
Following a period of consultation, we introduced measures last year which went a long way towards meeting those concerns. We announced that employers would be able to ask their employees to bear the secondary national insurance charge on their share option gains. The announcement was made on 19th May 2000 and has been welcomed by the business community and its advisers. The legislation has allowed companies to remove the accounting difficulties and the uncertainty that the national insurance charge presented.
Last year's legislation was drafted to cover all options which had already been granted. But in practice it has been difficult for employers to negotiate

605
with employees terms which change options already held by them. So for many companies that granted options between 6th April 1999, when the changes to the national insurance treatment took effect, and 19th May 2000, when the new rules for options were announced, the problem has remained. The point was raised in debate in this House last year, when the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Goodhart, mentioned their concern that the measures enacted last year did nothing to address historical liabilities on existing share options. They called on the Government to give some form of relief against the excessive liabilities faced by companies which granted options during the period between 6th April 1999 and 19th May 2000. Indeed, it was on the understanding that the Government would come back with such proposals, if necessary, that the Opposition gave their support to last year's measures.
The Government have been true to their word, and I suggest to the House that the present Bill meets the concerns in a simple and practical way. The Bill gives companies a simple and straightforward mechanism for settling their national insurance liabilities on the options they have granted between 6th April 1999 and 19th May 2000, and to do so early, in advance of the date when the actual gain is made by the employee. Companies that choose to take advantage of this will calculate the amount of national insurance due by reference to the accrued gain up to 7th November 2000, the day before the pre-Budget Statement when the proposals were announced.
Companies will be required to notify the Inland Revenue and pay the appropriate charge within a period of 92 days of Royal Assent of the Bill. In this way, the measures allow companies effectively to cap their national insurance liability by reference to the share price on 7th November last year, thereby giving companies the certainty they wanted. The company benefits by avoiding the need to make further provisions against profits. It will be able to remove the provision for the liability from its balance sheet and save national insurance costs in relation to any further upward movement of the share price. The Bill offers early settlement as a quid pro quo for certainty.
The measures were given an immediate welcome by the business community. A large firm of advisers described them as a,
"silver lining for firms struggling under the cloud of low share prices … allowing companies to foster greater employee share ownership and account for their liabilities in a more meaningful, predictable way".
I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that that statement came from the Pricewaterhouse Coopers Bristol branch and was published in the Western Daily Press on 13th November 2000.
I turn now to the detail of the Bill, outlining the measures clause by clause. Clause 1 defines the share options gains as those arising from options granted between 6th April 1999 and 19th May 2000 and exercised, assigned or released after 7th November
606
2000. To take advantage of the arrangements, companies must notify the Inland Revenue within 92 days of Royal Assent of the Bill.
Clause 2 exempts such gains from the existing national insurance charge and substitutes a special contribution. This is at a rate of 12.2 per cent, which is the rate of secondary—that is, employer—contributions applicable during the tax year 2000–01. It is payable on the deemed gain, if any, as if the option had been exercised on 7th November 2000.
Clause 3 covers various situations where options are exchanged, or rolled over, for other options, or for consideration which may include a mixture of cash and other options. The provisions are necessarily complex, but they effectively confine the special contribution to options exchanged at parity. The existing national insurance charge remains in so far as the option is exchanged in excess of parity to prevent the use of this relieving Bill as a vehicle for avoidance.
Clause 4 covers three types of situation. First, the situation where an employee has agreed, under the provisions introduced last year, to bear the employer's national insurance liability on the option gain. The clause ensures that the same tax relief allowed to the employee under that measure will apply also to the special contribution he makes under the present Bill. Secondly, the clause prevents a possible double tax relief which could arise when relief was given on the one hand when a secondary Class 1 liability is replaced by a special contribution under the Bill, and again if the payment is not made within the 92-day deadline laid down in the Bill. Thirdly, the clause makes a technical adjustment to the PAYE rules to take account of the fact that tax relief in respect of the special contribution is not given at the same time as the contribution is actually paid.
Clauses 5 and 6 contain interpretation provisions and ensure that the Bill applies to Northern Ireland.
In Committee in another place, the Government accepted the force of many opposition amendments either by accepting the changes or by introducing amendments of their own. In this way, the deadline for paying the special contribution under the Bill was extended from 60 to 92 days following Royal Assent. This will give companies more time to decide whether settlement would be in their best interests. The rule was also changed which originally required companies with a nil liability nevertheless to submit a formal notice within the deadline. We accepted that this placed an unreasonable burden on businesses and we introduced an amendment deeming the notice to have been given.
The Opposition agreed to withdraw other amendments and new clauses on the understanding that we would put forward changes of our own when the Bill was considered on Report. This we did, and as a result the effectiveness of the rollover measures has been improved to remove an avoidance opportunity in the earlier drafting of the Bill and to make substantial improvements to the operation of the rollover provisions in Clause 3.

607
I am afraid that we shall have to propose three minor amendments in Committee. The first, in Clause 3, corrects a technical point regarding the Bill's interaction with other national insurance contributions legislation and as such is necessary to ensure that the Bill works effectively. The other two, in Clause 5, prevent an interpretation which might attract NIC avoidance and thus prevent any mischief. The amendments will not change the widely understood basis on which this special contribution is calculated. If the Bill is given a Second Reading this afternoon, those three amendments will be tabled for later on in the day.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mchilosh of Haringey.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as always, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his clear exposition of these matters. However, having listened to his remarks, no one could possibly doubt that these are matters of great complexity. Indeed, in some respects it will be difficult to comprehend them other than by reading what he has said, rather than by listening.
When I looked at the proceedings in another place, what struck me was that this Bill was programmed to provide that consideration of the Bill, which eventually began at around 2.30 p.m., should be concluded by 3.30 p.m., with the Third Reading taken at 4.15 p.m. I see that the Deputy Chief Whip seated opposite smiles at my remarks. But during my 33 years in another place it would have been inconceivable to limit in any way the length of time spent in debate on a Bill of this technical complexity. We have reached an extraordinary state of affairs when that is the case. Moreover, the Motion goes on to deal with consideration of Lords amendments and so forth. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be able to tell the House whether questions on any such Motions shall be put forthwith. On a matter which is this technical—it has sonic political content, but overwhelmingly we face here the task of ensuring that the details of the legislation are right—it is not acceptable for the House to be put in this position.
This has been a classic way for social security legislation to be dealt with since 1997. To a large extent, it reflects the degree to which the Department of Social Security has been taken over by the Treasury. More specifically, it reflects a failure to recognise that national insurance contributions have become a tax in everything but name; I repeat, in everything but name. The proceeds entering government coffers as a result of this legislation will have absolutely nothing to do with insurance and still less will this mean that those paying them will receive additional benefits as a result. Quite simply, this is yet another stealth tax.
If one looks at the history, the matter has been batted back and forth between the Treasury and the Department of Social Security in an extraordinary fashion. As the noble Lord mentioned, a 12.5 per cent national insurance contribution from employers on unapproved option schemes was announced originally
608
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in March 1999. Then, as a result of that, in March 2000 it was suggested that there should be consultation to amend the legislation, which clearly was not right. By May 2000 we had debated the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I took part in those discussions. The first debates were taken at midnight, with very little notice of what was being proposed. The second debate, on Report, was also taken very late in the evening.
Because I was caught somewhat unawares by this, my initial reaction was simply to say: if someone pays this national insurance contribution because the share price seems likely to rise, will they receive a refund if subsequently it drops down in the water, so to speak, when it is cashed in? I have not yet received a reply to that question. Perhaps the noble Lord could make clear the situation in his later remarks.
In November 2000, there was another pre-Budget report which accepted that some companies would have difficulties with the arrangements in cases where the options had already been given to employees. Further changes were then made, the effect of which was to establish a position where the employees also paid the employer's liability. Finally, there have been problems in regard to options granted between 6th April 1999 and 19th May 2000 with which the Bill seeks to deal.
What a way to legislate. This has been an unbelievable mess from beginning to end. I therefore ask one final question in regard to procedural issues: why are these problems being dealt with in this Bill rather than in the Finance Bill, which I understand is currently going through another place? No doubt the noble Lord will explain that.
There are objections in principle to the Bill. It essentially penalises companies—start-up companies in particular—which feel that they cannot afford to pay normal market rates of remuneration but offer options instead. This is very much in line with the Government's failure to comprehend some of these problems in relation to the IR35 matter, which also concerned entrepreneurial companies. I understand that the latest news today is that, while the High Court judgment has not come out firmly in favour of those appealing from the professional contractors group, it does mean that they will gain some advantage inasmuch as the situation will have been clarified.
This is another example of the way in which actions taken by the Government tend to suppress entrepreneurial activity rather than otherwise. if I am right—no doubt the noble Lord will confirm this—the result of all the changes which have been made since the idea was originally introduced by the Chancellor will be to tax employees not at the normal rate of tax on normal remuneration but, effectively, at a significantly higher rate of tax. I think I am right—these matters are so complex that it is difficult to be certain about anything—that it will be at a rate of something like 47.32 per cent.

609
We are faced with a measure which, in principle, has much to be said against it. Having said that, it would seem that the Government are seeking to put matters right with the Bill. We will certainly support doing that during the later stages of the Bill's consideration.
The problems stem from options issued between April 1999 and May 2000 in a number of respects. However, the extent to which there will be a burden is likely to be reduced, because on the operative date—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has concerns in regard to whether the operative date ought to be 7th November 2000, as it is in the Bill at present—many companies will find that the options are now under water and will involve no liability.
There are problems, however, in regard to the option of the one-off charge made available to companies by the Government. Companies must decide whether to pay the special one-off charge, which would then, if I understand it correctly, discharge their obligation altogether. However, the implication if they do not go ahead with that option is that the market will think that they do not expect their share price to rise. This will obviously have repercussions in the market.
Of course, there may be good reasons for companies to decide not to go ahead. It may be, quite simply, that they do not have the cash available to take advantage of the opportunity presented to them by the Government, or there may have been staff changes and so on. None the less, the overall effect is that that is likely to be taken by the market, to some extent, as an indication of what the companies expect their share prices to do and whether they think it is worth while taking the option given to them by the Government. Overall, of course, there is a shift from companies to employees which appears to involve a very high rate of tax on individuals if they wish to go ahead.
In another place, my honourable friend Mr Howard Flight succeeded, as the Minister has rightly acknowledged, in putting forward a number of amendments. The length of time in which a decision can been taken has been extended to 92 days. That is welcome. In addition to the three technical amendments mentioned by the noble Lord in opening, we still have concerns about the roll-over relief position. I shall not go into that matter in detail at this stage—I would be here a considerable time were I to do so—but there are still matters which we think should be considered.
We hope that the Government will be sympathetic to our attempts to bring the legislation into a form which, if not easily comprehensible—and the Chartered Institute of Taxation has described it in its present form as one of the most complex matters that has ever come before it for consideration—at least into a form where it is correct overall, even if it is difficult to comprehend.
I am not sure whether I should say that we shall be third time lucky with this legislation and get it right, or whether it is going down for the third time—possibly both. In all events, there are problems with the Bill. We
610
do not think that the basic approach has been right—the matter has been badly handled—but, because it gives relief to the groups that we believe deserve encouragement in their entrepreneurial activities, we shall not oppose the Bill.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, like the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Higgins, I took part in the debates on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, as it then was.
It is obviously right that profits obtained by an employee from the exercise of an option should be taxable as income and subject to national insurance contributions on the same basis, unless the options fall within the class of approved share option schemes where tax relief is available.
It has, of course, been a long-standing problem that there have been different tax bases for income tax and national insurance contributions. It is right that those differences are now being greatly narrowed in this and other cases. The difference in the bases gave rise to a number of weird and wonderful NIC avoidance schemes—for example, payment in gold bars or other commodities, such as bismuth. I am not quite sure what bismuth is used for, apart from stomach pills.
The Government were therefore right to impose NIC liabilities on profits from the exercise of share options given to employees as part of their remuneration package. However, the dot.com bubble gave rise to an unforeseen problem. Share values increased so far that the employer's prospective liability for secondary Class I contributions became potentially enormous. Accounting requirements made it necessary to include provisions in current balance sheets for the potential liability for Class I contributions on the future exercise of the options. The result was that these liabilities made some IT companies nominally insolvent. Their power to borrow was, of course, adversely affected—or "seriously compromised", as I think the expression now is.
The Government stepped in by allowing employees to agree with employers that the employees should be liable for both primary and secondary contributions on the proceeds of the exercise of the option. That seems reasonable because, if an option is exercised when shares are standing very high, the employees can sell some of them to pay for the national insurance contributions. But that, as has been explained, left the problem of companies that granted options between April 1999, when the new grants of options became potentially liable to secondary Class 1 contributions on profits on the sale of shares, and May 2000, when companies were allowed to agree with employees that the employees should be liable for the secondary Class 1 contributions.
We accept that the problem needed to be dealt with and that the Bill is a suitable way of dealing with it. There is, however, one issue that I want to raise. The Bill proposes that companies should elect whether to stick with liability under the present rules or whether

611
to agree to pay national insurance contributions on the basis of a notional sale on 7th November 2000. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, in a considerable number of cases those options were already valueless at November 2000 prices, and no problem arises there.
Although the value of dot.com shares was, by November 2000, well off its peak, it has gone down a great deal further since then. Companies whose options had some value as at 7th November will, therefore, be faced with a difficult decision if share values are now significantly below their value at that date. Do they elect to pay national insurance contributions on the value of the option as at 7th November 2000, if that is more than the current value of the shares; or do they stick with the present rules on NI C liabilities and avoid the charge as at November 2000, but at the same time face the risk that the shares might take off again and land the company with a large liability in the future? This is a particular problem for companies that are short of cash, as many companies in the dot.com and IT fields now are. Clearly, many may have difficulty in raising the money to pay for a liability based on the value as at November 2000 and having to be paid immediately.
The companies have 92 days in which to decide this question. The decision would be a great deal easier if liability to secondary Class 1 contributions was based on the value of the options not at 7th November last but at the date when the Bill is enacted or possibly the date when it was first introduced in the other place. This would avoid the problem that companies that wish to cap their liability can do so only by paying national insurance contributions on an unrealised gain that has since disappeared. I await the Government's answer on that issue.
3.33 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I support the Bill. Indeed, it would be difficult not to do so given that it is intended to modify the unfortunate impact of earlier legislation. I should not go so far as PricewaterhouseCoopers' Bristol office, but I agree with the general thrust of what it said.
I should declare an interest at the outset as a non-executive director of a company which stands to benefit from the enactment of the Bill, having granted a large number of options to key staff in the period covered by the Bill.
The real regret is that the Bill is necessary at all. It is a consequence of a decision taken by the Government to penalise unapproved share options by the imposition of employers' national insurance contributions.
The gains from unapproved share option schemes are now taxed very heavily, as my noble friend Lord Higgins said—at 47.32 per cent where the employee pays the national insurance contributions. There are ways of setting up share option schemes which do not involve this penal level of taxation. But they are highly restrictive schemes; the rules run to many pages in the Finance Act. Many companies find that the schemes simply do not allow them to reward key employees in
612
the way in which they need. That applies to the enterprise management scheme, even after the recent relaxation in the Budget.
Many start-up companies, many new economy companies, many high growth businesses and many turn-around businesses find that they have to go outside the approved share option schemes and turn to unapproved share option schemes to reward key staff in the necessary way. These businesses are now penalised by the cumulative impact of tax and national insurance.
For key management staff, the impact of losing nearly half the gains by way of tax and national insurance is significantly demotivating, given that such schemes are intended to motivate people towards wealth creation. I hope that the Government will reexamine the role of share option schemes in wealth creation in this country. I hope that they will look again not simply, as I believe was stated in the Budget report, at the corporation tax aspect of share option schemes but also at the employee end of such schemes.
As I said at the outset, I do not want to oppose the Bill, because it will provide necessary relief. But it is not a perfect measure. Reference has been made to its sheer complexity, and to Clause 3 in particular. It has confounded many technical experts, and I freely confess that it defeated me.
I should be glad if the Minister would respond to some detailed points on the application of the Bill's provisions. First, Clause 1(5) refers to regulations that the Inland Revenue will make regarding the notice to be given under Clause 1. When will draft regulations be published? The Minister will be aware that many companies need to know as soon as possible whether they can take advantage of the Bill's provisions and precisely how that can be done, as they will have only 92 days following Royal Assent both to give notice under the terms of the clause and to pay the amount calculated under Clause 2.
Secondly, why must the time limit of 92 days run from Royal Assent? That is linked to my previous question. If the regulations are not available in draft form at an early stage, companies may find these matters difficult to deal with once the Bill is enacted. Would it not be fairer to specify a time-limit which would run from the date when the regulations are published? The Inland Revenue has said that it intends to publish regulations immediately after Royal Assent; but what happens if it does not do so? If the Inland Revenue, for one reason or another, fails to meet that time-scale, it will automatically impact on the time that is available to companies in meeting their time-limits under the Act. Will the Minister say how the Inland Revenue intends to publicise both the existence of the regulations and the impact of Royal Assent—that is, when the 92-day limit runs out. For a company trying to run its business, it is hard enough to keep track on that business, let alone monitoring when Royal Assent is given to a Bill or when a government department has issued regulations.
Thirdly, will the Minister explain how unlisted companies are affected by the new provisions? Will all companies that are not listed at 7th November 2000

613
automatically be treated as resulting in a nil charge under Clause 2 as the shares are not "readily convertible assets"? If the Minister cannot give that assurance, will he say how he expects valuations to be completed and agreed within the 92-day period? In my experience, share valuations of unlisted companies are one of the most time-consuming activities for taxpayers, their advisers and the Inland Revenue. If there is no blanket exemption for unlisted companies, will the Minister confirm that all unlisted companies would be unwise to rely on the deemed notice provisions of Clause 1(6)? If it turns out that a liability should have arisen and no notice was given under Clause 1, the unlisted company's share options will not qualify for the Inland Revenue's discretionary extended deadline powers under Clause 2(5) because that clause requires a notice actually to have been given.
Fourthly, and lastly, will the Minister assist taxpayers and their advisers by requiring the Inland Revenue to publish a simple version, with worked examples of the how the roll-over provisions of Clause 3 are expected to apply? The provisions of this clause will be relevant in the calculation of share option gains long after the 92-day limit has expired. As I believe was stated earlier, this is very complex legislation. As I said, I do not wish to hold up the Bill, but if ever there were a candidate for the tax simplification skills demonstrated under the leadership of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, Clause 3 would be that candidate.
3.40 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their response to the Bill. I acknowledge its complexity; indeed, if it is beyond the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, what hope is there for the rest of us? Interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, concentrated the thrust of his remarks largely on process, rather than on the content of the Bill. I shall try to respond both to his points on process and to those on content.On the first point—namely, the way in which the Bill was programmed in another place—I am afraid that I am not really able to help the noble Lord. I believe that the rules on comity mean that it would be improper for me to comment on the procedures in another place. Of course, it is open to the Opposition to do so at any time, but it is not a matter for me. Such matters are for the authorities in the House of Commons.
The noble Lord's second point struck me as strange. He seems to think that this provision would put money through a stealth tax into the "Government's coffers", which, I believe, was the phrase that he used. I have to tell the noble Lord that the best estimate we can make is that the Bill will cost the National Insurance Fund £160 million in forgone national insurance contributions in future years. If the noble Lord wishes to count that as a stealth tax, I should point out that it is negative stealth tax. Indeed, when the noble Lord
614
enters into a general election process at any time, I believe that his campaign guide ought to take that into account. I give way.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, is it not the case that the overall effect of the Government's proposals in this area will produce a huge amount of revenue? All this provision will do is to give back a small amount in specific circumstances of great complexity. Further, surely the Minister can tell the House whether or not amendments that we make in this place to the Bill will simply pass through "on the nod" in another place, or whether they will receive proper consideration.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords; I cannot give the noble Lord an answer to his second point. That is a matter for another place. It would be quite improper for me to intervene. As to the noble Lord's first point, I should point out that this Bill will cost the National Insurance Fund £160 million. In those circumstances, it is inappropriate to talk about stealth taxes here today, regardless of what the noble Lord may wish to do at other times.
On a related point, the noble Lord asked me why this provision should not be included in a Finance Bill. The reason is the one that I have just given; namely, that this is a Bill that affects the National Insurance Fund rather than the Consolidated Fund. That is why the provision cannot go into a Finance Bill, which is a money Bill.
The noble Lord asked me whether there should be refunds when conditions change. I am not sure whether the noble Lord made the distinction, but there are two kinds of refund about which we could be talking. First, there are refunds for employees. The answer in that respect is yes; there certainly would be tax relief as for Class 1 contributions, which would be made through the self-assessment process. As for the second kind of refund—that for employers—the answer is no. Employers must make up their minds. That is why the longer period of 92 days has been agreed. They must make their best estimate of what is to their advantage. They have asked for this change to be made, and it is being made in response to requests from a significant number of employers.
We cannot have this provision in the form of a "movable feast", whereby employers are able to opt in and out as appears to suit them at the time, according to the state of their share price and what they believe that status might be in the future. So the answer there is no: employers must make a decision about what they think will happen to share prices and they must decide whether or not to take advantage of the opportunity. Indeed, it is no more than an opportunity, and one in which no one is obliged to take part. There is, of course, an element of risk involved for all employers. But it will not be the same element of risk for different employers. That is why we could not legislate in such a way as to remove the risk for all employers. In some cases it will be in different amounts.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised a point that was mentioned in another place about the burden on employees as regards share options. The previous

615
legislation introduced in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 allowed the employee to take on the employer's liability. That occurs only with the employee's consent, and does produce a higher marginal rate of income tax to 47.32 per cent after relief from income tax on the amount of the employer's national insurance contributions paid. But that option is not compulsory for employees. That is why no change is proposed to that provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, suggested that there may need to be further amendments on the roll-over provisions. However, he did not specify what they were likely to be. I shall await those amendments with interest and give them the due attention that they deserve.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for the tone of what he said; but part of my response to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, applies to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Clearly, one has to choose a date of some kind for crystallisation. The date that we chose was the day before the Pre-Budget Report was announced, and before these provisions were first made public. We could choose any other date that we wished: some dates would be advantageous to certain companies and disadvantageous to other companies, while other dates would be advantageous to a different set of companies and disadvantageous to others. There is nothing very much that we can do about the situation; that is the nature of share prices. It is called capitalism—or, indeed, is one of the effects of capitalism.
If we were to do what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested and change the date to that of Royal Assent, it would, first, be a date in the future and, therefore, would give rise to the possibility of avoidance; and, secondly, on the best estimate that we can make of the countervailing changes involved, it would cost the National Insurance Fund £100 million more. We are not prepared to follow that route.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for the detailed points that she made. I have to agree with her that it is indeed unapproved share schemes that are affected by the provision. I am interested in the noble Baroness's views on the wider issues, but I do not believe that they arise within the terms of the Bill. The noble Baroness asked me a number of specific questions about the regulations under Clause 1(5). The regulations will be published in draft next week. The likely contents of the required notification are already available on the Inland Revenue website. Under those circumstances, I believe that the noble Baroness's criticisms of the 92-day period and her fears that the publication of the draft regulations might be significantly later than that period can be assuaged. I believe that that also answers her question about publicity.
There is also the issue about how companies will know when Royal Assent takes effect. The Inland Revenue has written to all companies with unapproved share option schemes that have so notified the Revenue, as they should do. In the
616
mailshot and the press release, the Inland Revenue has offered to advise all companies that have expressed an interest when Royal Assent is received. Indeed, over 400 companies have already expressed that interest.
The noble Baroness asked me about the position of unlisted companies and whether all of them would be treated as not liable because the share options are not readily convertible assets. Where the shares or share options of an unlisted company are not readily convertible assets, the company will be deemed to have made a notice and the special contribution will be nil.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness about the difficulty of valuing the shares of unlisted companies, having been involved in running an unlisted company for many years. However, the shares in unlisted companies can be readily convertible assets and the company will then need to decide, like all other companies, whether or not to opt to pay a special contribution. A company does not have to have an agreed share option before it makes the payment; it is only required to pay an amount on a reasonable basis within the 92-day period.
The noble Baroness asked me whether there would be a simple version. Certainly I assure her that the Inland Revenue will publish a clear and simple guide with examples. Although I dread going back to the issue of IR35, my understanding of today's High Court judgment is that the legality of IR35 was upheld but that the Inland Revenue was taken severely to task for the quality of its guidance. Therefore, we have something to improve on there. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Local Elections
3.51 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement about the decision to defer the local government elections which were due to take place next month.
"On 3rd May elections for 34 English county councils and 11 English unitary authorities were scheduled and just under a fortnight later, on 16th May, elections for 26 district councils in Northern Ireland were also due.
"The House will, however, be aware of the considerable scale of the representations which we have received to defer these elections because of foot and mouth disease.
"As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has now made clear, we have listened very carefully to those representations.

617
"We judge that in terms of practical arrangements, polling in May would be possible, and would produce fair results. Following changes to the law brought into force on 16th February, postal votes in England and Wales are now available on demand to any voter. With, literally, a handful of exceptions, schools in which many polling stations are sited have remained open and operational in all foot and mouth disease areas. Forms of canvassing have changed. Telephone canvassing is now a key way in which voters are contacted by candidates and the political parties.
"We have taken careful note of the impact on tourism, and the message which any lengthy or indeterminate deferral might send out. But on the other side of the equation, there has been the need for national and, in some areas, local politicians to be focused on the fight against foot and mouth disease, as the necessary machinery to deal with any eventuality is put in place; and there have been the feelings and sensitivities of people in the communities most severely affected by this dreadful disease to be considered.
"Taking account of these considerations we have therefore decided that these local elections should be deferred for a short while—in the case of England and Wales, for a five week period from 3rd May to Thursday 7th June, and in the case of Northern Ireland, for a three week period. from 16th May, also to 7th June.
"Some district and borough council by-elections are due on 3rd May, and others could be held on each Thursday thereafter before 7th June. In these circumstances the Government believe it best if all by-elections in this period are also postponed until 7th June. In the timescale it is not practical to defer by-elections due before 3rd May.
"A Bill to ask this House, and the other place, to give effect to these deferrals will be introduced as soon as possible. As preparations for local elections on 3rd May and 16th May will have to continue until legislation for their deferral receives Royal Assent, it is plainly in everyone's interest that the legislation should be passed as quickly as possible.
"There are a number of detailed consequential matters which will have to be dealt with in the legislation. I shall therefore make arrangements for the opposition parties to have an outline of the draft legislation later today.
"The House will be aware that the cost of administering local elections falls on the local authorities concerned. In respect of the elections that were due to take place in May, local authorities have already incurred expenditure and will be obliged to go on doing so until the new Bill receives Royal Assent. We shall, accordingly, be taking powers in the Bill to compensate local authorities for expenditure legitimately and unavoidably incurred.
618
"Although nominations for the elections due on 3rd May do not close until tomorrow, some candidates may have incurred costs because of the deferral. These should be relatively small, but to cover this the maximum limit on candidates' expenses will be increased in the Bill by 50 per cent.
"The Bill will also provide that candidates validly nominated for elections due on 3rd May will not have to resubmit their nomination papers.
"Delaying elections is not a step to be taken lightly. Nevertheless, I hope the House will agree with me that a relatively short postponement of the kind I have set out is an appropriate response to the circumstances".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Before I sit down, it may be for the convenience of the House if I make a few comments about the handling of the Bill in this House. I understand that the Bill will be introduced in the Commons tomorrow and will arrive in this House on Wednesday evening. It has been agreed through the usual channels that we shall have Second Reading on Thursday and the remaining stages of the Bill will be taken next Monday, 9th April. The business which has already been published for those two days will be postponed until after the Easter Recess.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement today. As she rightly says, the decision to delay elections should not be lightly taken. We all agree with that.
However, the country will also be grateful that at long last the Prime Minister has come to acknowledge the gravity of the foot and mouth crisis. I assure the House that my party will co-operate in legislation that is required to postpone local elections and which will be a great relief to farmers in the affected areas and to those others right across the country who are living in fear of this disease.
The House will, of course, need time to scrutinise the legislation and some of the technical issues, including compensation, raised in the Statement. I am also grateful for the business statement that the noble Baroness has just made. I signal my agreement to it.
I welcome the fact that local authorities which have begun spending on elections will be compensated. But will the noble Baroness accept that legislation should be framed around taking the necessary powers to set a new date when it is clear it would be responsible to do so, rather than fixing one set date?
Can she say why it would be highly dangerous, as the Prime Minister said today, to delay local elections beyond 7th June but not beyond 3rd May? Would it not be more sensitive to country people to leave the election date open until it is clearer when the crisis might be resolved? Has she considered letting local elections go ahead earlier in some areas than in others in order not to burden people in the worst affected areas?

