Sitting of 3 April 2001

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]
Lords Reason for disagreeing to a Commons amendment, considered.
Lords Reason:
The Lords disagree to the amendment mile by the Commons in page 4, line 23 (leave out from 'business' to 'enter' in line 24), for the following Reason:
Because it is desirable that, so far as possible, the provisions of the Medway Council Bill remain in keeping with the corresponding provisions of the Kent County Council Bill.
Ordered,
That this House do not insist on their amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.—[Mr. Paul Clark.]

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

  Budget
  Mr. Desmond Browne: When she last met representatives of business and trade unions to discuss the implications of the Budget for Scotland. [155169]
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I have regular meeting with members of the business community and trade unions in Scotland to discuss a wide range of issues, including the positive impact that this Budget has had in Scotland.
  Mr. Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, immediately after the Budget, in my local newspaper, the Kilmarnock Standard, local business men welcomed the measures announced in the Budget for the regeneration of areas of high deprivation? What consultations has she had with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about the implementation of those measures in Scotland? As they are to be applied from a £1 billion budget on a ward-by-ward basis, will she tell us what criteria will be applied to determine which wards will receive funds from this substantial investment?
  Mrs. Liddell: As my hon. Friend is aware, I recently visited his constituency and was much impressed by the
  164
  job action teams and the incentives that exist to target help towards specific areas. These matters have been discussed with the Chancellor, and in relation to the targeting, we will take as our example much of the useful work being done in East Ayrshire and in my hon. Friend's constituency. We shall also consult widely.
  Sir Robert Smith: In the Secretary of State's discussions with businesses and the trade unions, does she explain to the businesses why the Chancellor insists on making the tax system more complex every year, adding more burdens on the businesses that have to try to administer it? At the same time, does she have an explanation for them as to why vital spending on public services such as hospitals and education was cut in the first two years of her Government? Even by their third year, the block grant was still some £200 million less in real terms than that left for spending in Scotland by the outgoing Conservative Government.
  Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we said before we were elected that, for the first two years, we would stick with Tory spending limits so that we could correct the mess that the economy was in. As a result of the economic policies pursued by this Government, we have been able to secure £3.4 billion extra in public spending in Scotland, and in his recent Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to put an additional £200 million to good use in Scotland.
  The hon. Gentleman fails to realise that corporation tax in this country is now at an historically low level and if we take all employer taxation in the United Kingdom together and compare it with that of our European partners, we have a lower rate even than Germany or France. Sound economic policies on the part of the Government mean that we are moving away from the boom and bust of the previous Administration and avoiding the fantasy economics of some other parties that serve in this House.
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Glasgow nautical college is now recruiting more than 1,000 cadets a year for training as officer cadets in the Merchant Navy? That is in large part due to the incentives provided by the Government in successive Budgets. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming that big increase in recruitment and in encouraging young people all over Scotland to look to the British Merchant Navy for a worthwhile living?
  Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I know how important it is for his constituency that there should be so many new recruits to the Merchant Navy, and, indeed, to the Royal Navy. It is a sign of the well-rounded nature of our policies that we can point to successes in every part of the economy. I am sure that there will be great rejoicing in my hon. Friend's constituency that the merchant fleet is now expanding.
  Mr. Alasdair MorganIn the Secretary of State's discussions, were the badly designed climate change levy and the ill-conceived aggregates tax mentioned? Will she attempt to quantify the job losses in manufacturing and quarrying resulting from those taxes? As the aggregates tax is