619
Does not all this demonstrate how out of touch the Prime Minister has been that it took appeals from the two most reverend Primates and the Leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties before he was prepared to postpone his general election plans? Only last Thursday, the Leader of another place, Mrs Beckett and a stream of Cabinet colleagues said that to postpone local elections would send a,
"very strong and very negative signal to the world".
Does not the Prime Minister's decision send such a signal? I assume that the noble Baroness thinks that it does not. If not, why not? What has changed since last Thursday? Has the Prime Minister suddenly woken up to the fact that the countryside is bleeding? Or was it simply that he had a visit from Mr Philip Gould and Miss Anji Hunter with their focus group reports?
While we acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has been working hard, is it not now clear that the Government have acted all along far too unimaginatively and far too late? Does not the noble Baroness agree that crucial time was lost in the first two weeks when, to keep open the option of an early general election, spin doctors were told to play down the crisis and the Minister boasted that it was under control?
Was not the failure to deploy the Army until nine days after we called for it a catastrophic delay? Was not that mistake compounded by the token nature of the early Army deployment? Why, despite the findings of the report by the Duke of Northumberland on the 1967 outbreak, did the Government persist in resisting burial and insist only on burning carcasses? Why was there such dithering about the concept of a firebreak of slaughter around acute outbreaks and why was action taken so slowly? What has it taken so long to reach a point of decision about vaccination? Indeed, when will the Government take a final decision on vaccination? Why did it take two weeks after we called for it for the Government to announce compensation for farmers and a week to announce rate relief for local businesses?
Ministers are right to say that industries other than farming, notably tourism, have been desperately affected by the crisis. What action do the Government intend to take to provide further support for the tourism industry? Will the noble Baroness allow a day, perhaps after the Easter Recess, for a debate in the House on the future of this vital national industry?
I hope that the noble Baroness will address one particular point. What will be the criteria for deciding to hold local elections in June when it was wrong to hold them in May? What will have to be different from today? Can she set out for the House the objective test that will make it safe to hold elections then when it is unsafe to hold them now? The Prime Minister said this morning that one of his key criteria was the feelings and sensitivities of local communities. For example, if people in Devon are still as worried in June, if the farmers in Curnbria are as threatened with ruin as they are today, will those factors no longer be relevant to the Prime Minister's thinking? If not, does that not
620
suggest that the Prime Minister's decision is more about looking good to focus groups than looking good to the countryside?
When and on what criteria will the Prime Minister decide that he no longer has to give his full attention to the crisis? When will he think it right for key Ministers to turn their backs on the crisis and start electioneering? When and why will there no longer be the need, as the Statement says, for national and local politicians to be focused on fighting the disease? And when will it be right for local communities to lose their elected voices? I hope that the noble Baroness can tell the House, therefore, the criteria against which the Cabinet has agreed to take that decision and what makes June right and May wrong.
Finally, does the noble Baroness accept that the postponement of the election makes a mockery of the way in which her noble friend the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms has been driving the House? The Government have been cutting corners in a drive to push too many Bills through before a May election. Now that Parliament is not, after all, to be cut short this Thursday, this House must be allowed to take the time it needs to review government Bills. On broader issues, will the noble Baroness promise time to debate the White Paper on rural affairs?
The Government's response to this crisis has veered from the complacent to the incompetent. No amount of spin can replace the wasted weeks or make good hopes and livelihoods broken or years of toil destroyed. But there is time now perhaps to make up with single-minded attention for the main failures in the Government's handling of the crisis so far. So long as the Prime Minister genuinely puts the country first, stops dithering and takes some of the overdue actions which we on this side of the House have long been calling for, he will have the support of the whole of this House. But no one will forgive a continuation of the incompetence, complacency and self-serving spin-doctoring that we have seen over the past few weeks and for which our countryside is now paying such a terrible price.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, from these Benches, I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement here. It is particularly appropriate to do so because there are now probably more noble Lords in this House than Members of the House of Commons with active or past service in local government. On Monday next, it will be appropriate to scrutinise the Bill carefully in Committee, Report and final stages to ensure that the expertise in this House is brought to bear on the detailed provisions.
I do not want to take part in another debate on the foot and mouth crisis and its tragic consequences or on rural affairs. These are very appropriate matters for the House to consider. However, at present we have before us a proposal for a Bill; and it is that Bill and the consequences for local government to which we should turn our minds.

621
In the Statement there is a plain admission that delaying elections is not a step to be taken lightly. That is what we should now focus on. Local elections have not been cancelled or postponed for over 50 years. I hope very much that postponement on this occasion will not be a precedent and that we shall wait at least another 50 years before it occurs again. The instrument of postponing democratic elections is well known in non-democratic countries. There is no fear that it is being done on that account now in this country. Nevertheless, fixed dates for elections, not to be changed by the government of the day whatever the circumstances, is a good principle. For that reason, I hope that the noble Baroness will make clear that it is not in this Government's mind that there shall be any repetition.
Inevitably, therefore, postponement should make us uncomfortable. But I should be even more uncomfortable if, as I understand the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, suggests, there were to be an open-ended commitment to local elections at an unspecified date in the future. That really would give the government of the day an opportunity which I think they should be denied. If governments have to make such a postponement, it is right that they should explain the position to the House and fix an alternative date which can be the subject of debate and not leave an open-ended commitment to hold elections when it may suit them best.
There has been a good deal of discussion—no one can complain about that—about whether the postponement of the elections, or holding them on 3rd May, would or would not be in the national interests or in the interest of any individual or political party. We must acknowledge that all those factors come into the minds of every Prime Minister faced with these very difficult decisions. It would be naïve to argue that Prime Ministers make decisions in the national interest except in so far as most of them identify the national interest with their own interest and that of their own parties. We should recognise that and not be hypocritical in present circumstances.
In the Statement, the arguments are put fairly for postponement of or carrying on with the 3rd May date. Indeed, if I were to weigh carefully in milligrams the arguments set out in the Statement I think that they marginally come down in favour of going ahead on 3rd May. But I think that that is a measures only of the dilemma in which the Prime Minister has been put. I agree that in the circumstances postponement makes the best sense.
I hope that the Bill will make progress. We shall help to see it through all its stages, provided—I make this absolutely clear—we are satisfied that the detail is right. In that respect, I make two suggestions. The first is that even in advance of Second Reading the noble Baroness and the Minister concerned seek to draw on the expertise of Members of this House who are willing to help get the Bill right before we enter Committee stage. Secondly, I hope that every step will be taken to ensure that the Home Office is on top of the detail and that clear, unequivocal statements are made by it and
622
the appropriate departments to those in local government who will be affected by the outcome. I refer not only to elected members of local authorities but all those officials in local government who will have difficult decisions to make. The detail is important. The Home Office is not invulnerable in such matters. I hope that it will do better this time.
4.9 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their recognition that this is a serious position and that a serious decision has been taken on the basis of the reasons that the Statement made very clear. The decision has been taken with great solemnity and a recognition of the seriousness of postponing democratic processes in this way.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for his support for those parts of the Bill that he mentioned. He referred to the expertise available in this House that could lend authority to our discussions even before the Bill comes here for Second Reading. I am sure that the Government will seek to facilitate that arrangement. During the morning I have asked for a list of those Members of this House who are directly affected by or involved in local elections. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is right that several among our number are directly affected and that others who may not be directly involved in these circumstances have been elected and will be important in lending their authority to any discussions on the Bill, which we must get right quickly to facilitate the process.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that this is not a time for another debate on foot and mouth. My noble friend Lady Hayman has reported regularly to this House with great authority and enormous attention to detail. I understand from my noble friend the Chief Whip that she has spoken six times on the subject in the past four weeks and, due to the efforts of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, will do so again on Wednesday. I therefore do not intend to respond to the general points about the foot and mouth situation, except in so far as it impacts on the serious decision that has been taken today.
As I said, the criteria on which the decision was taken were set out in the Statement. A short delay enables certainty. That certainty affects the planning for local authorities and candidates involved in local elections and is also necessary across the broader spectrum for those in the farming community and in the wider sphere of economic activity who may be directly or indirectly affected by foot and mouth disease. It is agreed that 7th June strikes the right balance between a delay that enables the Government to accelerate and to put in place further strategies and mechanisms to halt and combat the disease—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is aware that the Prime Minister has spent the greater part of his time on this problem in the past few weeks—and the uncertainties that would be caused by an open-ended delay. Again, I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that it would be extraordinary for

623
anyone to argue more than superficially in this House that it should be within the power of the executive to determine the date of elections by order.
We welcome the renewed attention to legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, promised from his Benches. The Government are delighted that already in this Session we have sent to the Commons eight major Bills without any defeats. We expect to continue to do the same in the additional weeks that are opened up to us.
It is not surprising that the Conservative Opposition should seek an open-ended delay and not to establish any date for elections. It is clear that they do not want an election at all.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness talked about certainty, but until a few days ago there was certainty about the elections being on 3rd May. She did not answer my question about the criteria that were set for delaying that timetable. Is 7th June now set in stone, or will that timetable be subject to delays if the same circumstances are around a month from now?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I did not say this in my original reply because I thought that the point was self-evident, but the noble Lord has made the mistake of assuming that there is an obvious and immediate connection between the date of a local election, which has to be set in stone for the reasons that we have discussed, and the speculation that he is hoping to pursue about the possible date of any general election. This Statement does not mention general elections. The criteria for the local elections are set out in the Statement.
As the Statement says clearly, there is no practical reason why the elections should not be held in May. But the decision has been taken to postpone them in order to ensure that the massive upgrading of the practical means and resources necessary to deal with foot and mouth disease are finally and firmly put in place and to take into account the sensitivities of those who are combating the disease in what one might call the front line. Those are sufficient matters, but they are not practical matters. The practical point is that the local elections could be held on 3rd May, as originally intended.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, will my noble friend the Leader of the House recognise that the clarity of the Government's Statement will be well accepted in the county of Cheshire, where we have a strong agricultural sector? Will she further recognise that we have a strong tourism industry and that any lengthy or indeterminate deferral of the elections could have a poor effect on the success of the tourism industry? Does she recognise that we require certainty, not the flights of the imagination given to us by the Leader of the Opposition?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I hope that the Statement has made it clear, as my noble friend
624
rightly suggests, that the concerns of the tourism industry are as important as the concerns of everybody else in other parts of the economy. I understand that the tourism industry has welcomed the certainty that my noble friend described. He is right that the open-ended uncertainty that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be suggesting as the appropriate way forward would cause great problems to everybody.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the more that the Leader of the House says about 7th June, the more she makes the case for holding the elections on 3rd May. It seems that the House is not to know the reasons for the change because there are no reasons for it other than those of political judgment.
On behalf of local government on this side of the House, I certainly welcome the Statement, particularly the points of detail about nomination and expenditure rules. Those are important points, because expenditure on printing comprises about 90 per cent of total expenditure in local elections. I know from inquiries that I have made at the office of my association—even though I have long been separated from the electoral process—that its election addresses are already printed. The association is facing an acute problem of overprinting, or reprinting, or perhaps an add-on. We shall need to consider the appropriate level of increase in election expenditure for candidates carefully in empirical terms. I hope that the Leader of the House will assure us that the Government's mind is not yet fixed on the issue, because we need to look at it in practical terms.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord, with his experience, for welcoming those parts of the Statement that refer to the practical details, which will be set out even more fully in the Bill than was possible in the Statement. That is one reason why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is anxious that Members of the Opposition parties should have an opportunity to look at the draft legislation at the earliest possible stage.
I know that those who are concerned with local elections spend the greatest amount of their money on printing. As I understand it, not only will many candidates already have published and printed their elections addresses, but local authorities may have already printed ballot papers. There will be compensation arrangements on those very practical but none the less very important matters. The current draft proposals contain provisions to compensate local authorities and to raise the expenses limit for candidates by 50 per cent. As I said, that will be a matter for considerable discussion at local level.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for her Statement today. I say that not just as a piece of parliamentary pleasantry but because, as a serving member of Suffolk County Council, I have a particular interest in the issue. I should like briefly to express in the strongest possible terms my opposition to the proposition made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that there should

625
be an open-ended delay. While of course I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Rodgers that there are profound democratic implications, my opposition is rooted in the practicalities of attempting to run a council.
Of course, because councils know how their cycles work, they plan their business accordingly. All types of systems and processes, such as budget setting, structure planning, and so on, are in place, based entirely on the proposal that a new council will be formed in May. While local authorities may have the flexibility to deal with a one-month change in the election date, an open-ended delay will cause all kinds of difficulties for those authorities. That should not be underestimated.
My second and final point is that many hundreds of councillors will not be seeking re-election in May. They may be prepared to hang on for another month or so but, beyond that, real difficulties will arise for people who have made arrangements to move on in their lives. If the delay is open-ended, we face the danger that certain areas will, in effect, be unrepresented. I suggest that that is not a tenable position.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, because she is a Member of this House who speaks from practical experience of involvement in the local elections on this occasion. The points that she makes are, of course, entirely relevant to the Bill. I am sure that some councillors—I hope that they will be only a small minority—will not want to serve for the extra five weeks. That is the time period that would be entailed in terms of the English elections, and it would be slightly shorter in relation to Northern Ireland. As I understand it, those councillors can resign at any point. However, it is hoped that they will be in a minority.
It may be of help to the noble Baroness and to the House if I explain another matter that was raised concerning the serving of a full four-year term by councillors elected on 7th June. I believe that the position at present is that, as the alteration in the election date is a one-off change, councillors elected on 7th June will serve only three years and 11 months. That may also be relevant to councils' planning. However, councillors who intend to stand down at the election will remain in office until the new election date, except for, it is hoped, only a minority who wish to leave before then.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, although I have the utmost sympathy with the Prime Minister in his dilemma over these elections, I say to my noble friend that among some of my colleagues there will be much disappointment that the local elections are not to take place on 3rd May. I certainly do not believe that there is a case for putting off the elections. Over 90 per cent of the people involved are resident in urban and not country areas. However, I understand the dilemma.
626
Together with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, I am concerned that a precedent may be set. I remind my noble friend that, even during the Falklands War, we did not put off the local elections. Therefore, so far as I can see, this is a most serious precedent. Although I am quite sure that the House will support these measures, I believe that we want some cast-iron assurances—I do not know how they can be given or whether they can be written into the Bill—that this is a one-off situation and that it will not be repeated, certainly by this Government. We want assurances that a Bill, or anything else, will not be drafted in such a way that a government of another political colour will be able to use it to their own advantage.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising again the historic significance and the seriousness of this decision. I can assure him that that was taken very much into account in coming to this particularly difficult decision. I agree that some local parties of all political persuasions would have been standing in readiness for the election which was about to take place but which was postponed. Having recently visited Swindon—my noble friend's parliamentary constituency when he was in another place—I know that his local party is in very good shape and is keen to undertake an election.
There will be disappointment. However, as I said, I believe that this serious, one-off decision was taken in accordance with the balance of concerns expressed in the Statement. Of course, my noble friend is right. The vast majority of areas in this country are still disease-free. I do not believe that we should underestimate the importance of that; nor, indeed, should we subscribe to the picture that is sometimes conveyed, for example, in television and radio coverage, of the whole country being devastated. Some areas are of course extremely badly affected, but the majority of the UK remains disease-free.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to clear up a confusion which seems to have entered into these exchanges. She and several noble Lords have stressed the importance of setting an exact date, and the constitutional monstrosity of not setting an exact date, for the county elections. She went along with the argument of the noble Lord behind her that, from the point of view of tourism, it is as though the world is waiting to find out the date of the Cheshire County Council elections and that people's decisions on whether or not to come here depend on that.
However, does that not represent a lot of shadowboxing? Does not the message to the farming community, to the countryside and to the people who may come to this country from abroad—we hope that they will do so—depend on the date of the general election? With regard to that, we are, of course, in precisely the position about which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and the noble Baroness tut-tutted. The situation is an open-ended one in which the Prime Minister, without even bothering about an order, can

627
decide the date. It is in relation to that that the criteria and the questions advanced by my noble friend are important.
As this is now a matter of public debate, and given the decision that the Prime Minister has taken today, are we not entitled to know a little more about the criteria on which he will choose the date of the general election? Given that the noble Baroness made it clear that there is no connection between what she said today and the date of the general election, can she lift the curtain a little on the really important decision?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am rather surprised that, with his extremely long experience in Cabinet government, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, should suggest that the setting of the date of the general election is something that can be arranged far in advance. He will know only too well that if a general election were to be called six months ahead, under the constitutional arrangements, which in this country are always somewhat more fluid than others might like, the machinery of government would, in a sense, almost grind to a halt. He will know that there is a period known in Whitehall circles as "purdah", and that during that period government cannot continue.
All the aspirations which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and others advanced for continuing apace with the legislative programme, for continuing with the process of government and for doing what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is most concerned about, which is to undertake the most significant and what he described as the "massive" upgrading of the effort against foot and mouth disease, would be inhibited.
Therefore, the noble Lord will know very well that it is the Prime Minister's prerogative, as it has been since time immemorial, not to announce the date of a general election and for the date of the general election to be, in a sense, disassociated even from the dissolution of Parliament. From the time that the Prime Minister goes to the Palace to invite Her Majesty the Queen to announce the date of the dissolution of Parliament, the machinery of government grinds down. I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish that to happen now.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to help us on this matter. Is she saying that the local elections will take place on 7th June, whatever the situation and whether or not the foot and mouth outbreak is under control?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can only—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I have not even given an answer yet. I do not see why the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, should intervene from a sedentary position. I can only repeat what I said in the Statement, which I believe is unequivocal. A Bill will
628
be introduced to postpone the date of the local elections to 7th June. That Bill will be debated and have its Second Reading here on Thursday.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that if we had more speeches such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the case for something to occur earlier than 7th June would be very strong? However, the one serious point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. Are the Government giving any consideration at all to removing the problems of the Prime Minister by having fixed-term elections? Is that in my noble friend's mind?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, whether or not that was in my mind is not relevant to whether or not it was in the Prime Minister's mind. I entirely take the point made by my noble friend Lord Barnett. Interestingly, he may remember that we discussed that matter at some length during the passage of the House of Lords Act. The Opposition were determined to castigate the Government over whether or not we should remove the Prime Minister's prerogative relating to the date of the general election. That, of course, was two years ago and it is not surprising that the position has since changed. I agree with my noble friend about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. All 1 can say—1 apologise for repeating myself—is that I suspect that he does not wish there ever to be a general election.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, what consideration have the Government given to a postponement of the national census?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the question of the national census has been examined and it has been agreed that it will go ahead at the end of April.
Earl Russell: My Lords, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I was reminded of the late lain Macleod's maxim that one does not shoot Santa Claus. Does the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal agree that a strong argument for what the Government have done is that one should not in a democratic society undertake electoral arrangements that do not enjoy the confidence of the opposition? Under these circumstances, does she agree that one might have expected a slightly more generous response from the Opposition? The fact that they introduced a number of extraneous matters leads me to wonder whether it would be relevant to mention, in relation to delays at the beginning of the outbreak, the reduction in the number of vets, which was referred to in the Anderson report. That reduction occurred largely under the previous government. Should we not be a little careful of each other's glasshouses?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Earl, as always, invites me to venture into complicated glasshouses. It is important to recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said at the start of his remarks that he would support the measures being undertaken

629
during the passage of the Bill. He said—his rights and responsibilities allow him to do this—that he might consider tabling amendments to the Bill but that he would not prevent the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The need to expedite that process is essential. Since the noble Earl mentions glasshouses, I am always rather amazed by the reaction of the party opposite when, in particular, my noble friend Lady Hayman gives a succession of extraordinarily authoritative and detailed statements. I compare that to the reaction to the work with which I was involved; that is, the response to the BSE episode some years ago.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is looking for a generous response, will she accept one from me? It is given unofficially. I congratulate her on rediscovering an irenic form of discourse which she had forgotten in recent times. Does she agree that when a decision is taken in the national interest—when the national interest is put before party—that is likely to do more to restore public faith in the political process than any other act? Does she also agree that we should not descend to the level of the media and attribute the basest motives to everyone in political life?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am always very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, and for his personal and political generosity. In this instance, he has stepped aside, as he often does, from what can be described as the "soundbite" exchange and has raised more important matters. As I have said twice in response to noble Lords, this has been a serious decision, taken, as everyone recognises, in an unusual context. There have been few examples of such decisions having to be taken. The fact that the Prime Minister took that step is a symbol of his wish to undertake national leadership—the noble Lord suggested that that was appropriate—rather than to concentrate on party political issues.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the surprising fact about the Statement is that it does not rely for its motive on the compelling reasons advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. They do not appear in it. The principal reason given was the,
"need for national and in some areas local politicians to be focused on the fight against foot and mouth disease, as the necessary machinery to deal with any eventuality is put in place".
That ties the decision entirely to foot and mouth disease. Does the choice of a date a month ahead mean that that "necessary machinery" will finally be in place?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, heard my right honourable friend the Prime Minister say this morning that he now has in place the mechanisms for a massive upgrading of the practical means and resources for dealing with the disease. He would obviously expect that to continue to have effect during the next three
630
weeks. The Statement does not refer in detail to the points rightly raised by the noble Baroness simply as a result of the shortage of time. I am sure that the noble Lord will have noticed that those points have been addressed by the officials and Ministers concerned. That was why I was in a position to respond to the noble Baroness in the way I did.

Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions) (Salary Related Contracted-out Schemes) Order 2001
4.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wonder whether I am going to keep a full House. Perhaps not!
I beg to move that the draft Social Security (Reduced Rate of Class 1 Contributions) (Salary Related Contracted-out Schemes) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved. I shall also speak to the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions, and Rebates) (Money Purchase Contracted-out Schemes) Order 2001 and the Social Security (Minimum Contributions to Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) Order 2001, which were also laid before this House on 1st March.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has a statutory duty to review the contracting-out terms at least every five years. The last full review was in 1996, with the rebates proposed then taking effect from April 1997. There was, however, an interim review of the contracting-out terms for money purchase schemes in 1998, which changed the level of rebate for the last three years of the current quinquennium.
The present review began last August when the independent Government Actuary issued a consultation paper. He took account of the responses that he received in preparing his report to the Secretary of State, who has accepted the Government Actuary's advice in his own proposals. They were laid before the House together with the three draft orders and the Government Actuary's report on 1st March.
A great deal has changed in the pensions landscape since that last full review in 1996. I remind noble Lords that the Government inherited a situation in 1997 where many people were heading for poverty in retirement even when they had been in work for most of their lives. Our pensions reforms seek to turn that situation around by helping those who can save for their retirement to do so in funded schemes and by concentrating state help on those who are least able to provide for themselves.
We are committed to supporting occupational schemes, which are one of this country's great pension success stories. However, not everyone has access to an occupational pension scheme. We are therefore

631
introducing stakeholder pension schemes from this April to provide a low-cost flexible means of saving in a private funded scheme for moderate and higher earners who do not have access to an occupational scheme.
In addition, we are reforming SERPS through the introduction of the state second pension, which will give more help to low and moderate earners (those earning between the annual lower earning limit and £21,600 in 1999 earnings terms). The state second pension is to come in from April 2002, which is the same time that the orders would take effect. The proposed level of rebate is based on the benefit that will he given up by contracting out of the state second pension and into a private scheme.
For low and moderate earners, the amount given up will vary according to whether someone is in an occupational or a personal pension scheme. That variation is taken into account in the orders. That different approach is what the pensions industry told us it would prefer when we consulted on the proposals for the arrangements for contracting out of the state second pension. It may make our calculations more complicated. However, noble Lords will know that computers can handle that.
What individuals need to know is that all the extra help in the state second pension for low and moderate earners will be available to those who contract out into a private pension through a combination of enhanced rebates and/or state scheme top-ups. This means that there should be no hard or difficult choices for people about whether to stay in or join a private pension scheme, in line with our long-term aim of increasing funded pension provision.
Turning to the level of rebates proposed in the orders, I should emphasise that they represent a significant increase in the level of rebate for all forms of contracting out. The Government Actuary advised increasing the rebate to take account, principally, of a reduction in the yield on both pre- and post-retirement investments and increased life expectancy. Other factors he has taken into account are related to the changing nature of the membership in contracted-out salary-related schemes; for instance, the increased average age of members and more female members. We accepted the Government Actuary's advice on all those matters.
In addition, we decided to raise the cap on the age-related rebate to money purchase schemes. The cap was agreed in 1996 and introduced in 1997 by the last government to restrain the cost on public finances and to discourage those who may not have sufficient time to benefit from a funded pension arrangement. Those reasons remain valid.
The cap is currently set at 9 per cent. Keeping it at that level would mean that those who will be around age 50 when these orders come into effect and who are currently contracted out, would have had to weigh up whether they would be better off contracting back into the state scheme. So we are proposing to increase the cap to 10.5 per cent. This means that all those currently contracted out can continue to be so.
632
The overall effect of these changes on the cost of the rebate—in terms of revenue foregone—is an increase of £1.4 billion in the first year, rising to an extra £2.2 billion_by the end of the five-year period; in other words, approximately £10 billion. Those are sizeable increases. By comparison I invite noble Lords to consider the rebate for contracted-out salary-related pension schemes. The current total flat-rate reduction in national insurance contributions is 4.6 per cent of earnings between the lower and upper earnings limits. The proposed increased rate is 5.1 per cent. At first sight that is an increase of 0.5 per cent. but in fact it is much more than that.
The rebate is based on the value of the state benefit given up. For occupational schemes that continues to be assessed against what SERPS would have been if it had continued, with all the extra help for low and moderate earners being delivered through state scheme top-ups. Now, as noble Lords will know, the previous government progressively reduced the value of SERPS for everyone reaching state pension age in the current decade and beyond. So, had there been no change in the Government Actuary's assumptions (and no increase in the cap on age-related rebates) the level of the flat-rate rebates would have fallen—from 4.6 per cent to 4 per cent—because the value of the SERPS benefit given up would also have fallen for those reaching state pension age some time in the future.
Therefore, the real increase is from 4 per cent—that is, the real value of what that would have meant—to 5.1 per cent, or an increase of more than a quarter in the level of the rebate for salary-related schemes. We have decided that all of the increase in the flat-rate rebate for occupational schemes is to go to employers in recognition of the benefits provided by those schemes. Those increases take the total cost of rebates to £10.3 billion in the first year and £12.8 billion at the end of the five-year period in terms of revenue forgone.
We are aware that there may be those who wish the Government Actuary had gone further. There are those who take a pessimistic view of future yield on investments, and those who use only the time period and figures which support their own arguments. But the rebates, and the sizeable increase proposed, are a substantial current cost on public funds. Of course, they reduce future liability of the state to pay unfunded pensions, and we want to encourage more people to move into funded pensions, but it is still the case that they must be paid for now.
We have a duty to balance the needs of current and future pensioners. In the course of this Parliament we have committed a further £8.5 billion to helping today's pensioners. Now we are proposing to increase the amount going into building up funds for future pensioners by an extra £9.9 billion over the five years from 2002. We remain committed to encouraging private pension provision. We have fully accepted the Government Actuary's recommendations on increasing the level of rebates for those who contract out of the state scheme from April 2002 (when the state second pension is introduced). The orders are a fair reflection of the value of the state scheme benefits given

633
up. They also strike a balance between public finance considerations and the interests of contracted-out schemes and their members.
In the light of that explanation, I commend the orders to the House and hope for their approval.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
4.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I must first declare an interest as the chairman of an occupational pension scheme which is to some extent affected by these orders. Secondly, I agree with the Minister that it would be helpful to speak to the three orders together although there are some variations between them and some aspects do not apply to all three.
I note with interest the way in which the Minister said that there is no need to worry about the complexity; the computer will cope with it. She managed to say that with a straight face which, after the past four years of listening to the noble Baroness on many occasions, I find intriguing.
At all events, these are important orders and reflect the fact that the private sector's funded schemes are important. Throughout, the Government stressed that they believe they are a great success story and should be encouraged. Indeed, I was surprised by a statement by Mr Jeff Rooker, whom we shall all miss in his ministerial role, in speaking perhaps for the last time on these matters in the House of Commons on these orders on 20th March, when he said,
"We remain committed to encouraging private pension provision. Our big picture plan is to shift from 60 per cent./40 per cent. ratio to 40 per cent./60 per cent. ratio in public and private provision".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/3/01; First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, col. 7.]
Given that statement, which is important, are we to understand that the Government's intention is that the structure of rebates shall encourage people to contract out of the national scheme rather than contract in?
As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, this is part of the five-year review. There was an interim review but that related to provisions in the Budget rather than the usual five-year review. So the matters we are now considering are a review since April 1997 and will come into effect, as she rightly says, in April 2002. That being so, it spans the period between when rebates are related to SERPS and when they are related to the second state pension.
There is therefore a large structural change underlying these affairs during the period under consideration. I notice that the noble Baroness continues to refer to the change as being a "reform" of SERPS. As the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, is not here, she will not be contradicted in that respect, nor reminded by her, though she will be by me, that this clearly involves a broken election pledge. The Government said that they would maintain SERPS, whereas quite clearly the state second pension is somewhat different.
634
The noble Baroness referred to stakeholder pensions, as did Mr Rooker in the debate to which I referred. It is right that stakeholders should not be treated differently from similar non-stakeholder pensions. It is right that the rebate should be the same, whether or not it is a stakeholder system. When we were discussing the underlying Bills which introduced the stakeholder pension and the state second pension, we referred to "decision trees". I gather that decision trees have been produced to enable people to consider the question whether they should take out a SERPS or some other pension arrangements.
Two points arise in that regard. I understand that the Financial Services Authority has had problems in building into the decision tree the initial decision as to whether or not someone should contract out. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell me whether that is so. It seems to me that any such decision tree ought to begin by saying whether one should contract out.
I have seen a great deal about stakeholder pensions in the press recently. The Government are engaged in promoting them in a big way. To what extent is there a warning, so that we avoid mis-selling again, in that people might contribute to a stakeholder pension and then find that the minimum income guarantee is uprated in line with earnings rather than prices and, having contributed to a stakeholder pension, they would find at the end of the day that they receive no benefit? The noble Baroness shakes her head. Perhaps she can tell me whether that is being made clear to people who might be considering stakeholder pensions.
I turn now to the specific question of the size of the rebate. What I am not really clear about is the extent to which the orders we have before us today are the result of the Government Actuary's report or the result of the Secretary of State's decision. Both the Government Actuary's report and the Secretary of State's commentary have been published. As a result of the publication of those two documents a number of expert commentators have come to the conclusion that, despite what is obviously in absolute terms an increase in the amount of the rebates, the overall effect of these orders will either be neutral in the sense that they do not encourage people to contract out, which would seem to be contrary to the policy statement made earlier by the noble Baroness or alternatively, they will encourage people in certain age groups and circumstances, having contracted out, to contract back into SERPS. I understand that that is not what the Government intend.
Perhaps I may give another example. A member of William Mercer, which is well respected in this field, said that the effect of the new rates means that a 25-year-old man earning £30,000 a year would be £300 a year worse off in retirement by opting out of SERPS until the next review of rebates. I believe that Scottish Equitable has also gone on record to say that the effect of the figures in these orders will be either to discourage people from contracting out or even to encourage them to contract back in. The National Association of Pension Funds has expressed a similar view. I am genuinely puzzled. I do not know whether

635
what they are saying is correct or not and whether the proposals in the orders will have the effect which is said by those outside experts to be the result of the Government's figures. It would be very helpful if the noble Baroness could clarify that particular point.
The other point she mentioned is the cap. I am not sure whether that also has a perverse effect in relation to government policies. I said at the beginning that the orders are not precisely the same in each case. As I understand it, the cap applies only in the case of the money purchase contracted-out schemes and will be raised as a result of these orders. Overall, the rebates need to be preserved. I certainly share the view, which is declared government policy, that we ought to encourage private schemes rather than use the rebate mechanism in such a way that it becomes counterproductive and, instead of encouraging contracting out and the move towards funded schemes, has the reverse effect. I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness can, from the detailed analysis, clarify the situation as far as that point is concerned.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, actuaries practise an arcane science, which largely involves looking into crystal balls. The results are incomprehensible to the rest of us and for that reason, if for no other, I would not want to dispute or disagree with anything in the Government Actuary's report. I also have no objection to the first of these orders relating to salary-related contracted-out schemes. However, the other two orders raise the issue of the cap about which I have serious concerns.
As I understand it, the effect of age-related rebates is to pay on behalf of employees in each year an amount which, when topped up with reinvested income from the rebate, will produce at retirement an amount of income equal to the SERPS or SSP entitlement, which would have been earned by the contributor for the year in respect of which the rebate was paid. Owing to the longer period in respect of which income can be reinvested, the amount of the rebate needed to achieve that objective is therefore much smaller for younger earners than for older ones. The Government Actuary's tables show that for a 16 year-old the amount of rebate needed in 2002–03 as regards a money purchase or stakeholder scheme, or an appropriate personal pension, would be 2.6 per cent of relevant earnings whereas for a 58 year-old the amount needed is 19.1 per cent.
However, there is a cap on rebates which the Government propose to retain although they are proposing to increase it from 9 per cent to 10.5 per cent. The Government explain that the reason for the cap is to limit the burden on public expenditure. However, the result of the cap is that most earners from the mid-50s to the age of 65 will receive a rebate which is insufficient to provide a pension for that year and is equal to the SERPS entitlement.
At present there is a solution of a kind to that problem. The earner can opt back in to SERPS when he or she reaches the age of 50-plus and give up the rebate. If someone does that, the effect on the public finances is only on cash flow in effect. The rebate is tax
636
revenue forgone now, but it is replaced by higher spending on SERPS or SSP later. But the need to opt back in to SERPS to maximise the pension adds to the complication of the pension scheme, and many earners will lose out by not opting back in at all or by doing it at the wrong time. Therefore, the cap is detrimental to earners even now when there is a possibility of opting back into SERPS. I wonder how much the cap now saves in revenue after taking into account the additional cost to SERPS or SSP in future.
I believe that there is a more serious problem which is that the situation will become significantly worse when we move on to the second stage of the state second pension and that becomes a fixed amount pension. It ceases to be an earnings-related pension because people who opt out of an SSP into a stakeholder pension will find that in later years their rebate is capped and, once we move on to the second stage of the SSP, they will not be able to escape the effect of the cap by opting back into the state second pension. At that stage the operation of the cap could become seriously unfair. Have the Government any plans in the long term to raise the cap further or preferably to phase it out altogether? I believe t hat it is a matter of real concern.
In theory, there is an alternative way of reducing the burden on public expenditure without causing hardship to anyone. That would be to pay lower rebates for men than for women to take into account the fact that the longer life expectancy of women makes their pensions more expensive. According to the actuary's report, the equality legislation makes that impossible. If so, that is an unfortunate and perhaps an unintended side-effect of the equality legislation.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments on these orders. I shall start with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He pointed out that the first time he came across the 40 per cent/60 per cent shift was when he read the speech of my right honourable friend Mr Rooker. That surprised me because the move from 60 per cent/40 per cent to 40 per cent/60 per cent was part of the background of the discussion of last summer in relation to previous pensions Bills in your Lordships' House. On the one hand we were seeking to encourage greater provision into pension funds as a savings vehicle; on the other hand we were seeking to develop such matters as stakeholder pensions for people currently reliant on schemes like SERPS Those who are somewhat higher earners would turn to stakeholder pensions and, therefore, private funded schemes. The remarks of my right honourable friend were made in that context and in the context of the discussions on earlier issues. I had certainly thought that that was part of the general currency.
The noble Lord also asked whether, as a result, rebates would encourage contracting out. He referred to the Government's "big picture". It is fair to say that rebates are intended to be a reflection, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, of the value of the state

637
pension that is forgone when a person contracts out. It is not meant to influence behaviour or to load it in one direction rather than another. It is meant to produce a fair playing field. Contracting out may not necessarily be the best option for everyone. However, we believe that rebates will not discourage contracting out or encourage contracting back in.
The noble Lord asked specific questions about how the decision may be made.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, is the matter of rebates a separate issue from the matter of the cap?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall turn to that in due course. The noble Lord then asked about the FSA decision trees and so on. Whether contracting out makes good sense or not will depend on individual circumstances. At this point people may want to consult a financial adviser and take professional advice for which they have to pay.
Alternatively, they could ask a stakeholder scheme provider for a comparison with the state pension scheme that is to be given up and the possible replacement pension that they may receive in a private arrangement. Those illustrations will be on the basis of a projection approved by the FSA. I hope that answers the points in relation to stakeholder decision trees.
The noble Lord went on to say that he was concerned as to whether the schemes were viable in terms of the amount of rebate. That is what I would call the Mercer point: a 25 year-old man earning £30,000 a year will have £300 a year less pension. It is a matter of the actuarial assumptions and whether they are correct.
I am not surprised that the funds argue for an increased rebate over and beyond what we propose. The advice that I have taken suggests that in that respect a fairly pessimistic set of assumptions is being employed. I am not surprised by that, but the Government Actuary advises that to accept the pessimistic assumptions of the firm of William Mercer and others quoted by the noble Lord would be equivalent to the rebate being invested to earn only half a per cent a year more than the rate at which earnings increase and before applying the annual 1 per cent charge. If that were the case, there would be a negative state.
I do not believe that that is the case. I believe I am right in saying that there is something like a 2 per cent gap. Actuaries may disagree about what will happen to financial economic conditions in the future, but despite the advice given us by the Government Actuary, a more pessimistic outcome appears to develop in line with the situations suggested by the noble Lord as drawing on the advice of William Mercer. Although legislation requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the level of rebates at least every five years, having taken advice from the Government Actuary, that does not preclude him from reviewing matters and reporting to Parliament at shorter intervals if circumstances require.
638
In 1998 there was an intermediate review of rebates and money purchase schemes that changed the level of rebates for those schemes for the last three years of account of the five-year period. That change was prompted by developments in the July 1997 Budget and the changing nature of occupational money purchase schemes.
There is plenty of opportunity to make correction, if we need to, should the Government Actuary's assumptions be wrong. Certainly the best advice I have received—for the purposes of this debate I checked this matter—is that the views quoted by William Mercer and other firms seem to be extraordinarily pessimistic because effectively they suggest a negative return on pension investment which seems to me improbable.
The noble Lord asked about stakeholders and MIG and whether we were giving advice that stakeholders could produce a sufficiently low return that would be overtaken by MIG and therefore it would not be worth doing. This was part of an earlier debate. I was trying to mouth to him that the whole point of the pension credit system—we are hoping to bring forward legislation as soon as appropriate—is that it will overcome the difficulty that over a period of nine years or 13 years, whatever your assumption, you could fall back on MIG despite modest savings.
So—if I may trespass on to an area that we have yet to explore in greater detail—for a single person on an income of up to £135 or a couple on up to £200, you would assume a MIG level of £100—an income of £100—and then people would keep 60 per cent of the private occupational pension that they had, including stakeholders, up to a figure of £135 for a single person and £200 for a couple. The pension credit is therefore an additional building block on top of the MIG sum, and the problem identified by the noble Lord should not arise.
During the passage of the Bill I was pressed hard on this issue. Pension credit is designed precisely so that those who are nearly poor—just above the MIG lines—and those who are penalised for having small savings will now find that they will enjoy a much enhanced pension.
I turn to the issue of the cap, which was the substance of the remarks of both noble Lords. First, I shall make some general points. The cap on age-related schemes was introduced to protect public funds. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, identified that without it rebates could be as high as 19.1 per cent, although I understood the figure to be 19.5 per cent, relevant earnings for someone aged 58 being some kind of notional value of state benefit given up. In turn, that could act as a perverse incentive for someone of that age to contract out into an inappropriate pension arrangement. The increase set out in these orders protects those who already have contracted out of a personal pension so that they are not faced with the dilemma of deciding whether they should contract back in to the state scheme.
We have then to decide whether to continue to increase the cap. We are dealing with quite a small number of people. My understanding is that the cap

639
affects about a quarter of a million people compared with about 4 million people receiving age-related rebates at the moment. That relates only to those already contracted out of personal pensions who are aged 50 to 55 during the five years beginning 2002; it is not an issue for younger workers because of the changes made by the previous government to the SERFS accrual scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked about the implication of moving to the flat rate at the stage of the state second pension. We have said that when SSP becomes a flat rate that will apply only to those with a significant part of their working life ahead of them—for instance. those aged 45 or below at the point of change. That group would not be affected by the cap because the value of the state scheme benefits given up would have been affected by the declining value of SERFS.
I hope that that is a satisfactory answer for the noble Lord, given our current information. I hope I have done my best to answer the questions. I shall be happy to follow up in correspondence any particular details that noble Lords may want to explore subsequently. With those explanations, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to agree the orders today.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can she set out in a letter the saving to the public funds of the cap, given that it now affects only 250,000 people?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Minimum Contributions to Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) Order 2001
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Breach of Community Order) Regulations 2001
5.11 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighamrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
640
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the regulations, I shall speak also to the Motion tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Sections 62 to 66 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act allow specific benefits to be reduced or withdrawn from community sentence defaulters. Where a court has determined that a person has failed to comply with the requirements of a designated community sentence, these sections allow the Secretary of State to impose a benefit sanction by reducing or withdrawing specific benefits and training allowances.
The provisions were debated at length during the passage of the Bill and I do not intend to return to the arguments today. However, the Act inevitably left much of the detail to secondary legislation. The regulations before the House today provide that detail. But before outlining the contents of the regulations, I should like to spend some time describing how we shall introduce the provisions on a practical level.
It was always our intention to pilot and evaluate the measures before making any decision to extend them on a national basis. I can confirm, therefore, that these pilots will start in October this year and will last for one year. For an offender to be included in the pilots, he must come under the supervision of the probation service in one of the four pilot areas. Using figures supplied by the Home Office, we do not expect more than 3,000 claims over the year of the pilot exercise.
How will the pilot schemes operate? The first point to emphasise is that each offender will have ample opportunity to comply with the terms of his order before any consideration is given to imposing a sanction. He will know well in advance that his benefit is at risk if he breaches, having been initially warned by the court at the time of sentencing about the possible consequences of failing to comply with the community order. This warning will be reinforced by his probation officer when he commences his order.
It is for the probation service to determine when an offender should be returned to court for breach proceedings. Under national standards for the supervision of offenders in the community, offenders must be returned to court no later than a second unacceptable failure to comply. The probation service uses its professional judgment as to what is an acceptable or unacceptable failure, within Home Office guidelines.
Once the referral to court has been made. the first step is for the probation service to notify the Benefits Agency that the offender has been referred to court for breach proceedings. When the agency receives this information, it will issue a warning letter to the offender irrespective of whether he is on one of the affected benefits or not. This letter will advise that, if the court goes on to determine that he has been in breach of the order and he is in receipt of one of the relevant benefits or training allowances, he will incur a benefit sanction. In this way, the offender is made aware once again of the link between compliance with his community sentence and benefit receipt.
If the court then goes on to determine that an offender is in breach of the terms of his community nity sentence, the probation service will notify the Benefits

641
Agency again. The agency will then undertake a check to confirm that the offender is in receipt of one of the relevant benefits or training allowances at that time.
There is no element of discretion about the imposition of the benefit sanction. If a court deems that an offender is in breach, then a sanction must be imposed. If the offender is not in receipt of one of the relevant benefits when the check is made, the Benefits Agency will retain the notification and check on a weekly basis for a further four weeks to see whether a claim is made. If the offender does make a claim in this period, the sanction will be applied for the remainder of the four-week period from when it would have started had a claim been held.
I turn to the pilots and evaluation. We fully intend to conduct a full and independent evaluation of the policy. A competitive tendering exercise has awarded the contract to an independent Oxford-based research organisation. Perhaps I may take a little time to detail the main aims of the evaluation. First, we want to assess the operational impact on the Benefits Agency, the probation service and the Employment Service. How do we best ensure good liaison between the parties involved? What are the implications for staff? Are there resource implications? By examining how the measures operate in practice, we will identify any improvements needed in procedures.
Secondly, we want to examine the behavioural impact of the sanctions on offenders and others involved. For example, do the benefit sanctions encourage greater compliance with community sentences or more active job-seeking?
These regulations provide the detail for the imposition of a benefit sanction for those offenders under particular community sentences and in receipt of specific benefits or training allowances.
Regulation 2 prescribes which training allowances, paid under Section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973, are affected by these provisions. These are the programme known as Work-based Learning for Adults and the New Deals for the unemployed. Some types of payments under Section 2 of the Act, such as those payable in employment zones, are excluded from these provisions.
Regulation 3 prescribes the period during which a breach of community order sanction is to apply to a person. It prescribes the commencement date and duration of the sanction period, both for those in receipt of one of the prescribed benefits at the time when the Secretary of State is notified of the court's decision and those who claim those benefits during the period in which the sanction may be applied. For the pilots, the benefit sanction will be imposed for four weeks.
Regulation 4 prescribes the percentage reductions to be applied to the amount of income support payable to a person during the period of a sanction; sets out the minimum amount of benefit which is to remain in payment; and provides for the rounding of amounts and for the date on which changes in the rate of benefit payable are to take effect. Income support is not
642
withdrawn from an offender incurring a sanction under these provisions. It is reduced by 40 per cent of the single adult rate unless the claimant or a member of the family unit is either pregnant or seriously ill when the reduction is limited to 20 per cent of this reduction.
Regulation 5 prescribes that, where one member of a joint-claim couple is determined to have breached a community sentence, the offender is sanctioned on his or her part of the benefit while the "innocent" member continues to receive his or her part of the benefit entitlement provided that this person continues to meet the conditions for receipt of jobseeker's allowance and is not subject to a benefit sanction in his or her own right.
Regulations 6 to 11 prescribe the circumstances in which a person who is determined to have breached a community sentence is to be treated as a person in hardship and, therefore, entitled to apply for a reduced rate of income-based jobseeker's allowance. These provisions largely replicate the existing hardship provisions in the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996.
Hardship payments are likely to be made where the offender has no alternative source of finance and is likely to suffer hardship as a result of the imposition of the benefit sanction. Offenders in defined vulnerable groups can apply for a hardship payment immediately. These groups encompass family units where a member is pregnant, sick or disabled or where there are children. Where the offender or his family's personal circumstances do not include one of these categories, he may apply for a hardship payment two weeks after the sanction has been applied. A hardship payment is assessed by deducting 40 per cent of the single person's allowance from the overall benefit entitlement, or 20 per cent if the offender or a member of his family comes within a vulnerable group.
Payments relating to employment programmes, which will continue in payment during this period of a sanction under these provisions, are disregarded in the assessment of resources available to the individual or family where a claim for hardship payment is made.
Regulations 12 to 17 make similar provision to those in Regulations 6 to I1 in relation to the payment of hardship payments to members of joint-claim jobseeker's allowance couples. These provisions largely replicate the existing provisions in the Jobseeker's Allowance (Joint Claims) Regulations 2000.
Regulations 18 to 20 provide for the exchange of information from the probation service to the Benefits Agency from the initial notification of the start of breach proceedings to the reimbursement of benefit if the offender successfully appeals against the court determination.
Regulation 18 requires the probation service to provide to the Secretary of State in writing certain information relating to the offender as soon as information alleging a failure to comply with a relevant community order has been laid before the court. This will enable the Benefits Agency to send a

643
warning letter. Regulation 19 requires the probation service to provide to the Secretary of State in writing certain information relating to the offender as soon as a court has determined that a failure to comply with a relevant order has occurred. Regulation 20 requires the probation service to provide to the Secretary of State in writing certain information relating to the offender as soon as a court has quashed or set aside on appeal an earlier determination that a failure to comply with a relevant order has occurred. Regulation 21 allows information relating to community orders or social security to be retained and used for the purposes of evaluating and monitoring the effect of this particular benefit sanction and for the purposes of maintaining statistics. This is to allow the evaluation to be carried out.
These regulations set out the details of how the linking of entitlement to benefits with compliance with community sentences will work in practice. The benefit sanction underlines that rights to benefits should be matched by responsibilities to society, and that includes the condition of entitlement to benefit. It makes it clear that rights to support from the state are conditional on offenders fulfilling their wider obligation to society to comply with their community sentences.
Finally, I confirm that these regulations are compatible with the rights and freedoms under the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend these regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to speak to the Motion which stands in my name, which states:
"That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the Social Security (Breach of Community Order) Regulations 2001 and lay new regulations which may only be brought into force by a further order which shall be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament".
The Minister said that she would speak to it, but I did not hear that she had very much to say about it. From our past exchanges I believe that the Minister is aware what it is that I want to know. My complaint here is that the proposal involved in these regulations for benefit sanctions on those who are in breach of community orders is based on insufficient information. We want sufficient information before we can decide whether any such measure can be justified or defended.
I hope that the Minister may be able to provide at least a little assistance on the first matter. I should like to know with more precision exactly what information will be collected in the course of the pilots. I should like to know what income those who are subject to these sanctions will have left to live on. I have here the Home Office circular which says that the object includes,
"to examine the impact on offenders' compliance with sentence requirements, offending behaviour, claiming behaviour, compliance with training schemes, financial circumstances, and to assess any additional cost that the scheme incurs".
644
That is very mildly encouraging, but your Lordships will agree that the focus is much more on addressing offending behaviour than the financial circumstances of the claimant. It is an extremely imprecise reference. If the Minister were able to flesh that out a bit and provide a little more precision I would find it extremely helpful.
We also want to know what kind of effect such sanctions are likely to have on the behaviour of the person who suffers them; namely, whether, as has been suggested by many people before, they tend to increase rather than reduce crime. I hope we all agree that if the measures that we are discussing increase rather than decrease crime, to that extent they are misguided. We should like to know the effect on the health of those concerned. Can the Minister tell us how many people subject to the pilots will be checked out if they disappear from the records? If they vanish will t hat fact be recorded? Will the pilots say that x percentage of people could not be traced? Will the pilots record what percentage of the people concerned became homeless? If the Minister is able to reply "yes" to all those questions it will be extremely helpful.
I also draw attention to two items reported in this morning's Independent. One is a Private Member's Bill to be introduced by Mr Woolas, Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, which proposes to deprive people of social security benefits, including housing benefit—therefore, on a much wider basis than these regulations—for failure to include their names on the electoral register. I should welcome an assurance that the Government will give no support to any such Private Member's Bill. It rather suggests what I have feared for some time; namely, that the tendency to deprive people of social security benefits for any behaviour that we happen not to like is in danger of becoming addictive. That is something which needs attention.
The second matter is a press release put out today by the National Association of Probation Officers. The association advises its members to refuse to impose this sanction because it believes its effect is likely to be to increase crime. I have the press release here and, if she wishes, I can show it to the Minister afterwards. The position of someone in the public service who is asked to do what he believes to be wrong in terms of his own professional standards is an extremely difficult one. Everyone who has been in public service since the process of centralisation began in 1988 has experiences which lead him to sympathise. Speaking for myself, I would consider resigning from my profession rather than directly disobeying a lawful command. But in those circumstances I must ask the Minister for an assurance that if any members of the probation service resigned rather than comply with this measure they would not suffer the penalty of voluntary unemployment. I believe that that is a point of some importance.
As the Minister pointed out, this is a mandatory sentence and there is no element of discretion in this measure. There was no blush on her face as she said it, and I was sorry to observe that fact. When we engaged on this matter in the Social Security Fraud Bill the

645
Minister attempted to argue that the research that we wanted carried out was impossible. I have consulted my honourable friend Professor Webb, whose expertise in matters of social policy research will be recognised by the Minister, as indeed I recognise hers. My honourable friend dealt with the Minister's point that in relation to the Social Security Fraud Bill one would have too small a sample. He said that there was no objection whatever to testing the effect of sanctions on a rather larger sample of those who had experienced it. Under the New Deal in the quarter January to March 1999, 4,636 people were sanctioned. At the end of that quarter there was a total of 48,750 subject to sanctions. I do not believe that even the Minister asked for a sample quite as large as that. It would be perfectly easy to take that sample, or some part of it, and assess the effect. That would create a rebuttable presumption that the effect in this case might be similar.
If the Minister wished to rebut that presumption she would have to find a way to do research on the present sample. I observe the noble Baroness to shake her head, but if she cannot get the information that we need to evaluate this matter she should fall back on the good traditional maxim "when in doubt, don't". The Department of Social Security has always said that it monitors the consequence of every measure that it introduces. If it cannot monitor the consequence of this one it should not do it.
The Minister invoked hardship payments, as one was sure she would. I simply do not understand how anybody can suffer a loss of 40 per cent of benefit without being in hardship. If that is possible, benefit levels are 40 per cent too high. One cannot see even the Treasury recommending that one should go before the electorate and defend a 40 per cent cut in the overall levels of benefit, especially in the light of the arguments of the Acheson Report that the present levels are too low.
Mr Harry Fletcher argues on behalf of the National Association of Probation Officers that,
"the only alternative source of income will be begging or stealing. This will increase crime".
There is research accessible to the Government which suggests that there might be something in that. Ministers have referred me over and over again to research reports 15, 18 and 86 of the Department for Education and Employment. There is no quantitative information in those reports. There are a series of impressionistic comments and general reflections.
I have in my hand a quotation from someone who had been disentitled. He said:
"They're asking for trouble, they're asking for people to steal".
That is not, by itself, a research finding, but it creates a research question that calls for a research answer. We have a study of 16 and 17 year-olds in South Glamorgan, published in 1994. It was an in-depth study of a sample of 26, of whom 20 had become criminal—four of them on a full-time basis. I admit that that was a total disentitlement, and not a 40 per cent disentitlement, so the effect could be different.
646
But that is a question on which information should be available to us. It seems to me a lamentable lack of curiosity that that information is not there.
It is also suggested in those research reports that to a great extent what happens is that people borrow from relatives, friends and other people. That may well be the case. If so, it underlines the point I have made many times that we need information on the level of debt among those on social security benefit. It also raises what I find rather the more worrying reflection that the impact of these sanctions may weigh quite disproportionately on the solitary. The solitary and misfits are over-represented anyway among those on social security. If they experience a degree of hardship which others with stable families do not, that may well have a discriminatory effect which I do not believe is what the Government intend. But if that is what they are doing, they ought to know.
We shall be told in return a great deal about rights and responsibilities. We are dealing with the question of how severe the effect of the sanctions may be. The Minister will agree that the right to life is a human right. It is not contingent on the discharge of responsibilities. Since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, played such a distinguished part in approving the protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, the death penalty in this country has been illegal, without any reference to responsibilities. I supported that and I applauded it, as did many on the Government Benches. The right to eat is a human right. It is not contingent on responsibilities. Convicted prisoners enjoy it; convicted terrorists enjoy it. If the Minister says that what we are debating is on a quite different level, that is an evidential proposition which she must be prepared to quote evidence to sustain. I hope that she will agree to do so. If she does not, she will be taking a very large leap in the dark in a way which I regard as incompatible with the Department of Social Security's high standards of respect for evidence.
I look forward to the noble Baroness's reply. Whatever happens, in the not too far distant future this issue, in one form or another, must go before the voters. I shall listen to them with great interest, as I shall to the Minister.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, the order before the House is the final chapter of one of the more extraordinary parliamentary episodes of the current Session. It has taken 12 pages to produce what is effectively a face-saving settlement to a controversy that occupied a great deal of time earlier in the Session. The Government climbed down after considerable pressure from all parts of the House, including their own Benches. Ministers decided to abandon what was one of the most inappropriate penal sanctions ever put before Parliament. The sanction was that after one warning an offender who was subject to a community penalty—very often a probation order, but a range of other community penalties as well—and who was

647
believed to have committed a further breach of the order would have his or her welfare benefits reduced or withdrawn in advance of any court hearing.
After considerable opposition to that proposal, it was moderated by the Secretary of State for Social Security. I acknowledge the helpful part played by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in the compromise that the sanction would be retained, but only until after a finding of guilt by the court. That is where we now are. However, the Department of Social Security has no business to be involved in penalties for breaches of a court order at all. What has happened is that the Home Office too has been ploughing its furrow on the same issue; that is, breaches of community orders.
In a major Act of Parliament carried in the same Session—the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000—there are penalties for breaches of community orders. I see the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in his place. My recollection is that he took part, as I did, in debates during that Bill in which we discussed what would be the appropriate penal response to a second breach. The Lord Chief Justice spoke on the same issue at Report stage. In brief, where a court has found that there has been a second breach after a warning, a mandatory sentence of imprisonment will be imposed. In this way, many of the Department of Social Security's clients will end up in custody in any event so the whole purpose of the order will have been defeated.
That is all I want to say. I am an intruder on the territory normally occupied so eloquently and effectively by my noble friend Lord Higgins. My noble friend suggested that I might like to take this opportunity to speak on the issue again, and I have taken advantage of the invitation to do so.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, as I spoke briefly on the issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, referred, perhaps I may from the Cross Benches reiterate my anxiety about the Department of Social Security coming into what is basically a penal matter. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, pointed that out. I also noted with great interest the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
I recall saying on the previous occasion that this matter was debated that I could not understand why the Home Office permitted the department to trespass on its territory in this way. According to my knowledge of the Home Office, the department must have had a very powerful and persuasive spokesman. However, quite apart from those considerations, a court of law, in the form of the magistrates' court, will deal with this. As the noble Earl said, if there are two breaches of a community service order, these people will in any case end up in custody.
Surely the most serious argument here is that the probation service has stated in effect that it is not going to operate the regulations, trial or no trial. One must also hear in mind the fact that if benefit is removed from such people who are, on the whole, completely disorganised individuals whose daily lives have been disordered for years until eventually they come before
648
the court, the chances are that they will reoffered. They will have to do that in order to buy food, meet their heating costs and so forth.
I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the remarks that have been made during this short debate. I know that she will because she is most conscientious and meticulous in these matters. Perhaps she will be able to accommodate, at least to an extent, the views of noble Lords in her reply.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the contribution from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as well as to the interventions from my noble friend Lord Windlesham and from the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. We debated this matter at considerable length and, if I may say, with considerable passion at earlier stages. My understanding is that the order effectively implements what was then the state of play that we had reached.
Although I have checked my post today, I have not received any further notice or press release from the probation service. If the officers are responding in the terms mentioned by the noble Earl, that is a matter which we shall need to consider very carefully. Having said that, I look forward to the Minister's comments on what is obviously an important matter involving considerable points of principle.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I apologise for intruding on the debate, given that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has spoken for many noble Lords who were instrumental in raising this issue on a number of occasions when the relevant criminal justice legislation was passing through your Lordships' House. I am delighted now to be able to support the resolution set down in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell.
I note that the Minister has indicated that pilot schemes will be set up and will commence in October. Those of us who work in the field of criminal justice are aware of the developments. I believe that we do not necessarily need to run the pilot schemes to find out the precise impact such rules will have on offenders who have breached their community orders. Sufficient research is already available which gives a good indication of what is being sought here.
As a result of an all-party amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, the Government were prevented from applying this sanction before the case had come before the court. However, even with this improvement, the measure is counter-productive and bound to increase crime. Pushing people into even greater poverty must increase the temptation to steal, commit burglary, shoplift, solicit for prostitution or sell drugs.
The measure is effectively a double punishment and therefore is unjust. The courts will retain all their current powers to impose penalties for breach of orders, ranging from fines to imprisonment, and the withdrawal of benefits will be additional to whatever penalty the court imposes. Moreover, the double punishment will apply only to the poorest offenders because it will not affect offenders who are in work.

649
Inevitably, it will also affect other innocent family members, including young children, through its impact on total family income. As such, it surely raises a moral question about how society should deal with the families of offenders.
The national standards of the probation service now require that an offender must be returned to court for breach of an order on a second failure to comply. This could mean being 20 minutes to half an hour late for a probation or community service appointment on two occasions. The degree of hardship involved in the reduction or withdrawal of benefit will often be wholly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence, especially as it will be additional to whatever punishment the court decides is appropriate for the breach.
There is a real risk that the measure could deter some probation officers from taking people back to court for breach of an order. We support the Government's view that community sentences should be strictly enforced. There is no problem about that. Furthermore, probation officers should be rigorous in returning people to court for persistent non-compliance. However, if probation officers know that the result of that action will be unjust and draconian, there must be a temptation not to record failures to comply in order to avoid such consequences.
The Government have argued that benefit entitlement has always been conditional; for example, there are benefit sanctions if someone in receipt of jobseeker's allowance does not actively seek work or if women do not co-operate with the CSA. However, requirements that benefit claimants should be willing to co-operate with attempts to find them employment or obtain maintenance are related directly to their need for benefit. In contrast, there is no direct relationship between breach of community sentences and the need for benefits to be paid to an individual who has no income. For that reason, the reduction or withdrawal of benefit introduces a gratuitous element which gives it all the hallmarks of an additional punishment.
We hope that the Government will think again and will withdraw this misguided measure. It is one thing to be tough on crime and criminals, but there is a real danger that the action proposed by the Government will lead to more crime. We have enough problems in our prisons today without the Government adding to them by enacting this ill-conceived legislation, and in particular the regulations before the House.
Perhaps I may also offer a word of warning. We should remember that black youngsters are up to twice as likely to be unemployed. Given that, we shall see a greater proportion of this group going through the criminal justice process. Although we have reached a late stage, the time is right to look again at these regulations.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as I expected, this has been a thoughtful and considered debate which has gone over issues that were discussed
650
very thoroughly during the passage of the Bill. I have tried not to reopen the arguments, but I suspect that I shall need to trespass on some of those issues as I develop my reply.
I should like, first, to answer as best I can the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. His argument appeared to suggest that we could not and should not go ahead with pilot schemes before we have sufficient information to know what will be the effect of the pilots. With respect, the noble Earl knows perfectly well that that is the point of holding the pilot schemes. That is why we are introducing them—in order to ascertain the effects. If they work well. I hope that he will join me in wishing to extend them. If they do not work, we should be foolish to pursue them.
Earl Russell: My Lords, that is why I prefaced my remarks by saying that the Minister would save me a good deal of trouble if she could tell me more about the kind of information to be gathered by the pilots.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was about to do that. However, that is not an argument not to run pilot schemes. The point of the pilots is to gather sufficient information to judge whether this is a viable policy and to learn from and build on that experience so that we can work towards a possible national roll-out.
The noble Earl asked what the pilot schemes will examine, aside from what I have already outlined. The researchers will look at the impact of this sanction on long-term reconviction rates and the duration of breach of proceedings. Furthermore, we shall build up a profile of the kind of offender who is affected by the sanctions. We shall gather the views and perceptions of staff involved in administering the pilot exercise, as well as collecting the views and knowledge of offenders about the sanction.
Research methods will include not only analysis of the administrative data, as well as in-depth interviews from focus groups and of key members of staff in the probation service, the Benefits Agency and the Appeals Service, but also in-depth interviews with offenders. Thus the answers to the questions raised by the noble Earl—where would resources be found to make good shortfalls in income and what will be the effect on health?—should come to light after detailed interviews are held with offenders, as well as the postal survey of magistrates and justices' clerks. I fully expect that the kind of issues raised by the noble Earl will show up there.
I hope to give the noble Earl an assurance about housing benefit. We are talking about a four week sanction. Housing benefit will remain in payment throughout and, therefore, there should not be a direct effect on homelessness. Obviously, I accept that housing benefit does not necessarily in all cases fully cover the gap between the single reference rental, the local reference rental, the single room rent and the rent paid, but we are talking about four weeks and, given that most rent is paid monthly, we have no evidence to suggest that this would result in any risk of an increase in evictions or homelessness. Certainly, it is one of the

651
issues we will be monitoring, but the point is that housing benefit as such—the core payment—will remain in place.
If the noble Earl wishes to intervene to make any further points about what the survey will be seeking to establish, I am very happy to extend my comments at this point.
Secondly, the noble Earl pressed me about the remarks in today's Independent attributed to Mr Woolas in another place. I read the article for the first time when I was on the train coming into London today. All I would say is that there is no official knowledge of this—and, therefore, no official views on it or support for it—in either the Home Office or the DSS as of today; it is news to us. I am sure that the noble Earl would not wish to press me beyond that. It is not a Home Office or DSS measure.
As to the Probation Service, I was asked what would happen if probation officers refused to impose the sanction. Probation officers do not impose the sanction. The whole point of the amendment of the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham, if I can put it that way—which the Government took over and together, around the House, we hammered out a compromise—is precisely that that decision does not rest with probation officers.
As professionals, probation officers will be required, within the guidelines of the Home Office, to determine whether—and they have appropriate discretion in this field—a person has broken a community sentence without reasonable grounds. Those reasonable grounds—including issues of health, an emergency with childcare and so on—were explored in your Lordships' House. That is a probation officer's job; he or she does nothing, as such, apart from reporting what he or she is doing to the Benefits Agency. The sanctions will follow the court decision, not the probation officer's referral. The probation officer is therefore not involved in sanctioning the individual.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again. I have Mr Fletcher's press release here. He states that probation officers are to be advised not to report the breach of the order so that the court sanction would not be triggered.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if he is saying that probation officers, when handling someone on a community sentence who broke that community sentence, were prepared not to take that person back to the court at all for fear of triggering a benefit sanction, I suggest that we would then have to look very carefully at the professional discipline of the Probation Service. I hope that that situation would not arise. Probation officers have an overriding responsibility to the offender to keep him on the straight and narrow and to the court to exercise that responsibility.
It should be remembered that a community sentence is an alternative to a custodial sentence. If a person does not abide by the terms of a community sentence,
652
then, as indicated in the Criminal Justice Act, the court has a right to bring that person back and to decide whether, in the light of that breach, that person should now complete the rest of his or her sentence in prison.
Where someone has fragrantly broken a community sentence, to say that a probation officer can make a decision not to take that person back to the court, as the law lays down, would raise serious questions about what is the nature of the professionalism, the job, the duties and the responsibility to the wider community of the Probation Service. Like everyone in your Lordships' House, I hope and expect that that situation will not arise because probation officers will understand their responsibilities.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, can she help the House with this conundrum: if a second breach is established—and would, therefore, under her proposals, attract withdrawal of benefit—how would that relate to the fact that, once the breach is proved, it will attract a mandatory penal sanction, either of imprisonment or some other penalty? There appears to be no relationship between the two pieces of legislation. I have refreshed my mind by reading the summary of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act; there is no reference to benefit withdrawal.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: my Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is intervening to make the same point that he made in his speech. I was hoping to come to that in due course. I am happy to try to deal with that now, if the noble Lord wishes, but I was seeking to complete my responses to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. If the noble Lord will allow me, I shall come back to that point later.
The third point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, related to the question of sample size. I was shaking my head about my concern in regard to the sample size for the fraud Bill, where we are talking about 300 cases. This has nothing to do with the fraud Bill. The concern here is not the size of the sample. I entirely agree that a sample of the size we may be talking about would be large enough to get the information needed. However, this is a different issue: the sanction runs for only four weeks and, in some cases, concerns a restricted amount of benefit withdrawal:£20 off the rate for a single person on the hardship scheme; £10 off if they are seriously ill or pregnant. To try to assess the impact of £10 per week times four weeks in terms of a person's health, state of well-being and so on—all issues that the noble Earl and I have explored many times—would be 'very difficult.
The problem with the fraud Bill was the size of the sample; the problem with this Bill, in terms of trying to assess the effect in any quantitative way, is the very short period for which the sanction runs. It is very difficult to work out what the effect may be of £10 or £20 off an income of £120, coming down to £100, over four weeks.
Certainly, by going for the qualitative method of interviewing those affected, and given that this is being carried out by an independent national centre for

653
social research—which is entirely independent of government—I hope that the research will be of decent quality and allow us to evaluate whether this system is effective in encouraging people, largely young people, to abide by their community sentence.
I do not pretend for one moment that the sanction will not have an effect on people. That is the point of a sanction; the whole of the social security system is based on conditionality. If the only way for a sanction not to have an effect would be to raise benefit levels across the board by the amount that the benefit sanction would take away, that would not be an acceptable position for the Government.
The noble Earl, together with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said that the effect of this would be to make poorer those people who already had offences behind them; that they would seek to make up their income by begging or stealing; that that would increase crime and, therefore, this measure is self-defeating.
I am sorry, but there are alternatives. One is to abide by the community sentence; the other is to find a job rather than receive benefit. We are told that these people are so feckless that they cannot manage to attend interviews and so on, and that therefore it is unreasonable to expect them to get their lives in order and to turn up for a probation interview. I remind the House that nearly 40 per cent of those convicted of burglary, violence against the person, criminal damage, fraud or forgery in 1998 received a community sentence. A quarter of those convicted of sexual offences or robbery in 1998 also received a community sentence.
These are not trivial offences due to fecklessness, incompetence or an inability to get lives together; they are serious offences which would, under other circumstances, have merited a custodial sentence. The community has the right to be protected, particularly those most affected by such crime; that is, those people on the poorest council estates, who often suffer severe harassment, threat and worry as a result of people failing to abide by the community justice system and, frankly, cocking a snook at it. We have a responsibility to protect those who cannot withdraw behind privet hedges into the privacy and security of their own homes; who have to live cheek by jowl with young men and women who fail to respect appropriate behaviour in society.
As to the point about fecklessness, these are people who have their lives sufficiently in order that they can attend an interview to sign on to get their benefit, but somehow cannot manage to attend an interview in order to meet their probation officer. That is fecklessness being turned off and on to suit the individual. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, that was a very eloquent statement; but the noble Baroness appears to be unable to get her mind around the fact that conduct of that sort will result automatically in criminal penalties following a conviction in court. Penalties are
654
provided by the criminal law, up to and including imprisonment. So why are Ministers in the Department of Social Security instructing their unhappy department to add some special penalties of their own?
6 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the DSS has always believed that benefits come with conditions attached. I know that that view is not entirely accepted by the House, but I believe it is accepted by the major opposition party. The condition may, for example, be that a claimant is available for and actively seeking work. It may be, as with the Child Support Agency, the requirement for a woman to name the father of her child where there is no good cause for her not to do so. If the condition is that a person observes the terms of a community sentence, in the Government's view that is a proper condition to attach to benefit. That is what we are seeking to do.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before we leave this topic, will the Minister concede that the desire to protect the community against crime is common to us both; the point at issue is which of us is doing it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, pilot schemes have been set up to determine whether this measure will be effective in controlling the level of criminality which makes life on so many of our poorer council estates an absolute misery for those who are trying to lead decent and respectable lives there. If the pilot schemes do not work, I shall be one of the first to say so. If they do, I hope that I shall equally have the noble Earl's support in extending the scheme on a nation-wide basis.
I now turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. He asked about the interaction between Section 53 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act and these regulations. That section provides for the court to decide whether, when an offender is in breach of his sentence, he will nevertheless go on to complete his order successfully. If the court believes that he will, it will allow the order to continue but will impose a penalty; if the court believes that he will not, it will impose a penalty of imprisonment. It is, therefore, wrong to say that all offenders will go to prison and as a result this provision is nugatory. There is one other point. Section 53 has not been commenced and will wait until the resources are available.
I hope that I have addressed the additional points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, does not believe that this provision in any sense bears unreasonably heavily on any one section of the community, such as the black community. It is the case that young people of Afro-Caribbean background may have a higher offending rate and a higher community sentence rate than other young people of, say, Asian, Chinese or Indian background, but the provision applies across the board to women and to men; and it applies to people irrespective of their ethnic background.

655
We are saying that all of us in the community, as taxpayers, have a right to expect young people—this applies largely to young people—to observe their community sentences. If on a second offence they have failed to do so—in other words, they have been brought back before the court—this trigger will come into play.
As I said, we are experimenting in four pilot schemes. The schemes will be carefully, professionally and independently evaluated. If the effect on crime and on recommittal is not what we hope it will be, obviously that will bear heavily on whether we decide to roll out the scheme nationally if we are in a position so to do. But the way to find out is to go for the pilot schemes. The House accepted this idea at the time; I hope that noble Lords will accept it today. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, I can only apologise for the fact that my noble friend Lord Bassam is not present to introduce the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. He was standing beside me only two minutes ago and I informed him that debate on the regulations was ending. I do not want to adjourn the House during pleasure unless noble Lords wish me to do so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I could continue our debate.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the noble Earl were still in his place, he could explain why he did not want to move his amendment. However, my noble friend is entering the Chamber now.

Criminal Justice and Police Bill
6.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being in my place.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill that comes before your Lordships is a set of substantial and hard-hitting measures that cut right across the boundaries of our law enforcement process. With your Lordships' support, the Bill will fundamentally change the way in which the police and the criminal justice system operate. It will help us with our goal of building a more just, safe and tolerant society.
The Bill will hit hard at the yob elements in society who show no restraint in public. It will give practical protection on the ground to those vulnerable elements of our society, whether they are at risk when they try to give evidence at a court hearing, or whether they are
656
being unjustly harassed in their own homes by the activities of animal rights "terrorists". It will rein in those young people making others' lives a misery, whether they are acting like bandits while on bail or whether they are in need of curfew orders to protect themselves and those around them.
The Bill offers a wide range of measures to drive down crime. It provides: improved measures in respect of fingerprints and DNA, to ensure that we make best use of the latest crime fighting technology; improved powers for the police and judiciary in respect of alcohol related disorder, search and seizure and sharing of information; and improved measures to modernise police organisation and training. These all combine to make this a highly practical and effective piece of legislation.
Perhaps I may briefly set out the main proposals in turn. Part I of the Bill contains measures for combating crime and disorder. Chapter 1 of Part I sets out our proposals on penalty notices. Penalty notices, in Clauses 1 to 11 , are a practical measure which enjoys the support of the Association of Chief Police Officers. They will help our policemen and women to deal quickly and firmly with aspects of minor disorder, freeing officers up from paperwork to get back on the streets fighting crime.
Penalty notices were well debated in the other place. I was glad to see that the Official Opposition had no objection in principle but were more concerned with points of detail—over which much debate took place. I welcome any constructive debate in this House that ensures that these measures operate to their full capacity.
Chapter 2 of the Bill contains a number of measures targeted at alcohol related crime and disorder. In short, these measures will enable swifter action to be taken in terms of closing certain licensed premises due to disorder or excessive noise and closing places which sell alcohol without a licence. The provisions will also strengthen the law to prevent the sale of alcohol to minors. I have had a constructive meeting with those noble Lords and honourable Members of another place who sit on the Parliamentary Beer Group to discuss these measures.
I hope that, following our debate, those concerned will feel able to put their full weight behind the proposals. I was glad to see that the alcohol measures and many of the other measures that I shall mention shortly—subject to points of detail—were broadly supported by Members on all sides in another place.
Chapter 3 of Part 1 completes the package of measures to combat crime and disorder. Restrictions on drug trafficking offenders in Clauses 33 to 37 will be an effective tool in restricting the activities of those who deal in drugs, while those measures (in Clauses 38 to 40) to protect witnesses will make it safer for those law-abiding members of the public who seek to give evidence in court. Again, I was glad to note that these measures received broad support in the other place.
Our strengthening of child curfews is significant, as set out in Clauses 45 and 46. I imagine that some noble Lords—perhaps of a Liberal Democrat

657
persuasion—may be concerned about the principles involved. I should merely argue that these measures will be fundamental in protecting people in their own homes. We must act to protect those who are afraid to leave their front doors because of the gangs of youths that are known to stalk, and sometimes maraud around, the streets of many estates.
In response to the harassment and intimidation suffered by members of the scientific community at the hands of animal rights extremists, the Government inserted further measures in the Bill (Clauses 41 to 44) during the Committee and Report stages in another place. These amendments attracted wide support of both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members.
I am sure that many noble Lords will be all too familiar with some of the unpleasant practices that have been used by animal rights extremists to terrorise law-abiding citizens in their own homes. Indeed, on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House good examples have been given of those practices. Many noble Lords have spoken powerfully on behalf of those seeking to advance animal scientific experimentation in controlled circumstances, quite properly, and have argued for their protection.
I am proud to say that the laws we have to protect animals in this country in relation to experimentation are the toughest in the world. The measures in Chapter 3 in respect of harassment at home, malicious communication, collective harassment and the disclosure of the home addresses of directors and secretaries of companies will protect those who are legitimately and lawfully going about their day-to-day business. It is only right that this House should also be seen to be fully behind this package of proposals.
Clauses 47 to 50 in Part 2 of the Bill deal with disclosure of information for the purposes of criminal proceedings. These provisions will improve the ability of government bodies to disclose information for specific crime-related purposes. We have to recognise the difficulty of fighting crime if potentially useful sources of information are not available to law enforcers.
The Government also see the information disclosure provisions as a key way to improve international cooperation in the fight against anti-competitive behaviour. We have listened carefully and closely to the CBI's concerns on those proposals. Safeguards have been put in place. These safeguards include the power of the Secretary of State to prohibit overseas information disclosure in cases that ought to be dealt with in the United Kingdom or a third country.
Part 3 of the Bill gives the police and the other law enforcement agencies powers to seize material and remove it for sifting elsewhere. The new clauses have two separate aims. First, the clauses give the police and other law enforcement agencies powers to remove material from premises for examination where it is not reasonably possible to carry out the process on the premises due to constraints of time or technology. Secondly, the clauses deal with problems arising where investigators need to seize material that is inextricably
658
linked to other material that they would not currently be entitled to retain. For example, it may be impossible to separate specific items of information held on computer without losing critical data about when they were created, amended or deleted.
In Clauses 72 to 87, Part 4 makes a number of provisions in respect of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Terrorism Act 2000. Some of these measures, such as powers of arrest for hit and run, kerb crawling, making the importation of indecent and obscene material a serious arrestable offence and the execution of process, received widespread support in the other place.
Measures in respect of detention hearings for terrorist suspects by video link will fine tune provision within the Terrorism Act 2000 to make a practical improvement in the way that terrorist suspects are dealt with. Those in respect of access to special procedure material will give DTI investigators powers that are already available to the police and Customs and Excise investigators.
Some of the most important measures within Part 4 relate to the taking of DNA samples and fingerprints. If enacted, they will give the criminal justice system a significant lever in the fight against crime. The measures will permit all fingerprints and DNA samples, taken on suspicion of involvement in an offence, to be retained. Currently Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act specifies that, where a person is not prosecuted or is acquitted of the offence, the sample must be destroyed and the information derived from it cannot be used.
The need for this provision arises as a result of two recent cases—R v Weir and R v B. Compelling DNA evidence that linked one suspect to a rape and the other to a murder could not be used, and neither could be convicted. This was because at the time that the matches were made both defendants had either been acquitted, or a decision had been made not to proceed with the offences for which the DNA profiles were taken. The subsequent decision of the House of Lords, published on 14th December of last year, stated that where a DNA sample fell to be destroyed but had not been, although Section 64 of PACE prohibited its use in the investigation of any other offence, it did not make evidence obtained as a failure to comply with that prohibition inadmissible but left it to the discretion of the trial judge.
The position was unsatisfactory and the law clearly needed clarification. The Government decided that rather than live with a situation that might appear to encourage the police to retain DNA samples unlawfully, it would be preferable to put retention on a proper legal footing—hence the inclusion of these provisions in the Bill. These measures will also allow fingerprints or samples given voluntarily for the purposes of elimination, such as DNA intelligence screens, to be retained where the volunteer gives his written consent. The re-taking of fingerprints and samples in certain circumstances would also be permitted and the position on the exchange of information held on the fingerprint and DNA databases would be clarified.

659
In bringing forward and proposing these measures we have carefully considered the rights of the individual and the broader rights that members of society have to be protected. We must be able to make the fullest use of the technology available to prevent and punish crime.
Other measures in Part 4 will include provision for remote reviews of detention to be conducted by video link—in certain circumstances by telephone—and for some other custody decisions to be undertaken by video link. I am confident that these measures will improve the efficiency of the review and custody system by enabling an expert custody officer to apply his knowledge to decisions that may need to be carried out at a distance.
Part 5 of the Bill introduces new arrangements for police training. It creates a new central police training and development authority as a non-departmental public body, whose primary aim will be delivering top-class training to police officers in England and Wales. Part 5 also includes measures to improve and modernise police training by introducing a mandatory core curriculum and qualifications for the police. It will improve the quality of training by the closer involvement of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Those provisions are widely supported, practical measures to ensure that the police have the best possible training to support them in their work.
Part 6 deals with a number of provisions to improve the way in which the police service is organised. It makes small amendments governing police authorities and the service authorities for the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. They will permit the statutory appointment of vice chairmen, remove the maximum age limit for membership and permit these authorities to devise their own schemes for payment of allowances. It also introduces new funding arrangements for the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Such provisions will remove the existing cumbersome and time-consuming arrangements for funding by means of contributions from police authorities, with direct funding from the Government. There are also some changes to the service authorities to make them more inclusive, and to streamline them by reducing the number of members.
Part 6 also contains a number of other straightforward changes to the organisation of the police. It re-introduces the ranks of deputy chief constable and chief superintendent, and the equivalent ranks in the Metropolitan Police, as well as making provisions about the role and appointment of deputy chief constables. It removes an anomaly in police disciplinary proceedings so that officers in those proceedings are subject to the new caution introduced in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This allows inferences to be drawn from a refusal to answer questions. Finally, it makes some small, but essential, changes to the pension arrangements for senior police officers with fixed term appointment
As well as dealing with miscellaneous and supplemental matters, the final part of the Bill, Part 7, contains important provisions in three areas. The first
660
is in relation to the treatment of young offenders who are at risk of re-offending. The Bill, as drafted, will extend secure remand criteria, introduce electronic monitoring for juveniles on bail and remanded to local authority accommodation, and allow local authority remandees to be placed in secure training centres. These measures are essential in preventing juveniles from committing further offences while passing through the criminal justice system.
Secondly, this part of the Bill will provide additional safeguards for the vulnerable by helping the Criminal Records Bureau to prevent unsuitable people from becoming registered to countersign applications, a critical position of trust in the bureau's operational arrangements.
Thirdly, and finally, it will amend the Bail Act 1976 so that the courts will be required to give reasons for granting bail where the prosecutor makes representations against so doing.
The Government believe that this Bill is fundamental to building a safe, just and tolerant society. It gives valuable tools to the police, delivers a range of improvements to the criminal justice system and ensures that the public continue to receive the fullest protection. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bassani of Brighton.)
6.21 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am delighted that it now seems we are to have plenty of time to discuss the Bill as there is not to be an early general election. That seems to be one of the few good things to have come out of the foot and mouth outbreak. The Bill was only partly discussed in another place; indeed, whole parts of the Bill were not discussed at all in Committee or on Report.
This is the sixth Home Office Bill of the Session, not counting the one we heard about this afternoon that is to come before us in a day or two. Some of the others have required hundreds of amendments. The present Home Secretary has an exceptional ability to influence decisions on the Government's legislative programme. which has normally been thought of as overladen, but no corresponding influence over the appointment of sufficient departmental lawyers and parliamentary draftsmen, or, for that matter, officials, to prepare the legislation properly. I may be doing them an injustice. Perhaps it is a case of Ministers not being able to make up their minds sufficiently clearly, but either way it gives your Lordships' House an extra responsibility to scrutinise the proposals properly.
As became clear while the Minister spoke—if it was not clear before—this Bill is one of the Home Office's miscellaneous "ragbag" Bills. It has no theme. As far as I can see, it is made up like crazy paving rather than a mosaic with a clear picture emerging. I have the impression that Ministers sat around like customers in a pub chewing over events and the latest disaster on the

661
television, saying, "Disgraceful—there ought to be a law against it". Except, of course, that Home Office officials immediately create such a law.
One consequence is that my speech will have no theme either. Before I launch into the details of the Bill, I welcome the interim report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I believe that this is the first Bill on which we have had a report from this new Joint Committee. It is a welcome development. As far as I am aware, the committee has not yet given its conclusions on the Bill. However, it has published a large amount of evidence it received, including from the Home Office, and the accounts of witnesses. That information is helpful, particularly when considering the human rights aspect of the Bill.
Part 1 of the Bill is a mini-ragbag in itself. It comprises on the spot penalties; alcohol offences related to public order; travel restrictions on drug dealers; intimidation of witnesses in civil proceedings and child curfew schemes for the under 16s. I am not altogether happy about the selection of offences to be the subject of fixed penalty notices. The fixed penalty notice will need, quite rightly, to state the offence and the alleged circumstances of the offence. For that reason it is no good using that procedure for offences which will require the policeman to write an essay there and then in the street describing the offence on the notice before he hands it to the individual concerned.
The main object, of course, is to speed up the whole process of bringing offenders to justice and to save bureaucracy. However, if the measure is used for the wrong offences, particularly for offences where the policeman's judgment on the spot is crucial as to someone's behaviour and whether or not that constitutes an offence, it will not achieve its object. On the other hand, there are some offences which are not at present included—and which it has been suggested might be—to which we shall need to give attention. Two examples are prostitutes' cards in telephone boxes and urinating in the street. Both of those are fairly clear offences which one would have thought might be the subject of measures of this kind.
I note that the Home Secretary can, by affirmative order, with the permission of Parliament, add any other offence to the list, though presumably he does not have any particular ones in mind at the moment or he would have included them in the Bill in the first place. I am interested to know why that power applies, apparently, only to those over 18. There is a separate provision for curfews for those under 16, but in practice it is quite often those aged 16 and 17 who are involved in the kind of offences we are talking about. They were discussed earlier in the consultation on the provisions but, as far as I can see, are not included in the Bill. I also note that if these offenders are challenged and given a ticket and do not pay the penalty, they end up in the magistrates' court anyway for non-payment of a fine.
662
I have other questions with regard to records. The Society of Editors is concerned that it should know who has been fined. I am not sure about that. But the point is certainly worth considering. If someone is taken to court for these kinds of offences, the reporter at the local magistrates' court can make a note of the person's name and act as he or she thinks right. In effect, the use of these powers will be conducted in confidence between the offender concerned and the police unless the offender fails to pay and appears in court anyway for non-payment of the fine.
There is also the question of whether there will be a criminal record. As I understand it, there will not be a criminal record for anyone who is awarded a fixed penalty in these circumstances. However, it is important that there should be some kind of record. If an offender continues to display drunken behaviour, or whatever the offence is, the police will want to know that and to have a proper record of the fact that someone has been stopped for the same offence a number of times in the recent past. They can then consider whether to charge that person with a more serious offence or take him or her to court rather than issue a fixed penalty notice.
Part 1 contains a clause which concerns the names and addresses of directors and secretaries. This is obviously a welcome measure. I refer to the notorious case of Huntingdon Life Sciences, but a number of other people have found themselves in a similar situation. The clause provides for directors' and secretaries' private addresses to be concealed in the future. However, it does not address the fact that their private addresses are already on the record. It does not stop Companies House disclosing the addresses on previous annual returns. Therefore until the directors or secretary of the company change, their private addresses will remain well known. The provision does nothing for shareholders who have had similar problems.
It is not only the directors and secretaries of companies involved in scientific research, and so on, who are concerned, having been the subject of attacks from violent activists, but also farmers and others involved in GM crops and hunt staff. Although the law is strengthened a little in the Bill, those actions are thoroughly against the current law. The strongest police action is required.
Part 2 of the Bill relates to disclosure of information. It contains a clause allowing the tax authorities—Inland Revenue and the Customs—to disclose the secrets of tax returns. Until now they have always been regarded as some of the most confidential documents in the country. There are now to be extremely wide powers for information from tax returns, and other information gained by the tax authorities, to be disclosed. However, from correspondence and background information, I understand that they will be carried out only where serious crimes are involved. But that is not stated in the Bill. It is what is known in the tax jargon as a concession. The Revenue will not disclose all kinds of information. Where it wishes to do so, it will disclose the information only in serious cases.

663
Under Clause 48 the Secretary of State can give a direction restricting the power but only where the offence is capable of being tried in a United Kingdom court or in a third country. I do not understand Clause 48(3)(c) but we shall come to that in due course.
For example, a resident of Iraqi origin may be publishing a dissident magazine in the United Kingdom criticising the Iraqi government. I believe that it is not intended that the Revenue report that information—it may arise when considering his tax returns—to the Iraqi government. I understand that such criticism is thoroughly against the law in Iraq. Although that is not the intention, it is possible under the provisions of the Bill. Not to do so is only at the discretion of the Revenue or the Customs authorities.
A Chinese national resident in the United Kingdom might also be running a business in China through which he was evading a certain amount of Chinese tax. Again one might think that it was fair for the Revenue to report that to the Chinese authorities. However, the penalty in China for tax evasion in some circumstances is the death penalty. So in reporting an individual, the Revenue might bring him in danger of the death penalty. Those are somewhat extreme cases about which there is no apparent restriction in the Bill.
Part 3 relates to the seizure and retention of property by the police. There are serious issues regarding lawyer/client confidentiality in general, and legal/ professional privilege in particular. The Law Society was most concerned about what it saw as lack of proper consultation. That was a surprise to me; there had been previously quite a lot of consultation but not apparently at the last minute. In practice, there has been a procedure known as bagging up. When the police raid premises and collect papers, the lawyer for the individual whose premises are being raided is entitled, by general practice, to say, "There are some legal papers there". They are then sealed in a bag and taken to the police station. The bag is then opened only in the presence of the lawyer who is able to extract any papers to which legal privilege attaches. The different sides can argue in court later if there is some dispute as to whether legal privilege attaches to certain papers. But it means that the papers are not disclosed to the police, and legal professional privilege, which we all support, is in place. The system of bagging up—I gather that it works well in most cases and had been accepted as adequate until a recent case—has not provided the model on which the Bill is based. One wonders why.
There are concerns about journalistic material from the Society of Editors. There is talk of a code of practice. I am not sure what that would mean in practice. Editors and journalists in general are extremely protective of journalistic material for reasons which we well understand. But included in this part of the Bill are provisions relating to retention of DNA and fingerprint information. In many respects, that is clearly a very large step in the direction of Big Brother. The problem is whether the proposals will mean that people are less likely to co-operate with the police in big cases. A few years ago when I was a Member of another place, there was a particularly
664
horrible murder of a young lady on her way home from a dance at one o'clock in the morning. She was abducted and murdered. It proved difficult to catch the individual. There was more and more publicity locally. For reasons which were well understood a huge number of fingerprints and DNA samples were taken from a large proportion of the local male population who could conceivably have been involved. Most people were entirely willing to give their samples and to be eliminated from the inquiry, helping the police to do all they could to catch the murderer.
Should there be similar cases—we have no wish to see them—in other parts of the country, it would not be many years before there was a national DNA database which included us all. I do not think that the Government are aiming at that but I should like reassurance. Guidance on the Bill suggests that the DNA of those who come forward voluntarily in a case such as the one to which I referred will not be retained. The Bill does not seem to allow for that. It is important for public confidence to know what will happen to the particulars obtained in that way. Everyone wants to catch such a criminal, and criminals generally. We do not want to put people off as a result of the retention provisions in Part 3.
Part 4 concerns PACE and related matters. I wish to refer to the use of video and telephone links for decisions about detention. I am not sure how that will work. Will the inspector talk over the telephone to the suspect or his legal adviser as well as to the police about his decision to extend custody? Will he be able to have a video conference with the accused and his legal adviser to decide whether it is right to extend the detention? Or will he talk only to the custody officer and other policemen involved in the case?
The provision for such work to be done at a distance is a tacit admission by the Government of the overstretch that police inspectors in particular have been talking about recently. There are 1,385 fewer inspectors in this country now than there were about six years ago. They are feeling the overstretch very severely. The Bill makes many provisions that require the permission of a police inspector or someone of more senior rank. If they are thin on the ground and trying to cover ever more boroughs in London, for example, it will be difficult for them to do their job properly or to give proper attention, when they are in the middle of one case, to whether to detain somebody in a different case.
Part 5 is about training. It is entirely appropriate that the Bill should include a section on police training. It concerns changes to the central training authority and changes in the financing, as the Minister said. But the whole Bill will require considerable effort to retrain the police and others concerned with the criminal justice system in the new provisions. I sometimes wonder whether Ministers realise the retraining effort required by such a huge Bill, particularly when it is one of six Bills so far this year—or this half-year. An awful lot of paper and overtime are required to keep up with all the changes in the law. We need to think carefully

665
about that when bringing about desirable changes to the law at such a furious pace as we have been doing recently.
Part 6 is about police organisation and bringing back the ranks of deputy chief constable and chief superintendent—moving the chairs round again, as it were. It also makes provision for police disciplinary proceedings and the inference to be drawn from silence. That is a difficult provision that requires consideration, given that a lower standard of proof is required in police disciplinary matters to that required in criminal matters—the balance of probabilities rather than beyond all reasonable doubt. The inference to be drawn from silence is therefore not the same as in criminal cases.
Part 7 is described as, "Miscellaneous and Supplemental", but it contains not only the usual interpretation and commencement provisions, but also important changes to bail, secure remand, electronic tagging and criminal records.
The Bill seems to contain the sweepings from the Home Office pigeon holes. I must warn the Minister that Home Office pigeon holes are rather like the automat cafes of some years ago in America. The customer opened a glass door and took out their choice of meal whereupon a secret door immediately opened at the back and the slot was filled up again. Home Office pigeon holes are never empty. In time, some of the provisions in the Bill will prove valuable additions to the armoury of the criminal justice system while others clutter up the statute book and lead to waste time being wasted on retraining policemen and rearranging the chairs. The challenge in Committee will be to try to work out which are which.
6.44 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, described the Bill as a ragbag without a theme. I hope that my response will have a theme: that Parliament, and this House in particular, has a solemn duty to resist bounced, hasty, ill-considered legislation. It has a duty to resist the sweepings from Home Office pigeon holes, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I hope that Ministers will not represent us as in any way soft on crime for insisting on a full and thorough examination of the Bill. Earlier this afternoon, before the Minister joined us, we heard a powerful speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the nightmare of living cheek by jowl with the feckless, the violent and the criminally inclined. No party in any part of this House or in any Chamber of this Parliament is anything other than totally committed to providing our citizens with the basic right to freedom from fear—fear of their neighbours and fear of the young and violent.
The Minister said, with a slight tone of condescension, that certain of the proposals dealing with the yob culture would attract some concern among the Liberal Democrats. Yes, we are concerned about the implication once again that the only responses to certain problems are ever more draconian
666
laws and ever more draconian policing, when it has been proved beyond peradventure that on many sink estates the provision of a youth club, after-school facilities or sporting facilities—the provision of some hope—has at least as much impact on overall crime as ever more serious criminal sanctions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, this is a big, wide-ranging Bill. It would be proper to treat it with due solemnity if it was the Home Office's first effort. but this is something like the 16th Home Office Bill that we have had in just over a Session and a half. The problem is that the Home Office has had a seamless succession from Michael Howard to Jack Straw. They both believe that a succession of measures to show a macho approach to crime and criminals is the way ahead.
One reason why Parliament, and this House in particular, should be concerned is that we have had a ratchet effect, with successive Bills chipping away at civil liberties. When they do not produce a magic impact on the crime statistics, another Bill is brought forward and the ratchet is moved another notch. It is not as though the Liberal Democrats have not warned the Government. We warned them against the erosion of police numbers and proposed various community and other measures to take the pressure off the police and allow them to do their core jobs. We have argued for alternatives to prison, instead of the continuation of this country's appalling record of putting ever more young offenders into young offender. institutions, which even the Government's own inspectors see as nothing more than universities of crime. Anyone who enters such an institution drug-free is very unlikely to emerge drug-free. But time and time again the Government bring before us legislation which inflicts yet one more turn of the screw.
Nothing better illustrates that than the curfew proposal. We thoroughly debated proposals in relation to curfews for children up to the age of 10, but none of them was taken up and nothing happened. So what do we do? We return with proposals for 16 year-olds. I quote from the Parliamentary Monitor of January 2001:
"The home secretary, Jack Straw, has admitted that the age limit of 10 for child curfews is too low. He blamed himself for the decision, saying that he went 'with caution' by not including older children. The fact that there has not yet been a single curfew applied was the fault of 'the conservativism of the social services departments' and he has called on them to use the full panoply of powers available to tackle unruly behaviour.
New fines for anti-social behaviour will also be introduced, although the government has retreated from 'marching yobs to cashpoint' machines in order to pay them".
We all remember when the Prime Minister had a blank page in a speeches. He put in that proposal in order to catch that evening's news headlines.
That has been the pattern. There has been no admission of having got things wrong, and, too often, proposals have been brought forward not with a longterm theme or strategy but with the sole purpose of catching the evening's news or following day's headlines.

667
Another example is the new proposal for the remand of children in secure accommodation. This is what the Law Society brief says in relation to that:
"The treatment and care of children, whatever their offending history, is a sensitive matter and should be subject to public scrutiny and debate prior to legislative change".
Then we come to the real point:
"The late timing of the changes to the Bill was surely due to the recent publicity that the government was behind target in their pledge to reduce the case progression times for children identified as Persistent Young Offenders".
That is the exact point that I am making. A piece of legislation is brought forward not to deal with any long-term problem or to provide a long-term solution but for the purpose of a little quick-fix media manipulation.
Therefore, I believe that Parliament is right to be sceptical about a Government who are prone to cheap populism and too prone to quick fixes. We have seen that in the legislation that has been brought forward: a bomb explodes and new terrorism legislation is rushed through this House; football hooligans rampage and we have a football hooligan Bill; and the same has occurred with regard to animal rights protestors.
The probllem is that a response to a particular problem is given in legislative terms but the general principle embodied in that legislation remains and has wider implications. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that it would be much more reassuring to have a theme and philosophy in Home Office legislation rather than a simple deluge of Bills and rapid responses to headlines, which has been the practice.
We all know why that occurs. We are told that, whatever the outcome of the general election, Jack Straw will be moving on. He will be able to do so with an absolutely perfect record: on no single issue has he ever been outflanked to the right by either Michael Howard or Ann Widdecombe—something of which I am sure he is considerably proud.
Therefore, we need less legislation from the Home Office. We on these Benches advise more pilot projects for some of the schemes that appear out of the pigeon holes. We also put forward the idea of establishing a Select Committee with the ability to take external evidence in examining some Home Office Bills in draft form. The human rights committee procedure would appear to be a good procedure for certain Bills.
We must get out of the habit of believing that, unless legislation is passed immediately, this day or at once, civilisation as we know it will come to an end. That is the recipe for ill considered and bad legislation. We must build into our procedures a process for taking a more measured look at proposals and for ensuring that outside interests, expert groups and others who are directly involved have a chance to provide input on legislation. The scattergun approach is not succeeding, as evidenced by the Home Office returning time and again with different wheezes in order to deal with problems.
I referred to a "scattergun" approach, and it would therefore be rather surprising if parts of the Bill did not hit the target. We welcome the measures on the various
668
abuses of alcohol. I believe that we face a national schizophrenia in relation to alcohol. Only recently we passed a statutory instrument which greatly relaxed opening times. We live in an age in which both the relative price of alcohol and its availability to all sections of the community means that it is more accessible than at probably any time during the past century.
On television there is a much greater acceptance of alcohol abuse than there is of smoking. Now, one rarely sees a key character in a television play who smokes. Yet whole television series are built around men behaving badly and laddish behaviour. Such programmes are aimed mainly at the vulnerable, 15 to 20 year-old age groups. The proponents are usually on the verge of middle age but still cling on to the laddish image. Alcopops, again, can only be aimed at young drinkers, and sometimes advertisers take an irresponsible attitude. Therefore, I believe that more needs to be done, not least by the industry itself, in relation to alcohol and its connection with anti-social behaviour.
We support the measures in relation to drug traffickers and the protection of witnesses. We fully appreciate and support—and, indeed, have advocated—the need to break into the drugs supply line at a higher point. As the Minister knows, we have called for tougher action to be taken against money launderers—the people who often lubricate the drug trade.
We also welcome the measures against animal rights extremists. That leads me to an issue with which I believe society as a whole must come to terms. In the United States, and to a certain extent in this country, we have come across people who feel strongly about a single issue and believe that their strength of feeling puts them above the law. I refer to animal rights extremists, people who are anti-abortion, people who feel strongly about the environment, and people who simply believe that capitalism is wicked and that all capitalists are "fat cats".
However, the attitude which leads people to say, "My individual belief is so strong that I am against the law", cannot be accepted in a democratic society where a parliamentary process changes laws. I believe that that applies in all directions. If Parliament in its wisdom bans hunting, I shall look to people who want to hunt to accept that law, too. That cuts in all directions. We change our laws—our society—here in Parliament, not by intimidation or by breaking the law.
Our concerns are not unlike those of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. That reaffirms the need for a thorough Committee stage. We are concerned about the DNA database, and whether a move to a national DNA database may be involved; the use of curfews, which I discussed earlier; video-conferencing in relation to PACE; the lacuna involving 16 to 17 year-olds and fixed penalty notices; and aspects of police training, which my noble friend Lady Harris will discuss in

669
detail. My noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Phillips of Sudbury—the fact that he is absent from these Benches does not mean that he is not interested—
Noble Lords: He is here.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is he? I knew that my noble friend Lord Dholakia was here, but my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury especially asked me to tell the Minister that he cannot be here tonight but that he wants to play a full part in Committee. You have been warned!
I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope: in another place the Bill did not get full consideration in Committee. It must be given the fullest consideration in Committee in this House. If the general election had been on 3rd May, we on these Benches would have strongly resisted nodding through the Bill. We do not believe that it has been properly or thoroughly examined in the other place; this House has a duty to do so. Our approach will involve words that I know are dear to the Minister's heart—we want proportionality and practicality to be the test of the proposals. The provisions must last longer than tomorrow's headlines or even next month's election campaign. They have to be tested against basic freedoms: against the freedom from fear, against civil liberties, human rights, the age-old freedoms of assembly and of speech and the right to privacy from an over-intrusive state. Those are the tests that we shall apply to the Bill.
The director-general of Liberty put the matter very well. He said:
"The Government continues to confuse being tough on crime with being tough on civil liberties and human rights. Eroding rights does not crack crime".
Quite so. We shall ensure during the Bill's Committee stage that eroding rights is not part of the Bill's outcome.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I support the Bill's intent. In so far as I shall discuss the Bill rather than its background, I shall restrict myself to discussing Part 1, about which I have some reservations. I refer in particular to violent youth crime. yob culture, the abuse of drugs and persistent young offenders.
I am convinced that the Bill on its own will not effectively combat crime and disorder. To combat crime and disorder among young people—excluded young people in particular—three things are needed. The first is to make crime less attractive. That, we hope, the Bill will do. The second is to ensure that appropriate alternative opportunities exist. The third is that excluded and hard-to-reach young people should have the help they need to access those opportunities. I want to talk a little about the second and third of those requirements, which are essential if any policy to combat crime and disorder is to be effective.
670
I make it absolutely clear from the start that I am not one of those who condones crime and that I am not making excuses for criminals. I am trying to sketch in the background with which many noble Lords are familiar; that is, the reality of some young people's lives in our society today. Unless we understand that reality we will not understand why crime seems to them to be an attractive option.
Each of us needs something to make our life seem worthwhile. That is true of all of us. Recent research involving a sample 1,500 boys—there was also a survey of girls, but I shall focus on the survey of boys in this context—showed that more than 12 per cent of boys in our society today do not believe that there is any future for them in the legitimate economy or as responsible fathers. That is a frightening figure. Those boys have not been prepared by their experience in their family, by the example of their father or by their experience in school to cope with the competitive, high-tech society that we live in today.
I shall discuss the Connexions service in more detail later, but for the moment I quote its definition of that kind of young person. It states,
"a significant minority experiences a wide range of acute problems and crises in adolescence including alcohol, drug and substance abuse, illiteracy, mental illness, serial offending and under-achievement".
Such excluded young people may be short on communication skills and have low self-esteem and they have probably never experienced any encouragement or success in their lives. Gone are the days when such a young man could expect to keep his end up and support a family provided that he was strong and prepared to work.
The Government came to power on the promise to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. This Bill, and the other 16 Bills to which other noble Lords have referred, are a contribution to redeeming the first part of that promise. What about the second part? Are the Government actually going to deliver on that? Let us look at the progress so far. In 1999, the Government set up the Connexions service to address the problem. This month—April—2001 the first pilot schemes are being set up. The Connexions service for south London, from whose report I quoted a moment ago, envisages producing an action plan by 2002 and being fully operative by 2004. That is simply the pilot scheme. Can the Minister give a date by which the Government expect the Connexions service to be fully operative throughout the country? That may be an unfair question and if the Minister wishes to write to me about it, I shall understand.
Many noble Lords know that the Connexions service is intended to bring together existing local bodies that work for 13 to 19 year-olds. It will co-ordinate their provision and provide each young person with advice and guidance and, where necessary, a personal adviser or mentor. It is not itself a provider of services, such as special schools, special training facilities, sports clubs, youth services or any of the other services that young people need. Local authorities, LEAs and voluntary bodies provide—or fail to provide—those services; provision is very

671
patchy. Yet, if the Connexions service is to work, it must have something to connect to. It needs the support of those services.
For decades, successive governments have allowed services for young people to be cut. Playing fields have been sold off, youth service budgets have been cut to the bone, special schools have been closed and core funding, which is central to voluntary providers, has been cut and cut again. An enormous investment in terms of money and effort will be needed to rebuild that infrastructure.
Each young person needs something to encourage him to believe that his life is worth living. If he does not find that in the legitimate economy, he will find it in crime. There is therefore an urgent need for a coherent cross-departmental government plan to rebuild services for young people.
That raises an interesting question. Who is responsible? We know that the Home Office and the judiciary are responsible for being tough on crime. Can the Minister say which department of state is responsible for co-ordinating action to address the causes of crime?
Finally, I should like to give the House just two examples of what appears to be a dramatic lack of co-operation between the Home Office, the Department for Education and Employment and the local education authorities. The first concerns the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill. It is a well-established fact that some boys with emotional and behavioural difficulties benefit from being in a special school. The higher staff-pupil ratio helps them to catch up with their basic skills and they are not exposed to ridicule and derision, as they would be in a mainstream school, from other boys and girls who do not suffer from their disadvantage.
There are successful examples of such special schools throughout the country. One with which I am familiar on the Isle of Dogs is called the Burger Academy—the staff-pupil ratio is about six to one—and there are others. Those schools help young people to build their skills and self-confidence and eventually, very often, to reintegrate into mainstream education. Yet only a few weeks ago the Department for Education forced through your Lordships' House, against the advice of many of your Lordships on all sides of the House, clauses in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill which will effectively exclude many young people with emotional and behavioural difficulties from special schools. Only if their parents demand it or if they are disruptive will the local education authority be able to send them to a special school.
Such insecure and disturbed young people, vulnerable to bullying, will soon truant from a mainstream school. They will then be back on the streets facing the same severe risk of being drawn into crime. Surely if we believe in addressing the causes of crime, that does not make sense.
About a month ago my noble friend Lord Tenby arranged for four Members of your Lordships' House to visit the Medway Secure Training Centre. We were
672
impressed by the work of the centre, and in particular by the fact that a number of young people, during the period of their stay, were becoming interested by the possibility that education could provide them with a way out of exclusion; a gateway to full membership of the consumer society.
Many of those young people, having completed the first half of their sentence in the secure training centre, were returning to their home communities to find that their local education authorities were unwilling to provide full-time education for them or even education at all, let alone the specialist catch-up education that they needed. I tabled a Question for Written Answer around one month ago and the Minister confirmed on 21st February that of the 259 young people aged under 16 who have so far passed through the Medway centre since February 2000, only nine have been accepted back into full-time education by their local education authorities; 68 are being provided with what is called "education outside school", which means a few hours a week. So most of the 250 are back on the streets.
It may well seem to your Lordships that I have strayed rather far from the Bill before us. I make no apology. Like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I am convinced that this Bill will not work unless the Government address at the same time the causes of crime. To do so will cost money; but so does crime. A recent piece of research published by Barnardo's—I have deposited a copy in the Library—shows that prevention can cost less than one-tenth of the cost of intervention later in a young person's life. I am convinced that unless the Government do more to provide comprehensive, properly funded, coherent programmes of prevention and diversion to encourage those who are at risk into the legitimate economy, neither the building of more prisons nor fat Bills like this one—let alone 16 of them—will significantly reduce youth crime.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, there are many sensible and positive proposals in this Bill and I commend the Government for introducing them. However, the Minister and the Secretary of State know that I am not a believer in the effectiveness of curfews. It is right to say that many people who are concerned with the welfare of children and young people share my lack of faith. In our view curfews will drive those who are already marginalised into further marginalisation. It is not the way to draw people into responsible behaviour.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke movingly about the problems faced by many young people and the need for a positive programme to help them into active citizenship and a productive life. For many young people, home is not a haven and a protective environment to which they should be immediately pushed back. The reason for gathering on street corners is often to avoid their domestic circumstances which, for many of them. may be violent, abusive and certainly unwelcoming.

673
I know that my noble friend Lady David intends to deal with the issue of curfew in terms and I want to concentrate, in the time available, on the issue of the forensic database and DNA. The database we have in this country has proved a remarkably useful tool in bringing to justice those who commit serious crimes. The examples of its successes are well-known and have resulted in the arrest of those responsible for murders and other violent or sexual offences. So I agree that anything that can be done to assist is to be welcomed.
There is no doubt that the public support the use of a forensic database. The Human Genetics Commission, which was set up with the task of advising the Government on all aspects of genetics and which I chair, recently carried out a survey of public attitudes to the storage and use of personal genetic information. I believe that the poll was the largest survey yet undertaken of those views and its results make for interesting reading.
On the question of the use of forensic databases people were very clear in their feelings. In response to the question as to whether the police should be entitled to take a DNA sample from a person charged with murder, 98 per cent of those polled said that they should be so entitled, while 68 per cent said that they should also be entitled to take such a sample from those charged with burglary. Less serious offences such as shoplifting received less support as grounds for taking a DNA sample. But the overall picture was one which supported the taking of DNA samples by the police.
I shall return to the survey in a few moments. It may sound as though I am enthusiastic about the databases and I certainly share the Government's belief that we should support them. However, major human rights issues are involved which need to be considered in taking a view on the relevant clauses of the Bill. If the Bill goes ahead in its current form, the United Kingdom forensic database will officially include the DNA of many completely innocent people.
Let me return to the MORI poll commissioned by the HGC. When we asked people whether they believed that the forensic database should have the right to retain samples of those acquitted of a crime with which they had been charged, the majority—48 per cent—said that they should not. But hard on its heels 46 per cent said that they should be so allowed. That is a bare majority and one from which one could reasonably conclude that the opinion of the public is fairly evenly split. However, the fact that so many people have misgivings about retaining DNA samples should make us stop and think about the degree to which this measure enjoys public support.
The issues of legal and ethical principles to which the measure gives rise are extremely serious. I have rehearsed the benefits of having such a database. I should now like to allude to some of the concerns which the Human Genetics Commission received. It will be found that those concerns are really quite weighty.
674
The first is the very basic one which touches upon the relationship between the state and the citizen. In this country we have long adhered to the notion that everybody is presumed innocent of a criminal offence until the contrary is proven. Taking intimate information on innocent people and holding it in official records merely on the basis that at some stage they have been suspected of a crime is a major step and, many would argue, a major erosion of the presumption of trust which exists between each of us and the state. Nobody likes to be suspected of criminal conduct; but being on a database of potential offenders, which will be regularly trawled by the police, means that in a very important sense one is on a list of suspects and that surely very subtly alters the way in which the state sees us and the way in which we see our fellow citizens. It is of course different if one has committed an offence. The state may quite reasonably say, "You have been convicted of a crime and we are going to keep you on the list in case you do it again". In other words, "We reserve the right to check up on you when similar offences are committed by unknown persons in future".
It is quite different if the person from whom the sample has been taken proves to be innocent. That person has committed no crime and nothing can therefore be said about any propensity to commit crime in the future. So why should he or she be kept on the database? What justification can there be other than to argue that perhaps they are really guilty and it has not been possible to prove it, or that the more people there are on the database the better, and that a big database will produce more positive results than a small one as a matter of elementary statistics. So we have the frightening move towards a national database.
The first of those arguments—that people are really guilty even though they are acquitted—is based on expediency and it is always a very dangerous principle on which to base any rules of criminal justice. The latter argument completely ignores the rights which people may claim to have under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights that their DNA is a private matter and no concern of the state.
The Minister has said that the Bill goes further because it is intended that the DNA obtained from an intelligence screen, say, of all the people in a village who are asked to give a sample for the purposes of elimination will be kept on the national database, although they will be asked at the time if they consent to that. I believe that there are real issues here as to whether consent obtained in those circumstances could really be considered to be properly obtained consent especially where someone is doing it in circumstances where they may at that stage be a potential suspect.
Concern over issues of individual privacy have led a number of other countries to take a much more cautious view than the one commended in this Bill. The Human Genetics Commission has been examining these alternatives and recommends that

675
they be given serious consideration. In fact, we were rather surprised that the Home Office did not contact the commission for its view.
In France, under the 1998 law allowing the lodging of DNA samples on the national forensic database, the level of the crime which has to be committed for the material to be kept is much higher than in this country and is effectively restricted to crimes involving substantial violence, sexual or otherwise, and homicide.
In Canada, under the DNA Identification Act 1998, there is listed in a schedule those crimes under the Canadian criminal code which merit inclusion on the database. They are all serious crimes. The Canadian database was the product of careful consideration involving a great deal of public debate and careful scrutiny of the proposed legislation of individual privacy by the federal privacy commissioner. As a result of this approach, with its scrupulous attention to human rights considerations, the legislation in Canada provides only for the retention of the samples of those who have been convicted of an offence and for the destruction of the samples of those who have been proved to be innocent. It also, very creditably, makes special provision for disposing of the samples of juvenile offenders after a certain period thereby ensuring that young men who typically offend in their teenage years and who may then become law-abiding are not labelled in this way as criminals for the rest of their lives.
By contrast, the British database contains, and will continue to contain, the DNA of those who have a brush with the law in their youth. Under our system these young men will remain on the database indefinitely, a fact which may serve as a permanent reminder to them of youthful crime out of which they have grown and which they may otherwise be entitled to forget once they become responsible adults. The French database also allows for people to be removed after a period of good behaviour. Once again, that is to ensure that those who have had a clean record for a good period of time can be allowed to think of themselves as no longer being suspects. I wonder whether the Government might consider that at the Committee stage of the Bill.
In my view the arguments in favour of maintaining the current system whereby the samples of those who are proved innocent, and the data obtained from such samples, are destroyed are weighty ones. However, if the view is taken that we should move to the proposed position whereby samples are kept, even if the person giving the sample is proved innocent, then it would be desirable to have some time limit to this retention. At the very least it should be possible for a person to apply to have his or her sample removed after a period during which they have not been convicted of a relevant criminal offence. That means that even if innocent people are going to be included on the database, those who object to that should be entitled to have their sample and data removed. Not to allow that is to ignore an objection which some people may have to having what is, after all, a very intimate biological sample held by others when one has done
676
nothing to deserve it. Those who do not object to that may volunteer for the samples to be retained indefinitely and that of course would be their right.
If there is one thing which the Alder Hey inquiry and its counterpart in Scotland have shown, it is that people have very serious feelings about their own tissue and that of members of their family. These concerns over the way in which biological samples are treated by the state must be respected. That provides us with another reason to stop and think very carefully about the implications of these clauses.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. These Benches provide a splendid vantage point to observe the discomfort which sometimes her outspoken remarks provoke on her own Government's Front Bench. This evening she has spoken in a lower key although as relevantly and effectively as usual. Perhaps I may also say how much the House as a whole valued the profound insights of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who speaks with special knowledge about young people.
I shall confine my remarks to Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Bill, "On the Spot Penalties for Disorderly Behaviour". At first sight it seems an enterprising attempt by the Government to counter what is an evident social problem. No one will contest the Home Secretary's comment when moving the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons that the anti-social behaviour of a yobbish minority all too often impinges on the quality of life of the law-abiding majority. He was also right to emphasise the extent of public nuisance caused by alcohol abuse, and underage drinking by young people, especially in town or city centres.
As a result, the opening clauses of the Bill contain some novel provisions for combating crime and disorder. The first point I should like to make is that, however easily coupling them together rolls off the tongue, crime and disorder are separate concepts with different sanctions attached to each. Whereas most crimes are specifically defined in legislation, often with stated penalties, disorder has no precise legal definition. In general terms it can be described as human conduct which disturbs others.
Against that background let us consider for a few minutes the proposal that a police officer should be empowered to issue penalty notices on the spot for disorderly behaviour. Practicalities apart, the main objection is that it is a further manifestation of a trend which we have seen only too often in recent years: that is, mixing criminal and civil law procedures. The principles and the protections of the criminal law, in particular the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof, are correspondingly diluted.
This House has always been concerned to scrutinise with particular care any extension in the reach of the criminal law. Despite its hybrid nature, it is safe to assume that Ministers intend the proposals set out in Chapter 1 of the Bill to be treated as a strengthening

677
of criminal powers. A penalty notice can be issued if a police officer "has reason to believe" that at least one of the offences listed in Clause 1 has been committed by a person aged 18 or over. Yet that requirement falls short of being able to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the person has committed the offence, which is the criminal standard of proof.
In technical language, a penalty notice is described as notice of the opportunity to discharge any liability to conviction of the offence by payment of a fixed penalty. Thus there is no criminal conviction, or indeed admission of guilt, as I understand it, associated with payment of the penalty; hence the justification for a lower standard of proof. This is all thin ice in terms of criminal procedure.
The alleged offender has the right to opt for trial by a court and to risk conviction if he, or less often she, so chooses. Failure either to pay the financial penalty, which is likely to be in the range of £50 to £200, or to opt for trial, may lead to the imposition of a fine equivalent to one-and-a-half times the penalty on the defaulter. Non-payment of such fines may result in imprisonment.
As a consequence, the population in the inner-city prisons, where overcrowding is at its highest and constructive activities are at their lowest, is likely to be swollen by an additional influx of people with inadequate personalities, low incomes, and an unsettled way of life. It is particularly unfortunate that there has been no prior consultation with the district judges the former stipendiary magistrates—who sit in the busy magistrates' courts in city centres and who have first-hand experience of the issues with which this Bill deals.
If all that sounds complicated—I am conscious it does—it is because once again the draftsman has had the unenviable task of trying to rescue a headline-grabbing initiative, and to reconcile it with the requirements of the rule of law.
I strongly believe that in this House, insulated as your Lordships are from the more extreme populist pressures to which Ministers and elected Members in another place are subject, we have a particular responsibility to resist encroachments on the rule of law, even where it is the probable result rather than the intended purpose.
If we look back to a somewhat similar initiative earlier in this Parliament, the anti-social behaviour order contained in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we find an example of an attempt to control anti-social behaviour in particular localities. The issue was not so different from that which we are discussing under this Bill. It too was a hybrid measure in that the application for an ASBO was treated as a civil procedure, subject to the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities, rather than to the criminal burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt.
That legislation, like the present proposals, had decent enough antecedents: the furtherance of community safety, especially on crime-ridden housing estates. Yet the problems of implementation were such
678
that in some parts of the country the orders have hardly been used at all. In the Commons debate on the present Bill, for example, it was stated that since their introduction ASBOs have been used on only two occasions in the whole of the Thames Valley Police area, one of the largest in the country.
If that legislation, which has been on the statute book for some time now, has failed to bear down effectively on anti-social behaviour because the police and the local authorities are reluctant to use it, why should it be thought that the present proposals on disorder are likely to be any more successful?
As an afterthought, I should explain that I had prepared what I regard as these relatively moderate criticisms before I was aware of the devastating strictures by the Criminal Bar Association of the proposals in Part 1 of the Bill. The detailed analysis by practitioners of some of the likely consequences of enforcing this measure, if enacted in the form in which it is before us at the moment, makes electrifying reading. The House should be grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for reprinting the document verbatim in its first special report.
Surely it is also relevant that both the Police Federation and the Magistrates' Association—two professional bodies which would be closely associated with the implementation of this legislation—opposed the Home Office proposals in the consultation paper on fixed penalty notices. Referring to the type of incident that would attract a notice to be served at the scene, the Police Federation stated:
"We do not believe such offences readily lend themselves to such a scheme and therefore must express our deep concern as to the considerable operational impracticalities and public perception as to the implementation of such a concept".
The Magistrates' Association was equally forthright, stating:
"The Association opposes the introduction of fixed penalty notices for the offences set out in the consultation paper. Where the police decide that a warning or caution is insufficient the alleged offender should be 'fast-tracked' to a court on the next day, and dealt with in a proper and judicial manner".
I repeat,
"dealt with in a proper and judicial manner".
Those are fine words that surely should be ringing in our ears as we debate the provisions of this part of the Bill.
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important Bill. It is probably one of the most important Bills to have come before us this Session. I start by declaring an interest. As many noble Lords know, I chair the police authority in my home area of North Yorkshire. I am also deputy chairman of the Association of Police Authorities, the national body that represents all police authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The current service authorities for the National Crime Squad, of which I was formerly a member, and the National Criminal Intelligence Service are also members of that association.

679
This Bill is large and diverse. I shall confine my contribution to those aspects about which I have particular knowledge or expertise.
Effective, targeted training lies at the heart of modern, professional policing and a diverse, inclusive culture for the police service. The Association of Police Authorities has worked closely with the Government in helping to shape a reform programme for police training. It is an ambitious and a broad programme of work. A number of elements do not require legislation and are already under way. However, the clauses in the Bill are central to the success of the programme as a whole and in particular they would, as the Minister outlined, establish a new authority to oversee national police training arrangements; provide a core curriculum of basic police training; and allow for new, mandatory qualifications for certain police roles.
Overall, these measures will help to enhance further the already excellent standards of commitment and professionalism that exist in the police service, examples of which I witness daily in my work as chairman of North Yorkshire Police Authority. They are to be welcomed.
The Bill would also change significantly the accountability arrangements for the two national policing squads—the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. These provisions were not debated in detail in the other place and I urge this House to give careful scrutiny to them. They are important.
There are two issues involved, and they are linked. First, the Bill introduces new funding arrangements for the national squads. by direct grant from central government rather than the existing levy on police authorities. Secondly, the Bill reduces drastically the number of representatives of local police forces and authorities who serve on the two service authorities which oversee the work of the national squads.
As currently drafted, these provisions would weaken unnecessarily the existing links between local and national policing organisations; links which tie the national squads firmly into our arrangements for maintaining local accountability for policing actions. I do not believe that that is the Government's intent ion but I believe that it will happen in practice.
I place on record my admiration for the excellent work undertaken by the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service in tackling some of the most serious crime and dangerous criminal gangs in this country and abroad. However, they do not operate in a vacuum and they are part of the overall policing family. Strong operational, organisational and cultural ties must be retained between the national squads and local police forces. All have an important role in the fight against crime.
A balance must be struck to find the right level of investment in policing at its different levels. Whatever the complexion of the government in power, this will be a difficult and delicate task and Parliament has a right to scrutinise their decisions closely. I know that the Association of Police Authorities has proposed drafting changes to the Government that would
680
enhance consultation with all interested parties on the priorities for policing at local and national level and resources needed to meet them; enable Parliament to take an informed view on that consultation exercise when scrutinising the government proposals for grants to the national squads and for policing generally; and recognise more fully the value and breadth of experience which representatives of police authorities and forces bring to the work of the service authorities which oversee the two national squads. Once again, I encourage the Government to bring forward the amendment at the Committee stage and enable the House to debate these provisions properly.
I could not let the Second Reading pass without a word or two about those provisions which relate to police authorities themselves. These give statutory recognition to the role of vice chairmen; remove the bar on people over 70 serving on a police authority; and let police authorities decide what allowances their members should receive. I am delighted that the Government have finally recognised that police authorities are grown up enough, and responsible enough, to set the levels of their own allowances. At present, they have to run, cap in hand, to the Home Office all the time.
The time, energy and commitment which police authority members give to their work is incalculable. And I wish here to pay my deep gratitude to members of my own police authority in North Yorkshire who have given me such marvellous support throughout my years as their chairman. Police authority members do this work on top of their day jobs and other responsibilities. They need to be recompensed fairly and it is very important to encourage those sections currently under-represented to serve on police authorities; for instance, younger women, by having the flexibility to pay for baby-sitters.
I know that the Association of Police Authorities is drawing up a model scheme which will set sensible national guidelines for all authorities to follow. Independent advice on what those levels should be is being sought. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is only fair to seek to ensure that people are justly treated for the enormous amount of time they devote to public service. So that is one small step.
However, it is disappointing—and I misquote Neil Armstrong—that the Government did not feel able to make a somewhat larger leap. The Home Office will decide how police authority members should be reimbursed by way of expenses and will still say how much members will receive per mile if they go to police authority meetings by car, by bicycle or by skateboard! I shall return to that at the Committee stage. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that the Government have finally honoured the long-standing commitments they made to the Association of Police Authorities to make these changes.
I must now introduce a new element into the debate; what I call the "Humberside judgment". As your Lordships may know, every police authority includes members from local councils. I myself am a councillor member of my police authority. Only a month or so

681
ago, the High Court ruled that only councillors from political parties can be counted when appointing local authority members to police authorities. The judge felt bound by the wording of the Police Act to say that independent councillors—those who do not belong to a political party—must be ignored. I believe that that is manifestly unfair and inequitable. It means that no police authority can ever reflect the views of those members of the electorate who voted for an independent councillor. To give just one example, it means that the Isles of Scilly can never have a say in how they are policed.
That cannot be right. A simple technical amendment can put that right and the judge herself called on Parliament to make the change. I know that the Association of Police Authorities has pressed the Government to act in this Bill and the Government have not done so. I will continue to press for this change at future stages.
I conclude by asking the Government to think again about the proposed changes to the accountability of our two national police services; and to think again about the exclusion of independent councillors from police authorities. I am pleased that now there will be time to give proper consideration to these matters.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I shall express three welcomes for the Bill and one serious word of caution. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said that the Bill was not a mosaic but was crazy paving. It is an unfortunate, perhaps an unhappy, fact of human behaviour that those who commit crime and those who have to detect and punish it cannot do so within a framework which is intellectually an attractive mosaic. That simply is not life. That is why from time to time the Home Office must bring forward a Bill which comprises many different aspects of the criminal justice system. This is such a Bill. It may lack uniformity, but it has one central theme which I support: the maintenance of public order and the protection of the public.
I shall illustrate that conclusion by three welcomes that show it to be a valid theme. The first is concerned with alcohol-related crime. As a member of Liberty, I commend this House on the most searching investigation of each and every clause of the Bill that might affect civil liberties. But the victims of crime also have civil liberties, one of which is the right to be protected from the commission of crime, or exposure to disorder. This Bill seeks to do that in relation to alcohol-related crime in several ways, two of which I highlight for note. The first is the imposition of on-thespot fixed penalty notices, the individual having the option to elect trial after considering his or her position.
I agree that this is a novel change to our system and that it lacks intellectual rigour because it links the control of crime and the effective protection of the public in a way to which we are not accustomed, but it should not be criticised for its originality. One should
682
determine whether the change has the demerit which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, suggested. I think not. As my noble friend Lady Hollis put it earlier today, we are not dealing here with thousands of feckless individuals who have no idea what they are doing.
In university terms I am a native of Manchester. A friend of mine told me that in the past few years the city has done so well that every Friday, Saturday and Sunday night, at any time of year, half a million young people between the ages of 15 or 16 and 35 descend on the city. The key source of entertainment is drink. That is a social phenomenon to which we are not accustomed. A society which produces drinking on the part of so many people is a very rough and ready one. The ones who drink enjoy it and the victims of it suffer.
What are we supposed to do? Do we lecture to the sufferers about the importance of the human rights of those who may commit disorder, or do we seek to control it in an effective way? The issue of fixed penalty notices is one way that is worth trying, but they give rise to problems which I shall identify. The first is the collection of the fixed penalty which, as it stands, is no more than a fine without being related to a proven criminal offence. At the moment, about one-quarter of the fines imposed is not recovered. According to the most reliable LCD statistics, we lose about £45 million due to changes of address, lack of police powers, the inability of magistrates' courts to trace people and so on. It would be futile to introduce a form of fine—a fixed penalty—which was not effectively collected.
I invite the House to consider one particular offence which it is said arises under these proposals and gives me great concern in relation to fixed penalties. I refer to the offence of threatening, abusive or insulting words and behaviour, or any writing or sign which has the effect of causing distress. My fear is that such offences are very often committed with a racial motivation. I should be deeply concerned if it became the practice for police forces to treat that kind of offence as properly to be dealt with by a fixed penalty. I hope that in Committee we shall return to consideration of at least codes of practice to make sure that that does not happen. Subject to that, I welcome the change as one that is worth trying.
I associate that with the risk of closure faced by licensed premises if they do not enforce the licensing laws. Anyone with experience of the United States knows the degree of effort which the owners of licensed premises make to protect their licence. They exercise control in relation to the age of those who drink, and it works. It may not be pleasant for those in their late teens or early twenties who are excluded, but it works. When one accepts, as I do, that a minority of licensed premises will be at risk of closure, one sees that that too is a sanction that is worth trying.
Why are these new sanctions worth trying? One cannot overestimate the effect of alcohol-related crime and disorder on the functioning of our society. On any evening in any city centre or council estate this is a major new phenomenon which needs to be controlled. To believe that the human rights of those who commit

683
such disorder are more important than the effects on the individuals who suffer from it is an imbalance that I do not accept.
I have spent some time on the question of alcohol-related crime in relation to disorder. It is also a fact that much serious crime is associated with drink. I remember discussing with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in times past whether there were statistics to corroborate the anecdotal evidence available to those at the Bar about the vast increase in crime involving the use of knives. I understand that it is almost impossible to determine whether that anecdote is right, but many colleagues at the Bar tell me that the most serious offences of assault that they regularly encounter involve the use of knives stimulated by excessive drink. In that regard, a change of culture, not a total solution, is worth pursuing.
I refer much more briefly to my second welcome: the protection to be given to witnesses in civil proceedings. Some noble Lords may find it surprising, as I do, that someone who intimidates and seeks to pervert the course of justice in relation to offences that may carry a life sentence, or many years in prison, and allows someone else to escape such a penalty, is himself subject only to a maximum of five years' imprisonment, but that is the present law. This Bill adopts that in relation to civil proceedings. Looking at the Bill and the Explanatory Notes, I am a little concerned to see it suggested that in particular it is directed at breach of community orders. I presume that it is also intended to be directed at the pursuit of the proceeds of drug trafficking and, if it is implemented, the Proceeds of Crime Act where people play for big stakes and will be very ready to intimidate witnesses in such a quasi-civil proceeding. It may be that I am wrong and that the previous Act protects people in those cases; one or other should, and I look forward to confirmation that that is the law.
The third welcome relates to a matter about which I am particularly concerned because of my connections with children's charities. I refer to the preservation of DNA samples. I listened with great interest to the extremely interesting analysis of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. In Committee we must determine whether such a blanket power as the Bill presently provides to retain samples can be justified. I believe that it certainly can be justified in relation to crimes of murder and serious sexual offences. We are now in a society in which sex crimes against children in particular—paedophile rings—and sex crimes against women are very prevalent indeed. They are mostly the crimes perpetrated by strangers against their victims and in many such crimes DNA evidence, which can prove guilt to a near certainty, is a vital component in proving the commission of such a serious offence. The public would find it difficult to accept if this House did not devise some system that enabled DNA samples to be kept in order to assist in the detection of those who commit such very serious crimes. I noticed that although in its report the Joint Committee commented on Article 8 in terms of human rights considerations, it did not expressly criticise that part of the Bill; nor do
684
I, but I am happy that it should be returned to in committee in order to ensure that it is applied reasonably and fairly.
I turn to my note of caution. Legal professional privilege enjoys its historical importance in our criminal and civil law because it protects the citizen against unreasonable interference by the state. Citizens can talk to their lawyer in private and by so doing protect their human rights and protect their desire to prove their innocence if charged, if they can. In the view of many, that is still a vital pare of our democracy. It distinguishes us from a totalitarian state where such concepts are regarded as irrelevant. It is an important feature of our legal life and of our system of human rights as we now have them and it should not be damaged or diminished without the most careful consideration.
In an age of electronic records, I find it difficult to accept that the Bill will allow the seizure of electronic material by people who have no idea what they are doing in terms of distinguishing between what is privileged and what is not. Once obtained, even with an obligation to return it as soon as possible if it is privileged, are we really to think that the information obtained by the police if it is privileged will not be stored, at least mentally if not in some permanent form? I find that extremely concerning. It could give rise to a state of affairs whereby, at one extreme. lawyers do not record their advice and, at another. they encrypt their communications with their client or their records of them.
I invite the Government to explain—not at this stage but perhaps in Committee—how these powers will interrelate with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. If a solicitor has encrypted what he regards as privileged information, will he then face difficulties under that Act if he refuses to disclose the code because he says that it is privileged? I remember that under the Act it was said to be privileged and would remain so, but how will the Bill affect that, as it refers to seizure simpliciter, not seizure with the problem of encryption?
I have welcomed the Bill in some respects and on my previous point I have expressed significant caution. I conclude by commending two speeches. The first is the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who so rightly said that the causes of crime must be dealt with as well as the commission of crime. I also welcome the timely reminder of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that we should always think of a Bill like this in relation to the rule of law. I agree; but with the rule of law embracing not only the rights of the accused or the suspect but also the right of each citizen to go about his or her business without affliction from public disorder or crime.
I close as I opened. A Bill like this is really aimed at the protection of the public. That is what it seeks to achieve. In Committee it can be refined, but its valid objectives for the public cannot be doubted.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and to take up his final remarks about the right of citizens to go about their lawful occasions without fear of crime or, I would add, of intimidation and harassment.
It is just less than a month ago that the All-Party Group on the Pharmaceutical Industry gathered together to hear an address and to take part in a discussion led by Brian Cass, the managing director of Huntingdon Life Sciences Limited. He described to us, in what I can only describe as horrifying detail, the appalling experiences which he and many members of the staff of his company have suffered over the past 18 months at the hands of animal rights terrorists. Perhaps I may say that I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, at the beginning of his speech refer to those people as terrorists. He did not repeat it but it was clearly in his script. To my mind, that is how we must look at the worst elements of the campaign.
The campaign is run by a body with the acronym Shac—Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. But Shac's campaign of threats, intimidation and violence directed at the management and staff is quite frankly outrageous. Their cars have been torched, their homes have been beset by large and angry mobs and their windows have been smashed. They are subjected to harassment every time they enter and leave the company's premises. Only a few weeks ago, Mr Cass himself was attacked by a group of thugs, bludgeoned with pick-axes and had to be rescued by his wife. Such treatment has now been extended to individual shareholders and, where shares are held by companies, to the directors and shareholders of those companies. It has been extended to their bankers and their directors. Most recently, it has been extended to their brokers and also to customers of Huntingdon Life Sciences. Many of us who heard Mr Cass had not begun to realise the extent and sheer viciousness of Shac's so-called campaign. I know that I was not alone in feeling a sense of shame that we, as central to the body politic, seemed to have done so little to deal with what seemed to me to be a very real evil.
What have we had from the press? Mr Cass quoted the remark made by one journalist, who said, "Well it goes with the turf, doesn't it guy?", as much as to say that if you are engaged in a business involving controversy, what can you expect? There are those who say that the right to protest is one of our precious constitutional rights, and of course that is quite correct in terms of lawful, peaceful protest. But that is not what we are seeing in the case of Huntingdon Life Sciences.
A bad signal was sent—this point may be regarded as controversial—when in yielding to pressure the trustees of the Labour Party's pension fund decided that they would sell their investment in HLS. I believe that that sent a clear signal to Shac and its supporters that it was perfectly legitimate to try to force other people to do the same. That is exactly what they have done.
686
They have attacked banks and their directors. It is a matter of some shame that the banks then withdrew their support. Only last week, I read in the Independent that:
"Two stockbroking firms that backed Huntingdon Life Sciences have walked out on the controversial animal testing company amid accusations that the Government and police failed to provide protection from animal rights extremists".
The article goes on to say that,
"this came after a campaign of harassment and intimidation directed against Winterflood by activists".
The Independent offered a comment on the City page of which I think we should take note. It opened by noting that:
"If Brian Winterflood is running scared, then things must be bad".
Mr Winterflood has a reputation in the City for being a toughie. The article closes by saying that,
"the capital markets have to be defended from those who would destroy them. Mr Winterflood's decision is a bad day for the City, and for British resolve more generally".
I agree with that.
Only at the weekend—new stories come forward almost every day—I read about another victim of this brutal campaign of intimidation. This time it concerned one of our leading biotechnology companies, British Biotech. The Financial Times stated the following:
"British Biotech yesterday became the first significant customer of Huntingdon Life Sciences to sever its relationship with the troubled drug-testing company after being targeted by anti-vivisectionists".
What is interesting is the report of the reaction of Shac. Greg Avery stated that:
"British Biotech had been 'heavily targeted' by his organisation over the past weeks. It is understood the company has received a barrage of hate e-mails and that campaigners have protested outside its Oxford offices.
'This is the first premier customer of HLS to withdraw,' said Mr Avery." He said Shac was gearing up to target other customers of the company, including Novartis and Roche of Switzerland, and Bayer of Germany.
'Anybody who is a customer of HLS is going to be in the firing line,' said Mr Avery. 'And no customers, no HLS. It's as simple as that.'".
One has to ask whether this is tolerable. For a while it appeared that very little was being done. When this Bill was introduced into another place, it contained nothing to deal with this. Indeed, at the suggestion that directors' names and private addresses should perhaps be withheld if they had a reasonable fear of being threatened with this kind of intimidation, the Government's first reaction was to say that a major review of company law was being carried out by the DTI. The matter should wait for that review. Happily, wiser counsels have prevailed. Clauses 41 to 44 of the Bill were added either in Committee or on Report in another place. They contain welcome measures aimed at countering this vicious campaign of terrorism.

687
I shall quote from a consultation document issued just before the weekend which contains a useful summary of the action to be taken: Animal Rights Extremism: Government Strategy. The four measures are as follows:
"to provide a new power for police to move protestors away from homes, where such protests may cause harassment, alarm or distress"—
the point is made that this is aimed specifically at preventing the kind of intimidation which individuals may endure if protestors target their home or family, and,
"at protecting rights to privacy and family life".
The second measure aims to,
"strengthen the provisions on sending malicious communications and to make this an imprisonable offence".
This is to be extended under the new clause to electronic communications made by whatever means: telephone, e-mail, fax and so forth. Thirdly,
"to protect the home addresses of Directors in vulnerable companies, by providing that [they] … may be withheld from the public by use of a secure register".
Fourthly,
"to amend the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to ensure that separate incidents of harassment organised by a group of people are caught by the Act".
I shall return to the final measure in a moment.
This document was published only last Friday. I commend it to anyone who wishes to understand what has been going on. It contains a remarkable account of the nature and extent of this protest campaign. Il makes for chilling reading.
The Government have now added their proposals to the Bill and 'we can discuss the reaction of Shac.
"Natasha Taylor of the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty campaign said that Mr Straw's measures 'won't make a blind bit of difference to us closing down Huntingdon Life Sciences'".
She went on to say that:
"We are running a legal campaign which does not condone illegal activity. but history shows that there are always people in the animal rights movement who are prepared to step outside the law to achieve an end to animal abuse".
I suspect that if the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, or the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, were seeking to prosecute Ms Natasha Taylor, they might give her quite an uncomfortable time in relation to the second sentence in that statement. She knows perfectly well what she is inciting in her campaign. Her protestations of acting legally ring pretty hollow.
There is reason to believe that Clause 43 goes some way further than the description that I gave a moment ago; namely, to amend the Protection from Harassment Act to ensure that separate incidents of harassment organised by a group of people are caught by the Act. I should like to address a question to the Minister, to which I hope that he will be able to
688
respond in his closing remarks. At first sight, the clause appears to catch anyone who aids, abets, counsels or procures an act of collective harassment. But does it do so? As I read the clause, I think that this may be ambivalent and I should like to know exactly what is intended here.
Perhaps I may cite an example. In Harlow there is a cluster of leading pharmaceutical companies. Three weeks ago a number of them were targeted by Shac invasions. The animal rights mobs battled their way into a number of company premises, overwhelming security staff and going on to cause a considerable amount of damage. All the attacks took place on the same day. The targets had been carefully identified and selected and it was obvious that the raids were planned and co-ordinated. What I should like to know is this: would Clause 43 as it now appears in the Bill catch not only those who were on the scene—I believe that the clause does that—but also those who may not have been there, but who planned and co-ordinated that series of violent invasions?
The leaders of Shac have not hidden themselves. I have quoted the names of two of them in my remarks. But they have been in receipt of very careful legal advice. They themselves take great care not to fall foul of the existing law. I ask again: will Clause 43 as drafted catch those who plan and organise collective harassment so that they will be found as much guilty of an offence as those who take part in the violent activity? If not, why not—or are we going to have to fall back on the notoriously difficult crime of criminal conspiracy in order to bring the leaders and instigators of such actions before the courts? This is a serious issue and I want a clear answer. It is something we have to deal with.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may remind the House that research to ensure the safety of drugs and other medical treatments must, by law, include the testing of products and components on animals. I have recently had open-heart surgery and I have read the fascinating history of Papworth Hospital. All the early experiments in heart surgery were carried out on pigs. Indeed, to my certain knowledge there is a Member of this House who at the moment has a pig's valve in his heart, and it is working extremely well. So one has a personal reason for recognising the importance of this research.
We in Britain have an extremely successful record in pharmaceutical discovery and innovation. We also have in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the most scrupulous and comprehensive legislation in the world in balancing the needs of research with the welfare of laboratory animals. If the activities of Shac achieve their avowed purpose and drive these industries away from this country, not only would it do serious economic damage to the country as a whole but it would lead not to the end of these experiments but to their continuation in countries overseas which are much less protective of animal welfare than we are.
Again, only last week the Government published the interesting report of the Pharmaceutical Industry Competitiveness Task Force, which was jointly

689
chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and Mr Tom McKillop, the chief executive officer of AstraZeneca. I shall read one short paragraph to demonstrate the industry's importance. Paragraph 1.1 states:
"The pharmaceutical industry based in the UK … is one of the most successful in the world. It is a prime example of what is needed in a successful knowledge economy".
These people, by their own avowed intention, are trying to put that at risk by their illegal harassment, threats and intimidation, and by what is described in the Home Office document as "outright terrorism". It is of the utmost importance that they should never succeed.
8.22 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, because a few months ago I went to a meeting of the Cambridgeshire Police Authority, where we heard the details of what was going on at Huntingdon. It was absolutely shocking. I endorse everything the noble Lord said about what the attackers are doing and condemn their actions totally.
The expense to the police authority was enormous. I am glad to say that the special appeal to the Home Office to increase the grant to the Cambridgeshire police was successful and that they received, I think, at least £1 million to help this year, which is badly needed. It is very discouraging for the police to have to spend so much time on these activities. I applaud the Government for having done something about the matter in the Bill—or perhaps the Commons for having forced the Government to do something.
I turn now to what I wish to say about the Bill. I intend to concentrate on one matter only; that is, the extension of curfews from the age of 10 to the age of 16. This appears in Clause 45.
When the child curfew scheme was brought in under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, a QC advised a consortium of children's organisations that such curfews were in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, now incorporated into the Human Rights Act. Because the 1998 Act proposed curfews only for under-10s, the QC considered that it would breach parents' rights to private and family life under Article 8 of the convention. The extension of curfews under this Bill to 16 year-olds therefore compounds the likely breach of the European convention because it will also directly breach older children's own rights under Article 8, their rights to liberty under Article 5, and to freedom of association under Article 11.
The European convention allows citizens' rights under these articles to be interfered with if this is "necessary"—he word in the Bill—but, given that police already have powers to take action in respect of any under-18 year-old who is acting in any way which might harm their social, educational or behavioural development, why is it necessary to curfew perfectly innocent and law-abiding children and young people
690
living in a particular area when the police already have legal powers to deal with any children who are out late and acting in an anti-social or self-harming way?
I call attention to a letter written by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, in answer to a letter on this matter from the Children's Rights Alliance. The letter states:
"I find the whole proposal [to extend child curfew] to run absolutely counter to all my instincts and beliefs about the way to treat our children. I am particularly concerned that society appears to be marginalising its young males. They are represented as failures at school; domestic circumstances mean that too many are denied adult male role models: proper jobs are denied to them and all that is available is a series of unskilled, unsatisfactory employment".
This echoes what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his excellent speech.
I should like to make two other points. First, what about the children who are out late on the streets because of domestic violence or other forms of abuse within the family? A curfew may well force such children back into nightmarish homes and, for example, prevent them from staying late at a friend's house until a drunken parent is safely asleep.
Secondly, when one London area introduced a form of curfew, parents complained to children's organisations that their sons saw the curfew as a challenge and took to staying out deliberately to taunt the police. The parents said that things rapidly got worse, not better, and greatly added to the stress on families.
This is a serious matter. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to what has been said by the Children's Rights Alliance and respond to that. I should also like him to provide the House with an answer to the allegation that a curfew will breach the Human Rights Act.
8.28 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I wish to speak to the smallest part of the Bill, Part 2. Clauses 48 to 50 deal with information disclosure for the purposes of criminal proceedings. At their heart is an entirely laudable desire to ensure that information held by the state should be available to assist in the investigation of crimes and in criminal proceedings. But, as is so often the case, the Government have drafted very wide powers, the exercise of which could easily be injurious to citizens.
I will deal in particular with Clause 49, which concerns the disclosure of information by tax authorities. Members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, in which I declare an interest as a council member, have expressed considerable concerns about this clause, as have other representative bodies of taxpayers' agents.
Taxpayers have always believed that information given to the tax authorities is given in strictest confidence. This helps to promote a culture of tax compliance. For example, taxpayers whose affairs have got in a mess are positively encouraged to make a clean breast of outstanding issues. Under a procedure known as the "Hansard" procedure, a taxpayer can do

691
a deal with the Inland Revenue. If the taxpayer honestly owns up to past errors and makes a financial settlement—usually a very large financial settlement—the Inland Revenue will agree not to prosecute. This is clearly advantageous to the taxpayer. But it also promotes a culture of compliance, which is one of the linchpins of our tax system, as well as improving revenue collection.
How will this procedure work in future? What a taxpayer sometimes owns up to is a source of income or capital which has its origins in an illegal act. Will the Hansard procedure protect the taxpayer in future from information disclosure as well? If that is not the case, or if the taxpayer does not believe that that is the case, we could well see a diminution in the incidence of voluntary disclosure and settlement of past tax liabilities. That would be bad for individual taxpayers, for the culture of compliance in this country and for tax collection generally.
An area of difficulty under Clause 49 is that disclosure under the clause requires the authority of the commissioners concerned; namely, the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise. One problem with this is that in practice disclosure may well be authorised by a much more junior official to whom the commissioners have delegated their powers. I should be interested to hear whether there are any administrative processes planned to provide some protection to taxpayers against the over-enthusiastic use of these new information disclosure powers below the level of the commissioners themselves. I note in particular that, unlike Clause 47, the clause provides no penalty for wrongful disclosure. How will taxpayers be protected against the misuse of these powers?
I believe that the Government should also consider altering the authorisation procedures from within the tax authorities to an external authority. A precedent exists for occasions when the Inland Revenue wishes to obtain information about a taxpayer from external sources. It needs to obtain the permission of either a general or a special commissioner under Section 20 of the Taxes Management Act; that is to say, someone outside the Inland Revenue has to authorise the obtaining of information. It seems to me that there should be a similar requirement for the Inland Revenue to seek authority from someone outside the Inland Revenue—perhaps from a general or special commissioner—before information about a taxpayer is revealed.
I also ask the Minister to reconsider whether taxpayers should have a right to make representations before information relating to them is disclosed outside the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise. I am well aware that there could be difficulties involved in people being "tipped off"; nevertheless, under the Bill as drafted, the taxpayer has no right of redress or right of speech.
The new information disclosure power is not confined to crimes that have definitely been committed. It does not even require criminal investigations or criminal proceedings to be under
692
way. Clause 49(2) refers to criminal investigations which "may be carried out" and to criminal proceedings which "may be initiated". This Js a very wide power. I believe that some protection for taxpayers is necessary. One way of providing protection is to ensure that disclosure cannot he made unless there is reasonable evidence that a crime has been committed.
Clause 49 is not limited to disclosure in the UK. It specifically covers criminal proceedings or investigations outside the UK. The provision is not restricted to criminal offences or suspected offences that would be treated as criminal if they were committed in the UK. For example, some acts which in this country are regarded as civil offences are regarded as criminal in other jurisdictions. Are we really creating a power to allow information to be passed outside the UK authorities for acts that we should not regard as criminal?
Penalties vary considerably around the world. We need to avoid exposing individuals in the UK to penalties that we should regard as unacceptable in this country—for example, death or a long term of imprisonment in circumstances where we should impose a fine. This is not fanciful; penalties vary considerably around the world. About a year ago, there was a report in the newspapers that the Russian tax authorities had set up a tax collection army trained in mortal combat.
I am told that a relatively common source of taxpayer disclosure under the Hansard procedures that I referred to earlier is from individuals who have brought money or other assets into this country from their former countries in breach of local laws. Many still have relatives in those countries and would fear for their own or their relatives' safety if disclosure were made. Ethnic minorities persecuted overseas may well be particularly affected by the application of these powers.
I believe that all of this increases the need for an external authority to be involved before any disclosures are made. I hope that the Government will re-examine the matter. I hope that they will examine also the specific case of disclosures outside the UK to ensure that disclosure can be made only where the offence concerned would be treated as criminal in the UK and where there is a broad equivalence of penalty provisions.
Finally, would the Minister, who has signed the usual declaration on the European Convention on Human Rights for the Bill, confirm that disclosure of information could not be made under the Bill to a foreign jurisdiction where that jurisdiction does not itself comply with an equivalent of the convention? If he is unable to confirm this, will the Government consider amending the Bill to achieve that protection?
8.37 p.m.
The Earl of Rosslyn: My Lords, I shall address my remarks to Part V of the Bill. In so doing, I declare an interest as a serving officer in the Metropolitan Police: I am a commander with responsibility for the force's training.

693
In order to be effective, the police service depends on the consent of the communities it serves. That consent depends significantly on the trust and respect that people have for the police. Increasingly, such trust is proportionate to the level of professionalism that we show.
Achieving such high standards of professionalism represents a real challenge for the service since policing is made up of so many different roles, each requiring appropriate attitudes, knowledge and often a high level of technical skills. Many of the situations in which officers will apply those skills will be hostile or stressful. The way in which we recruit and train them will, therefore, be central to effective policing.
Timely, relevant and effective training is recognised as fundamental in preparing officers to deal with the operational complexities of the modern world. As policing has become more complex and demanding, and as the pressures on the service have increased, so has the demand for training. Your Lordships' House, if I may say so politely, has played its part in that, since in the past 10 years over 100 separate pieces of legislation have been enacted which have had major training implications for the police service.
In 1999, an Inspectorate report estimated that the total cost of training police officers throughout the service in any one year was as high as —391 million. That figure took no account of the costs of training civilian support staff or members of the Special Constabulary. More recent studies have suggested that the figure could be considerably higher.
Since May 1998, five major reports have been published examining how such training in England and Wales is organised. These included the first thematic inspection of training by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary and an inquiry by the Home Affairs Committee in another place. Many aspects of that collective thinking are now reflected in Part V of the Bill and have led to the creation of the central police training and development authority. It was recognised that the service had put considerable effort and resources into training delivery but that it needed to put more effort into managing training.
The creation of the new authority to act as a focus for developing and promoting professional excellence across the police service is, therefore, welcome.
There appears to be wide agreement that such professionalism would be enhanced by a set of occupational standards for policing. These would specify the minimum level of competence, knowledge and skills that an officer must have to carry out a specific task or role. It would be open to individual forces to exceed the national occupational standards, and forces would continue to be able to choose training whose style or ethos best suited the force. The Bill provides the framework within which this can now happen, with a core curriculum to support those occupational standards and mandatory qualifications for certain ranks and roles.
694
The Policing and Reducing Crime Unit paper in 1998, for example, identified the advantages of a core curriculum for the training of officers investigating allegations of child abuse. While policing should never ignore its local context, corporate common standards of service delivery are sometimes legitimate and desirable, provided that any qualification is linked to competence in operational performance.
So the Bill may influence positively the content of police training, but what of how it is achieved? Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary has estimated that an "average"—if I may use that word—constable could receive as much as 14 days' training in a year, which compares with 2.8 days for all public sector organisations and 3.2 days in the private sector. This illustrates the scale of training delivered in the police service. Although it represents a positive investment in staff skills, the service must also consider using alternative learning strategies; for example, on average, only about 5 per cent of training in forces is currently delivered by distance learning. A more flexible approach to when and where such training is delivered could reduce abstraction levels from the frontline. The proposed role for the new authority in developing this thinking is, therefore, welcome.
My own force has been active in developing both computer-based training programmes and sophisticated simulation training for major incidents, and the investigation of serious crime. Officers are faced with a realistic and challenging recreations of live policing events. The system is now being used for other aspects of police training. At a time when partnership working is so central to the promotion of community safety, we are also using the system to deliver joint training with other agencies. It is pleasing to see that the Bill defines so inclusively the functions of the new authority to encourage just such collaborative approaches.
However, training cannot raise standards in isolation—effective leadership is also required, as well as an organisational culture that provides opportunities for self-development and continuous learning. But an investment in training will enable the service to accelerate the personal development of its staff, and so improve those skills and abilities upon which successful policing depends. Part 5 of the Bill will, I believe, contribute positively to that end.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it was in 1984 that I took through your Lordships' House the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, or PACE. It was quite an interesting experience because a general election had been called—how things change!—halfway through the procedure for that Bill in the previous Parliament. When that Bill fell, your Lordships had gone through virtually the whole process of the legislation. So I took it through the House for a second time on what one would have thought was common ground, yet a host of amendments were tabled. At the end of the Bill's passage, I believed that we had a landmark piece of legislation and that at last we had put everything to bed: the system was there; it would work; and

695
criminals would be detected, arrested and put into smoothly-functioning prisons where they would be reformed before they were turned out again. I did not feel quite so confident about the prisons because I was the Minister in charge of them and I knew that they were not achieving that aim.
However, I should not have been so green about the other aspects of the effects of that Bill, because my previous position had been a short-term appointment in what was then the Department of Health and Social Security. During that time I was introduced to a particular form of intermediate treatment called the "Norfolk trail", and discovered that the rate of re-offending for children who had been through that process was between 16 per cent and 20 per cent lower than the rate for those who were sent for custodial treatment. That started me off on a trail that I followed enthusiastically when I left government. However, I did not leave your Lordships' House. I found that we were on a sort of "legislative treadmill"; indeed, one got to recognise the spokes as they came round. We have had main programme legislation on criminal justice themes on 26 occasions in this House since PACE went through. There has been no dramatic improvement in offending rates, or in rehabilitation since that time.
I am speaking here tonight in recognition of the fact that this is a rag-tag of a Bill. I cannot make a coherent speech, but one can do very effectively what my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding did about a piece of it. I should like to sign tip to every word that he uttered on the subject of the animal rights business. I have been encouraged in the theme that I seek to address because we are at the end of this Parliament, and we have a different view of the Government from what we had at the beginning. As a result of my experience at the Department of Health and seeing the "Norfolk trail", as well as further investigations, I invested much of my time and enthusiasm in, first, chairing the Intermediate Treatment Fund and then, out of its ashes when it was demolished by my right honourable friend, Virginia Bottomley, at the department, I chaired the DIVERT Trust, which was aimed at giving children what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, called "hope"—in other words, some hope in life.
I do not believe that we have achieved that aim. However, I should like to commend what the Government have achieved in the way of setting up the youth offending teams and securing a genuine form of co-operation across different services that, in my day, were more accustomed to bickering than co-operating. That is a welcome move. But what made the defeat of my parliamentary House of Commons colleagues in 1997 a little more bearable than it otherwise would have been was the enthusiasm with which Mr Jack Straw and his colleagues in another place supported the complaints made by myself and my noble friends here against the developing Conservative policy of those days of locking up an increasing number of young people, and giving the voluntary agencies a diminishing amount of core funding to enable them to provide the hope that such youngsters were not getting from the state system.
696
The fact that they had been so vociferous and effective in resisting such measures—for example, the institution of secure training centres in the last years of the previous Parliament—made many of us feel that a little benefit might be derived from the change of party in power. The first indication that that was not going to happen was the confirmation of the contracts for the building of all the secure training centres, followed by the continued diminution of the paying of core funding to the voluntary agencies.
I am on my feet this evening because I wish to remind your Lordships now—as, indeed. I did at the end of the previous Parliament and at the beginning of this one—that children starved of love will not grow up into whole and effective citizens, unless something is done to replace it. Children brought up without hope will turn vicious. There are two clauses only in the Bill that deal with young people. However, all old lags have been young lags previously. One of the disturbing findings of the report in 1994 of the Audit Commission entitled Misspent Youth, which was a seminal paper and one that I commend to your Lordships still, was that young people were not growing out of crime at the rate that they formerly were. If we do not get the young people before they become criminals, it will become impossibly difficult to control them when they are criminals.
In 1996, the audit office reported that only 3 per cent of all the crime by young offenders ever resulted in arrest. I set that against the moving and well informed speech of the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, from the Cross Benches. An enormous amount of police effort and other effort is deployed to catch 3 per cent of the people responsible for crime. Of those 3 per cent, 1.8 per cent were cautioned and 1.3 per cent were charged and summonsed. Of that 1.3 per cent, no fewer than a quarter of the cases were discontinued or dismissed.
We are spending over £1,000 million a year on that effort and it is producing a ridiculously small result. Yet we think that by heaping statute upon statute upon statute upon statute we shall resolve the problem. We shall not. We shall not catch them. We shall catch only 3 per cent of them. We shall not reform those whom we catch. We shall reform perhaps 10 per cent. We must get to them first. It is not very cheerful for me to say to your Lordships, "In large part I think that you are wasting your time", but, in comparison with what we might be doing, we are.
If only these vast resources and these skilled and trained people were devoted to finding children destitute of love, who have been taught in schools with no proper discipline. Children rebel in order to discover where the parameters of proper behaviour lie. If they are not stopped when they reach them, they will go further. Proper discipline in a school is vital. If they do not feel that they have the respect of their contemporaries, they will seek to achieve it. If there are no legitimate ways to achieve it because the resources are not available to enable them to do so through sport, music or public works, they will do so through crime. Having been defined as someone's brother or sister—some known person—he or she will suddenly

697
become the hard man who has been caught by the police, or better still the clever guy who got away with it. There will be more of them.
I shall not delay the House longer except to say that I feel passionately that if whoever sits behind the Green Box on the other side of the Chamber after the next election does not seize the point that we have to get to people before they go wrong rather than remedy them afterwards, your Lordships will waste another Parliament and further damage will be done to our society.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, this has been a remarkable Second Reading debate with a good input from all speakers. I do not think that I can disagree with much of what has been said.
This Bill comes before us at a time when there is no certainty that it will become law. Even if the date of the general election were to drag on until June, it is unlikely that the Bill would go through all its stages. Of course, the last thing we want to do is to delay some of the measures in the Bill. We certainly welcome some of them. However, there are other contentious issues on which compromise is not possible unless there are some fundamental changes, which we should have preferred to negotiate. As has quite rightly been pointed out, the Commons did not have enough time to consider the Bill. We should spend sufficient time to put that right, even if it means that we may run out of time.
Like many criminal justice Bills, the Bill before the House is a mixed bag with a range of provisions ranging from the desirable to the counter-productive. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and my noble friend Lord McNally that the Bill lacks any philosophical thread. It is rather a hotchpotch of measures to solve problems. It also gives the impression that there is an insatiable appetite on the part of the Home Office to enact legislation without seriously considering its impact. I shall identify issues of serious concern to back up the comments of many noble Lords.
The Bill smacks of political one-upmanship by Labour over the Tories. It throws an additional burden on our police forces whose capacity to meet the public expectations of policing is fairly limited. I trust that the Minister will prove me wrong, but I simply have to look at the number of laws enacted by the Home Office to prove my point. I welcome the contribution of my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond and of the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, both of whom speak from direct experience of the police service.
One of the most welcome measures contained in the Bill is the establishment of the police training and development authority, including a requirement on the new authority to submit an annual report at the end of each financial year, detailing how it has carried out its functions during the previous year. The establishment of the authority is a welcome response
698
by the Government to the report of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and to reports on police training by the Home Affairs Committee, both of which demonstrated the inadequacy of many aspects of police training, including training in community and race relations. The establishment of the new authority should help to achieve an improvement and greater consistency in the provision of training for members of the police service. The Bill also contains some useful measures to combat alcohol-related disorder and to protect witnesses in civil proceedings.
Many noble Lords have spoken about fixed penalty notices. I have today received a letter from the Minister about the first 11 clauses of the Bill, which introduce fixed penalties for disorder offences. Unfortunately, he failed to enclose the draft text of a note which gave an indication of the guidance that might be issued to the police on the operation of the new scheme. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if some of my comments have already been dealt with in his draft notes. But if the document was available since the Bill's passage through the Commons, why was it sent to Members of this House only today?
I do not dispute that the measures will allow the police to issue penalty notices on the spot or at a police station for a range of offences. The police will have to consider whether there is reasonable cause to think that an offence has been committed. The police will also have to consider where a penalty notice appears to be an appropriate response. We are also told that the scheme is a discretionary one. This discretion leads the policeman to decide whether the matter should be dealt with by the courts and, if that is the case, he will have the usual power to arrest and charge the offender.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has already pointed out—he is right—that we must question the Minister on some points. Is there not a danger that the provisions contained in Clauses 1 to 6 will lead to a mix of criminal and civil law procedures? Where do we stand in relation to the principles of presumption of innocence and the burden of proof? I believe that Liberty is rightly concerned because even if a criminal conviction is not envisaged, the relevant behaviour can be by definition criminal and lead to a criminal conviction if a penalty is not accepted. The blurring of the boundary between criminal and civil law is to be regretted. People issued with fixed penalty notices will have the right to go to court if they argue that they have not committed the offence for which they have received the notice. Unlike the fixed penalties for speeding, which can be confirmed by modern gadgets including traffic cameras, the discretion not only puts the police in an invidious position but also adds to the workload of our overstretched courts.
However, there are some important caveats. First, the Government have talked a great deal about the use of fixed penalties for drunken offenders who are causing a nuisance. However, that is probably one of the least useful areas for fixed penalty notices, not least because people who are drunk and disorderly are very likely to discard or lose the notices.

699
On a general point, and while on the subject of discretion, will the Minister give an assurance that the use of new powers is ethnically monitored to ensure that they are not used in a discriminatory manner? Will such information be published under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991? We expect far too much of our police officers. We are asking them to have "reason to believe" rather than establishing beyond all "reasonable doubt" that the person committed the offence.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, mentioned half a million people often being in the centre of Manchester on a Friday evening. I know that he is right. In company with police officers, I visited Manchester when I was a member of the Police Complaints Authority. I would not wish to be a policeman issuing a fixed penalty notice to a crowd at that stage.
I turn to child curfew orders. We were right to oppose the imposition of the original child curfew orders for those up to 10 years-old. We were told how important this measure was in dealing with offending behaviour by children under 10 years of age. I do not believe that either the police or the local authorities like this provision. I am not aware of any occasions when such orders have been used. We are now asked to approve the extension of local child curfew schemes to children up to the age of 16. This is a misguided and highly illiberal measure. It will impose serious restrictions on the overwhelming majority of law-abiding young people and their families. A single mother with three teenage children will not be able to let them to go out to youth activities or football training which would involve them getting home after 9 p.m. unless she could collect each of them herself—something that is frequently not practical. As participation in constructive activity is associated with a reduced likelihood of delinquency, those restrictions on legitimate activity by young people could well increase the level of crime rather than reduce it.
It is significant that the evidence from the United States of America indicates that the fall in youth crime in recent years has been no greater in states which operate curfews than in areas which do not. Is not there a lesson for us here? What is the evidence that such draconian measures are required? Can the Minister cite any past examples where such a restriction could be adequately policed? It is fundamentally wrong to stigmatise many of our young people by a blanket curfew. It is impracticable and we do not have enough police officers to ensure that such a proposal could work effectively.
There is another danger in that we are not targeting individuals but whole geographical areas, with blanket bans on the activities of young people. That penalises the innocent as well as the alleged troublemakers. It is possible to stray into a curfew area unknowingly. Quite simply, we could not put "no entry" signs at every access road in a specific location.
No one can dispute that we need strategies to allow the police and local authorities to deal with the individual young people who cause a problem. However, we have got the equation wrong. We are, in
700
effect, saying that the way to stop mugging is to lock up all the old ladies. The Minister may wish to think again about this provision.
I turn to the third aspect of the Bill which is contentious. I refer to the restriction on the use and destruction of fingerprints and samples. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate which organisations he had consulted before deciding to introduce such a measure. We all acknowledge that DNA now plays a significant part in a wide range of criminal cases. It perhaps supersedes all forms of identification which have been used in the past. It is there to prove innocence as well as guilt. Our police forces are more effective in fighting crime when they have DNA evidence which cannot be disputed. The present law provides for the DNA and fingerprints to be destroyed if a conviction does not follow from the taking of the samples. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, rightly pointed that out. Of course, the Minister could cite cases where DNA evidence could not be used because the defendants were either acquitted of another crime or a decision was taken not to proceed with the offences for which the DNA was obtained.
These are matters of individual rights and liberties which we must uphold. Someone going through a due process of law who is found not guilty of the offence, or someone who has never been through the process, must have a right to demand that his privacy and liberty be respected. There is no question but that those who are found not guilty must be presumed innocent. Of course, the Government concede the point that people who are innocent and who have not broken any law or gone through any police procedures should not lose their right to resist having their DNA, fingerprints or other samples held without their authority. But then a different laws applies to others although they may be found to be not guilty.
I have another matter of concern. How reliable is police information? I quote from a press cutting sent to me about a police computer. It states:
"The Police National Computer holds 50 million files on criminal intelligence. Punch has found that not only is the entire system not registered under the Data Protection Act but that huge amounts of its incriminating data are inaccurate".
A Liberty spokeswoman says:
"It is tempting to dismiss this as a comedy of errors, but we must not. It highlights just how much information is held on individuals in this country, and how vital it is to have powerful and properly enforced safeguards to ensure this information is not misused and the public's right to privacy is not undermined by the creeping advance of a know all surveillance state".
It is a dangerous step to go down on the road to denying innocent people their freedom and liberty. I am surprised that the Labour Party, which so frequently in the past has guarded the liberty of the individual, should sacrifice its principles in this Bill. We shall oppose this measure at the appropriate time.
A further area of concern is the Bill's provision that the codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act will be modified by negative resolution rather than by debate in each House of Parliament. The codes of practice cover such areas as stop and

701
search, searching of premises, detention and treatment, identification procedures and the tape recording of interviews with suspects. It is important that those areas should be fully debated rather than be subject to the more limited safeguards of the negative resolution procedure.
If the Bill needs our co-operation this side of the general election, the Minister will have to negotiate with us. It is not what he wants, but what is appropriate between the needs of the state as against the rights and liberties of the individual.
9.7 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, in winding up this important and high quality debate on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, I shall endeavour to reflect briefly on some of the aspects of the Bill and upon what noble Lords have said today.
This is, as my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley said, a rag-bag Bill, albeit it carries with it far-reaching consequences. It erodes the burden of proof generally required for evidence of a criminal offence; it allows an individual to commit offences repeatedly without incurring a criminal record; and it raises substantial civil liberty issues relating, for example, to DNA testing and the disclosure of Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise records. It also carries with it considerable expectations in terms of police presence if its measures are to be effective. However, it does not tackle the significant rise in violent crime, as we had been told that the Government would do.
Moreover, I remind the Minister of the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Northbourne and Lord Elton, who addressed the reality of the lives of young people today—those in the fringe who are insecure. disturbed and excluded, or those who are starved of love and brought up without hope. We need to encourage those children that life is worth living outside the world of crime. The Bill does not tackle the root cause of crime—what I call the bigger picture.
As my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley said, the Bill received scant scrutiny in another place. Indeed, much of its latter parts were not scrutinised at all. Perhaps it would make sense for our Committee to begin its scrutiny with Part 7 and work backwards. That way, with the uncertainties and indecisions of the Government's timetable, each part and clause would have at least one chance for consideration in one House.
Part 1 contains three chapters and relates to penalty notices. We accept that in principle it provides a swift way of dealing with someone believed to be guilty of certain prescribed offences. It should be noted that 10 of those 12 offences are already arrestable, and not all of them are clear-cut. For example, it should be fairly straightforward for a police officer to judge—because he or she will effectively become judge and jury—whether a person is trespassing on a railway. However, it may be very difficult to assess the disorderly behaviour of someone who is drunk. In addition, how does one serve a penalty notice on someone who is
702
drunk and disorderly? How drunk and disorderly could a person be and how many times before they attracted a criminal record? How destructive could a person be without lawful excuse before attracting a criminal record.
It is awfully tempting to make a pun with the byline, "Crime pays", when all that one will have to do to make up for one's misdemeanours is pay up. What about victims of criminal damage? Will they receive compensation following the use of fixed penalty_ notices?
As my noble friend Lord Windlesham so eloquently said, the Bill is an attempt by the draftsman to rescue a headline-grabbing initiative by wrestling with the need to reconcile the rule of law. The Home Secretary said on Second Reading in another place:
"The Bill has a simple aim: it is to aid the police and the courts in further reducing crime and the fear of crime".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/01: col. 34.]
That is laudable stuff, but in reality this part of the Bill is being introduced as an alternative to properly resourcing an overstretched and understaffed police force—a force that has 2,500 fewer officers than it had when this Government came to power in 1997.
In addition to the offences listed in Clause 1(1), I should like the Minister to respond to two other categories already referred to by my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley, which we believe should be in the Bill. We have received correspondence from Westminster City Council, which is looking to us for support on the growing and extremely unpleasant incidence of fouling of the streets and the placing of prostitutes' cards in telephone boxes.
Street fouling is not currently an offence unless a bylaw is in place. Your Lordships will know that enforcing bylaws involves the arrest and lengthy processing of any offenders. Westminster City Council informs us that street fouling is now perhaps the single aspect of antisocial behaviour that most undermines the quality of life for those who live and work in parts of the city. Under the Bill, an individual could be given a penalty on the spot if he or she was urinating or defecating in a public place while drunk and disorderly, but not if he or she was sober. It is strange, too, that a pet owner is legally responsible for his pet's toilet habits, but not his own.
The second issue is placing prostitutes' cards in telephone boxes. We believe that the placing of a card advertising a prostitute's services should be an arrestable offence. It is another growing problem in London and other cities across the country. It significantly affects the quality of life for those who live and work in the areas concerned and it is an awful advertisement for our tourists to endure. I am particularly concerned about children and young people. There is evidence that these cards are being swapped like Pokemon cards in some London school playgrounds. A consultation document on the subject was published in 1999. The period for consultation and response is long over. Will the Minister tell us why nothing has been done? Will he consider adding those two offences to the Bill?

703
I turn to Chapter 2 of Part 1 concerning alcohol-related disorder. I want to concentrate my comments on the proposed power of local authorities effectively to create at will and with ease designated public places, more commonly known as "alcohol-free zones". I shall use a live example. In North Cornwall, the local authority has introduced a by-law to make the town and beaches of Rock an alcohol-free zone. It has done so in response to residents' concerns regarding extensive under-age drinking, together with noisy and anti-social behaviour in the town, which happens to be extremely popular among young people.
That is all very well. However, the residents of the nearby village of Trebetherick are now concerned that the problem will simply move to their area. They are responding by asking local residents—I declare an interest as I shall be resident there with my family for part of this summer, general election permitting—to pay for extra policing to the tune of £5,000 in order to combat the potential problem.
There are two important points in relation to this matter. First, the creation of alcohol-free zones does not cure the problem; it simply moves it on. Secondly, residents know that they cannot rely on the local force to combat the problem because there are just not enough police officers to cope. Can the Minister tell us how that problem will be resolved by this Bill?
Further, we must expect to see local authorities all over the country introduce such zones in an effort to deflect drunk and disorderly behaviour. Unfortunately, that will mean that those of us who might like to consume a glass of wine or a beer while enjoying the countryside or the beach will be breaking the law. It will be akin to parking on a double yellow line—wrong and uncomfortable. Does the Minister really intend that?
I turn to Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Bill relating to child curfew orders. Again, in principle it sounds like a good idea. However, given that no such orders have been made in the 28 months since they became available, the reality is that the Home Secretary is clearly seeking to save face following a failed child curfew scheme by raising the age limit from 10 to 16. I listened with care to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady David, who said that curfews lead to further marginalisation of some already disadvantaged children.
I turn to the speech of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, who referred to Huntingdon Life Sciences and the harrowing report of the experiences that have been suffered there. I support what my noble friend said, and I repeat the important question that he posed to the Minister. Will Clause 43—a welcome measure—catch those who plan and organise collective harassment? I refer not only to those who attend and play their part at the event but also to those who organise such acts of terrorism. Will they be ensnared by this clause?
704
In relation to Part 2 and disclosure of information, I repeat the question put by the shadow Home Secretary in another place. Will the Minister reassure us that the police will require disclosure only when it is manifestly required in connection with a serious investigation? In particular, I listened with care to the points made in relation to the disclosure of information by tax authorities and the implications of this Bill, addressed with clarity by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I hope that the Minister also listened with care.
In response to Part 3, some noble Lords—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan—expressed considerable concerns with regard to the proposed power of seizure and other police powers. In addition, the Law Society of Scotland has expressed concern regarding the erosion of the doctrine of legal professional privilege.
I move on to Part 4 of the Bill concerning proposals in relation to DNA. I believe that we must be cautious. Can we be sure that those who provide a DNA sample for whatever reason will be informed that their sample will be retained and by whom? We must take care to ensure that we do not deter those who willingly provide a DNA sample on a voluntary basis. Again, I listened with care to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who referred to the major human rights issues and also the important relationship between state and citizens. Perhaps real consideration should be given in Committee to age and the level of crime in relation to the retention of samples. I noticed that the noble Baroness singled out juveniles and the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, singled out murder and sex crimes.
I turn to Part 5 concerning the setting up of a central police training authority. I urge caution. As my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley said, we want to be sure that this is worthwhile and not simply a rearranging of the chairs. That said, I listened with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, and I heed what she said, given her knowledge and experience in this area.
In addition, I listened to the words of the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn. He said that, to be effective, policing depends upon the consent of the community that it serves. I urge the Minister to consider what the noble Earl said. I first met the noble Earl in a very different environment to your Lordships' House and in a very different guise, when I was a parliamentary candidate for Slough and the noble Earl was chief superintendent of police in Slough. I well remember the enormous respect that the noble Lord commanded among those who served under him. He knows and understands how to achieve successful policing.
I turn to Part 6 and other matters relating to police organisation. As with every Bill that the Government have introduced, I am afraid that one does not have to look far to find a compromising controlling element that includes the refrain, "The Government know best". Let me quote the Association of Police Authorities, which has significant concerns about this part of the Bill, which will provide for more direct

705
government influence over the operation of the two national policing squads. The Association of Police Authorities believes that the proposals,
"challenge the constitutional basis of policing and the checks and balances which maintain public consent for policing; and perhaps more importantly weaken the independence, skills and expertise of the service authorities established just three years ago to oversee and maintain high standards of integrity in the operation of these two national squads".
It has additional concerns, which were expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. It has been stated that the provisions were not considered in another place. We must ensure that we consider them properly in Committee.
In conclusion, there is much to be discussed during the Bill's later stages. Can the Minister give an indication now about whether we, unlike another place, will have sufficient opportunity to scrutinise with care this mixed bag of a Bill? Perhaps most importantly, we should consider the practicalities of implementing its many provisions. The Minister should bear in mind the Bill's many potential consequences. It will in one way or another impinge on the lives of all of us.
In his opening speech, the Minister said that he would welcome debate in the House in order to ensure that the measures would be brought into effect to "full capacity". We have now begun that debate and already noble Lords have demonstrated that that full capacity may sometimes mean over-capacity. I look forward to the further consideration of what is thus far, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, an ill-considered piece of legislation.
9.22 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, our long debate this afternoon and this evening has demonstrated that the House is not going to be a pushover with regard to the Bill and that if ever the word "scrutiny" was designed to fit a purpose, it fits that relating to the Bill.
There have been many notable contributions during our three-and-a-half hours of debate and it is invidious to have to select any contributions for particular comment. There have been some high points. We have had a wide-ranging discussion, which I shall try to summarise. I shall also try to pick up some of the points of concern that have been raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, called the Bill a hotchpotch and, to mix metaphors, something of a crazy-paving Bill with no theme. I refute that suggestion—the Bill does have a theme and it contains a variety measures, which will help the police in the conduct of their duty, strengthen the criminal justice system and provide better protection for the victims of crime. It contains elements of modernisation in so far as it concerns some of the national police agencies and the measures relating to police authorities have been welcomed. I therefore reject the noble Lord's attack on the Bill.
706
As ever, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, made a spirited contribution. He was right to say that the House should exercise its duty and resist being bounced in relation to provisions. In general terms, there can be no argument about that, and it underlines the point that we need to give any measures which come before your Lordships' House active and full scrutiny.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, touched on issues which he regularly raises in your Lordships' House with great distinction concerning the family and young people. He observed that this Bill did not deal necessarily with the underlying causes of youth criminality. That is right; this Bill is not specifically concerned with those matters. But the whole of Labour's programme in government is in a sense directed towards reducing social dislocation, alienation, and the unfortunate consequences of division in our society which are most manifest in criminal activity and in particular the criminal activity of young people.
My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws touched on the importance that we attach to curfews. She disagreed with our approach but, more importantly, she focused on her experience in relation to DNA and some of the legal implications of the proposals that we are bringing forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, spent most of his time looking in detail at fixed penalty notices. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, praised the Bill in some respects and criticised it in others. But she brought her important and valid experience of involvement in policing matters both nationally and locally to bear on her contribution.
I listened with particular interest to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, with his three notes of congratulation and one of caution. I welcomed in particular his observations on DNA and his remarks as to the practical way in which we, as a government, are approaching matters of criminality. His observations on fixed penalty notices I shall read with care.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for his observations in relation to the problems confronting Huntingdon Life Sciences. I welcomed his support for our measures, though I noted some of his concerns. I shall of course address some of them tonight.
I thank my noble friend Lady David for her observations on curfews. That will obviously be a major issue when we go through Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, touched effectively on some of the issues relating to taxation and the collection of evidence. I shall deal with those points in as much detail as I have time for.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, for his welcome and support for the parts of the Bill which address national policing agencies and the development of NCIS. I listened with interest to the warnings of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who twice had to take through the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. That was a ground-breaking piece of legislation,

707
often criticised at the time for being illiberal, ill-considered and a fetter on our civil rights. I was one of those who put forward some of those arguments; I now believe I was wrong. But that is probably the product of becoming a Minister in the Home Office.
I shall pay particular attention to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. In working through some of the questions raised—there were many—perhaps I can say at the outset that I have a massive sheaf of notes here and some of the replies will be by correspondence rather than over the Dispatch Box. However, I shall work through as many questions as I can in the time available to us.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked whether fixed penalty notices would be recorded. It is likely that they will be recorded for enforcement purposes in a similar way to existing fixed penalties. We shall be discussing the operation of the scheme with fixed penalty officers to ensure that it works efficiently. We have also said that we intend, subject to the agreement of the Information Commissioner, to use the data on the administrative system to enable the police to check whether an offender has other disorder penalty notices made against him in recent times to aid them in deciding whether or not to issue a further notice.
The recording of penalty notices has a "naming and shaming" aspect to it. Offenders who pay the penalties will not have their names made public; that is true. But part of the purpose of the new scheme is to provide a simple and immediate response to minor offending which will save court and police time, though there will have to be some bureaucracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, asked whether new penalty offences would cover things like urinating on the street and prostitutes' cards. That was as point on which in a sense the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, touched. if the experience of the scheme shows that other offences should be penalty offences, they can be added to the list at a later stage. The procedure will be subject to the affirmative resolution process.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also asked why no criminal record exists on the issue of a fixed penalty notice. We say that they should not because they formally involve neither an admission nor a judicial finding of guilt. The recipient of a penalty notice would be very likely to choose to go to court if he or she were to receive a conviction as well as the penalty. That would undermine a primary purpose of the scheme, which is to enable the police to dispose of and deal with such matters more swiftly. The noble Lord wondered whether it might finish as an essay written on the notice. I can tell the noble Lord that that is not our intention. The Bill requires only sufficient information to given to provide reasonable information about the offence to the offender. He also asked why should it be made available only to those aged 18 years and over.
The explanation here is longer. Currently, juveniles are subject to a rigid and tailor-made hierarchy of reprimands and final warnings. For minor criminal behaviour under Sections 65 and 66 of the Crime and
708
Disorder Act 1998, crudely put, for the first offence it is a reprimand; for the second offence a final warning and for the third offence, prosecution. Adding the possibility of fixed penalties as another element could undermine a scheme which in our experience is working very well and provides a youngster with a youth offending team intervention, which is often very positive. In any event, financial penalties are usually met by parents and they are not well suited to dealing with children. Our figures for 1999 show that most instances of the type of offending described in Clause 1 relate to perpetrators aged 18 years and over, so there is reason for having that age cut-off.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, along with other noble Lords, raised the issue of protection of directors from animal rights activists. In raising it, he made the point that the legislation would not be retrospective in the sense that existing records would not be expunged. However, directors may apply for and gain the protection of a confidentiality order. But it is the case that all subsequent filings will refer to the service address for the public record. I think the noble Lord raised specifically the question of shareholders. They are not required by law to file their home address. They can give a service address, an accommodation address or the name and address of a nominee; for example, their solicitor or accountant. I hope that goes some way towards answering that particular point.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also raised questions about DNA fingerprinting and made the point that the keeping of samples from intelligence screens might discourage the public from coming forward. We will keep the samples only if the volunteer—and this is the key point—gives his or her consent entirely voluntarily. We do not wish to discourage anyone from participating in a DNA intelligence screen or from giving fingerprints or samples for any other elimination purposes. It is made clear that if consent is given the individual is consenting to the fingerprints, or to the information derived from the sample, being speculatively searched. But consent will have to be given in writing so that those matters are matters of record.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also raised an interesting question about video conferencing facilities for custody decisions. It is the intention of the proposals that where custody decisions are made via video link the officer concerned, the detained person and any legal representative will all be able to see and hear each other. The officer will be able to speak to both the detainee and the lawyer. They will he able to make representations to him. The provisions will harness available technology to make the most effective use of police resources. I say on that point in particular that when I visited the North Yorkshire police, with whom the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is very familiar from her role as chair there, that force welcomed these proposals forming part of the legislation not least because one inspector told me of a 120-mile round journey to authorise a further period of time in custody for someone who had been detained. In forces with remote stations and where

709
someone is well away from where an arrest and custody has been arranged, that is a valuable tool that would create considerable savings of police time.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, made a point that is worth picking up in relation to the need to draft legislation to be brought forward so that it can be given additional scrutiny. I happen to believe that that is an excellent initiative. We have had some good experience of that with the Freedom of Information Act and with some local government legislation on which I sat on a Joint Committee. We believe that that is an innovation within the lifetime of this Government and something on which we shall draw in the future.
I turn to the age limit in relation to child curfews. I believe both the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, raised that point. The allegation was that it was a quick populist fix to the lack of use of the existing provisions and was without a philosophical base. The Government's approach is determined by something that is often described as "what works". I believe that what works within the criminal justice system is a good and guiding philosophical point. Clearly, child curfews, as currently described in legislation, have not been effective. We try to pilot innovative new measures. From time to time we may not get it exactly right, and that can be said to be the case with child curfews as they are currently. We need to learn from the mistakes and to improve on the legislation that we have put in place over time. Local child curfew schemes are one example of that.
Experience suggested that the practical value of such schemes is likely to be in the context of slightly older children than is provided for in the 1998 legislation. Hence, the provision in Clause 45 for new curfew schemes is potentially to cover, subject to local need, those aged up to 15 years old.
The philosophy behind child curfew schemes is set out in the Home Office evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In short, child curfew schemes allow a mechanism for keeping children away from certain trouble spots during night-time hours. Such trouble spots are often areas where children and those who prey on them have been congregating to engage in criminal and, perhaps more particularly, anti-social behaviour. In those circumstances, I am sure that all noble Lords know of situations where everyone suffers: local residents, the children's families and the children themselves.
I believe that we have a duty to try to use those measures innovatively and proportionately. It is a proportionate response to a particular local problem. Crucially, no criminal sanction for a child found in breach of a curfew exists and he or she is simply taken home to his or her family, save where there are profound concerns as to the safety of that home. That is an important point and one that was raised validly by the noble Baroness, Lady David.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, raised the key issue relating to DNA samples. Why keep samples from those who have been acquitted? The Government
710
do not claim that those acquitted necessarily have a propensity for crime or that they are, in reality, guilty. I believe that that was her assertion. Keeping samples and fingerprints does not mean that those people are under suspicion. Just as the police keep witness statements and records of interviews as a historical record of an investigation of an offence, the Government believe that the police should be able to retain fingerprints and samples. That information can only be used in the investigation of other crimes; it cannot be used for medical or any other sinister purposes. The innocent have absolutely nothing to fear. I suggest to noble Lords that if DNA samples conclusively prove involvement of crimes such as rape and murder, as in the cases of Weir and B to which I referred earlier, I do not believe that the police should be obliged to throw them away. It would be hampering their investigations.
The comments made by my noble friend Lord Brennan on particular issues relating to crimes of violence were most welcome. The public would think it most odd if we did not have access to that potentially important evidence. DNA is an objective form of evidence. The DNA database is not a list of suspects and the database will show only a hit of the DNA profile of an individual which matches that from DNA recovered from a crime scene.
My noble friend Lady Kennedy raised the issue of consultation. I have asked the question a couple of times and it is my understanding that the Human Genetics Commission was consulted on earlier measures as regards the retention of volunteer DNA samples from intelligence screens. But I concede that we were unable to find time to consult on the retention of DNA from suspects. That was because it arose specifically in the two criminal cases to which I have already referred. I am sorry that we did not have sufficient time to carry out that stage of the consultation, but we shall continue to consult on all these matters, believing that it is extremely important.
I turn to some of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, about fixed penalty notices. They will be available for criminal behaviour as set out in Clause 1. In our view, there is no blurring between civil and criminal conduct or process in the way in which we have set out the legislation. Fixed penalty notices for criminal behaviour are not new. A similar scheme exists under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Crucially, the fixed penalty scheme in Part 1 preserves all the criminal and due process rights of the accused. It merely grants the accused the option of paying a fixed sum and avoiding any criminal liability.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, asked about consultation on fixed penalties. A consultation paper was published in September 2000 and we received many responses from criminal justice practitioners. They informed the way in which the provision has been introduced. The noble Lord suggested that there might be a lower standard of proof where a penalty notice is issued. Penalty notices will be issued where the constable believes that a criminal offence has been committed. There must be sufficient evidence to prove the offence to the criminal standard in case the

711
offender chooses to take that route and to have the matter raised in court. I hope that that reply deals with the points raised by the noble Lord in respect of fixed penalty notices.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, during her welcome speech. raised the issue of the Humberside judgment and I ought to cover some of the points she raised. She pointed out that it in some way restricted access to police authority membership for those with an independent point of view. I and the Government generally do not believe that the judgment will prevent police authorities discharging their responsibilities effectively. That is an important point. Non-party political input to the business of police authorities will continue to be provided by magistrates and the appointment of independent members. We are well aware of the concerns of the Association of Police Authorities and I note that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has written to the chair of the APA making it clear that although we do not think it appropriate to use this Bill to address the particular issue, we are prepared to consider other opportunities for addressing the APA's concerns. Therefore, we have certainly taken careful note of the issue that has been raised.
The noble Baroness referred to the reduced membership of the NCIS and NCS service authorities. We believe that police membership should be reduced with the removal of the levy on police authorities, but there will still be appointees from both the APA and ACPO on both service authorities, with greater numbers on the NCS authority, which is predominantly a policing organisation. That is our rationale for those changes.
Changes to the service authority membership provide the opportunity to include members from agencies that work closely with NCIS and NCS and thereby improve partnership working and better reflect the multi-agency nature of much of the work of those organisations. The NCIS service authority already includes a member from HMCE. The Bill provides for an HMCE core member to sit on both service authorities so that the NCS authority will include HMCE, and for a member of the security service to sit on the NCIS authority.
We believe that we can ensure the maintenance of accountability, which was the key point raised by the noble Baroness. We do not believe that central funding means the loss of APA and ACPO presence on the service authorities, although there will be a reduction in the number of their members. The presence of both APA and ACPO is essential because of the services that are provided by NCIS and NCS through different forces.
My noble friend Lord Brennan raised a concern about racial motivation in relation to public order offences which he saw as perhaps one of the downsides of fixed penalty notices. I believe that my noble friend raises a very valid point. We have considered this matter. We believe that that is a matter which is appropriately covered in guidance to the police. We should like to suggest to the police that fixed penalties
712
are not appropriate when clearly the offences have a racial motivation. We fully recognise that point, and that is a matter which we must take carefully into consideration when drawing up the guidance.
My noble friend also raised a very important point about legally privileged material. He expressed concern about new powers to seize and retain such material. At the outset, we fully appreciate the difficulties raised by legally privileged material and the concerns that have been expressed in this area. Part 3 is concerned with two matters: the power to seize and the power to retain such material. However, it gives the power to seize such material only if it is not reasonably practicable to determine on the premises that it is legally privileged and cannot be separated from other material that is capable of being seized. It is necessary to have such a provision; otherwise, the new powers would be fundamentally undermined by any claim that legally privileged material was found within the bulk of material to be seized and, therefore, that none of the material, be it on computer or otherwise, should be seized. That matter was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. We understand the point, and no doubt it is one to which we shall return in detail in Committee.
My noble friend Lady David raised the question of local child curfews and human rights. In our response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights we made clear that we believed that the legislation conformed with Article 37B of the CRC and Article 9 of the ICCPR. The curfew scheme and the limited police powers thereunder are clearly prescribed by way of the 1998 Act. To return to a point that I made earlier, a child will be taken home against his or her will only as a last resort. By definition, any deprivation of liberty will be for the shortest appropriate period because no incarceration will be permitted.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, raised key issues in regard to aiding and abetting where there was a series of incidents of harassment. As I have said in the past in your Lordships' House when questioned, I believe that this package of measures will deal with most of the instances of criminality and extreme activity which the noble Lord described very eloquently and as set out in the Home Office consultation document. Anyone who incites the commission of an offence or conspires with others to commit an offence or aids and abets the commission of offences by others will be caught by the existing law. In the example given by the noble Lord, where a group encourages others to commit acts of violence, vandalism, criminal damage and so on, those who encourage as well as those who carry out these appalling acts will be guilty of a criminal offence.
The purpose of Clause 43 is rather different. It amends the Protection from Harassment Act. That Act makes a course of conduct directed against an individual an offence even though the individual acts making up that course of conduct are not in themselves necessarily criminal. That sounds rather complex but I am sure that the noble Lord will understand It when he studies Hansard. Clause 43 makes those who aid, abet, counsel or procure such acts criminally liable for them in the same way as those who actually carry out

713
the acts. I hope that that is sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord. It is certainly intended to be so. We want the legislation to be as effective as possible.
The noble Lord also asked how much more can be done. The consultation paper shows how much is already being done. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for her observations in support of the Government. We have committed extra resources and extra support to Cambridgeshire and we will happily continue to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked a series of stunning questions that could have come only from an experienced person in the world of accountancy and, more particularly, KPMG. Flattery! I shall try to pick up some of those observations. The noble Baroness asked whether the provisions will wreck the willingness of people to be frank with tax authorities. We do not think that they will. That is certainly not our intention. Revenue departments already disclose information in a carefully regulated way through an increasing number of existing information gateways to other public authorities and bodies. For example, the Inland Revenue already discloses information in police investigations on receipt of an order from a judge.
The noble Baroness asked whether disclosure under Clause 49 will be prohibited to a country that does not comply with the standards as set out in the ECHR. The Inland Revenue and Customs are public authorities within the meaning of the Human Rights Act. That means that they will have to exercise their disclosure powers in a way that is compatible with the ECHR. That means that a balancing act has to be carried out and that the disclosure should be made only where the circumstances make the disclosure necessary and—my favourite word—proportionate.
The noble Baroness also asked whether disclosure should be limited to cases where an investigation is ongoing. The disclosure provisions are designed to permit disclosures in cases where an information holder has evidence of an offence. In such cases, the information itself may be the trigger for bringing an investigation in the first place.
The final point raised by the noble Baroness on disclosure related to overseas matters. She said that disclosure overseas should be permitted under Clause 49 only if it is in relation to conduct which is a criminal offence in the UK. If that were to be the case, it would prevent government bodies from making a disclosure overseas in cases where the United Kingdom had decided not to criminalise the behaviour. That would prevent disclosure in cases where we have made a policy choice to provide civil penalties because of the desirability of avoiding the higher burden of proof rather than because the activities were considered to be less serious. If I have missed any of the noble Baroness's points on disclosure, I shall pick them up in correspondence. The noble Baroness made some very important points.
I come to the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. The noble Lord asked whether the fixed penalty notice scheme will be monitored to
714
ensure that it is not being operated in a discriminatory manner. In a sense that picks up part of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. As I said to the noble Lord, that issue will be dealt with in guidance. It would certainly not be our intention that it should be abused in that way. It is an important issue.
I hope that I dealt with the issues raised by the noble Lord on DNA when I addressed some of my comments to questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. It is worth pointing out—because the noble Lord raised this issue in particular—that these matters were put out for general consultation as far back as July 1999 when we published our proposals to revise legislative measures covering fingerprints, footprints and DNA samples. That consultation document formed the basis of many of the measures included in the Bill, but since then we have added the measure covering the retention of all fingerprints, footprints and DNA samples for reasons which I explained earlier.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made a number of useful points on fixed penalty notices. She referred to criminal damages and whether the victim might lose the possibility of winning court-awarded compensation. We do not intend that individuals should lose their opportunity to be awarded compensation for damage that they have suffered. The police will retain the right to charge in all cases where they feel that that is appropriate. Guidance will be issued to reinforce the importance of keeping in mind the expectations of the victim that a court might consider compensation when deciding the case. I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness also referred to issuing fixed penalty notices to people who might be drunk. The police will not issue such notices on the street to people who are drunk or incapable of understanding what they have been given. That would be a worthless action. Guidance will suggest that the officer should arrest the individual and take that individual to a police station where a decision on how best to deal with the case will be taken when the individual is sober.
The noble Baroness also asked whether the legislation on drinking in public places prevent her having a drink with her family. I am alive to this issue. The answer to that is no. On hearing that the noble Baroness loves Rock as much as I do for my family holidays, I promise to buy her a drink in a very public place should we bump into each other down there. I can also confirm to the noble Baroness that the Bill does not create a blanket offence of drinking in designated areas, but it does give the police a discretionary power to direct someone to stop drinking in those areas and to confiscate the alcohol. The noble Baroness would not be committing an offence simply by drinking a glass of wine in a designated area. I believe that this power will be very valuable and one which, if used properly and proportionately, could serve to relieve many areas where appalling scenes take place related to the abuse of alcohol. Certainly the experience of my home city

715
suggests that the measure will be extremely welcome. The authorities have been pressing for the introduction of such measures for a long time.
My responses have taken some time. I know that I shall not have satisfied the questions put by all noble Lords, but I have tried to be thorough—in the best Home Office tradition.
Lord Elton: My Lords, on a point of order. Not wishing to be discourteous and not being at all ungrateful for the generosity shown by the Minister as regards the time he has taken, the Companion suggests that Members opening or winding up from either side are expected to keep within 20 minutes. Perhaps on the next occasion when we examine a Bill from the Home Office, we shall, God willing, have a slightly shorter reply.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I apologise for the length of my remarks, but noble Lords put so many interesting questions to me that I thought it
716
would be remiss if I did not cover as many points as possible, in particular so as to lighten the burden of correspondence for noble Lords.
We have had an interesting and constructive debate in which I have covered as many points as I could. On the next occasion, I shall pay closer attention to the instructions in the Companion.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the initial case study of the Bill by the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights will be available in time for the later stages of our deliberations?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot give an absolute response to that. My understanding is that it should be available around the time that noble Lords begin their detailed consideration in Committee,
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at ten o'clock.