  165
  designed to be a flat-rate UK tax, and Scottish quarrying products tend to be of lower value than those elsewhere, is it not, in effect, a poll tax on Scottish quarrying?
  Mrs. Liddell: It is good to see the hon. Gentleman in his place. It must be that time of year again. We shall be expecting to see the Loch Ness monster soon. The only difference is that the Loch Ness monster is around rather more frequently than the hon. Gentleman.
  I have watched with interest recent statements on the environment from the hon. Gentleman's party. The Scottish National party seems to be turning its back on the environment—indeed, there seems to be an international trend in that direction. The Government's economic policies strike a balance that takes into account the needs of the environment, as was shown in my right hon. Friend's Budget a month ago. The hon. Gentleman's party cannot have its cake and eat it. It cannot say that it wishes to reduce fuel taxes, for example, while claiming to be the friend of the environment.
  Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Notwithstanding the excellent Budget and its importance to all in Scotland, my right hon. Friend will agree that there are grave concerns about the tourism industry in Scotland because of the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak. Will she repeat the Government's message that Scotland is very much open for business and a safe travel destination, as that is vital to the tourism industry? Will she confirm that we are considering initiatives in Scotland, Europe and north America in particular to promote tourism in Scotland?
  Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point: we must say again and again that Scotland is open for business. Those of us who were in Scotland yesterday know that it is looking particularly beautiful. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), the First Minister, is in the United States promoting the Scottish tourism industry and we have worked with the Scottish Executive who have put together a package to assist the tourism industry, especially in Dumfries and Galloway.
  I call on all hon. Members who are looking forward to the Easter recess to bear it in mind that Scotland has a great deal to offer and is open for business. We support the "Come back to the countryside" campaign and it is important for the health and well-being of our tourism industry that we have a good season. All hon. Members can do their bit to help.
  Mr. John Bercow: The Secretary of State's complacency is both unwarranted and stomach turning. Why does not she simply own up to the fact that nothing in the 2001 Budget remotely atones for the facts that the Government introduced no fewer than 3,865 regulations in 2000, adversely impacting on Scottish business; that small business owners are, on average, spending an extra six hours a week complying with red tape; and that the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce concludes that the Government are dramatically increasing the regulatory burdens that threaten small business?
  Mrs. Liddell: We have a Tory getting to his feet in the House at Scottish questions to talk about atonement. The Conservative party was responsible for the rape of our
  166
  industrial heartlands, but the hon. Gentleman comes to the House to talk about atonement. I regularly meet Scottish businesses and I know the extent to which they recognise what the Government have achieved for Scotland in terms of stability after the boom and bust of the Conservative party and our competence in the face of the incompetence of the Conservative party.
  The hon. Gentleman should use his Easter recess to come to Scotland where he will see the lowest levels of unemployment, the highest levels of employment and a business community that works in partnership with the Government and the Scottish Executive to build a Scotland for the 21st century and to get over the disgrace of the policies of the previous Administration.
  Mr. Frank Roy: May I tell my right hon. Friend that pensioners in my constituency are happy with the results of the Budget: a free TV licence and a £200 winter fuel allowance? When does she intend to discuss with the Scottish Conservative party its plans to abolish those much-needed gains?
  Mrs. Liddell: That is a good point. My constituency is adjacent to my hon. Friend's and the £200 winter fuel allowance was greatly welcomed by my constituents. It is interesting that the Scottish National party was talking about a cold weather allowance in 1997—one of £9.20. The £200 that has gone to many pensioners in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend is probably the biggest sum that many of them have had in their hand at any one time. It is safe under this Government; it certainly would not be safe under the Opposition in either guise, be it Conservative or Scottish nationalist.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Talking of budgets, which represent the season of the year that brings the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) to the House, and the block grant, which is spent in Scotland after a vote by the House, when will the Government publish the guidelines for the coming general election in respect of how the Scottish Executive and other devolved bodies will deal with announcements about local expenditure during the campaign? We understand that such guidance is being prepared. When will it be produced?
  Mrs. Liddell: My initial response is to ask what the hon. Gentleman is frightened of. I have the impression that he is frightened of the competence of the Scottish Executive, working in partnership with the Government here at Westminster.
  We have shown the strength of partnership, and its value to the whole Scottish economy. At any forthcoming general election—and we have from now until May 2002 to prepare for one that may come at any time—I shall be happy to put before the Scottish people this Government's record of improving economic conditions in Scotland, and bringing social justice to Scotland. I should be more than happy to contrast that with the social division represented by the hon. Gentleman's policies.
  Mr. Grieve: That answer was profoundly unsatisfactory. The question was very simple. When elections to the Scottish Parliament were held, guidelines were issued about how the Government here should react and how the civil service should conduct itself. When shall we see such

  167
  guidelines for the general election—or are we to assume that the current attitude is not what we would expect of a Government and a civil service, but what we would expect of a Maxwell corporation?
  This is a serious issue. I ask the right hon. Lady to assure the House that the guidelines will be issued, and issued in sufficient time for the matter to be properly considered.
  Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware that we have until 2002 before a general election need be called in Scotland. We are getting on with the business of building a better Scotland.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the late Robert Maxwell. Perhaps he and his hon. Friends will tell the House about the role played by prominent Conservatives such as the late Michael Havers, whose desk I inherited when I went to try and sort out the mess, and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who could have done much to help the Maxwell pensioners but whose heels we could not see for dust.
  Labour has delivered for pensioners. Indeed, 900,000 pensioners in Scotland will benefit directly as a consequence of the Chancellor's Budget.

  Chester Street Holdings
  Mr. Tony Worthington: What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the collapse of Chester Street Holdings and its implications for sufferers from asbestos-related diseases in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [155170]
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I am well aware of the difficulties relating to Chester Street. I have had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and also with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We well understand the concerns of those who are suffering from asbestos-related diseases, and we are working very hard across government and with the insurance industry to alleviate those concerns as far as we possibly can.
  Mr. Worthington: I thank my right hon. Friend for her active involvement. Her record on pensions mis-selling gives great credibility to her efforts.
  As my right hon. Friend knows, I believe that our first duty is to the sick and dying: they must be paid full compensation, and not lose out because of Chester Street. Is it not appalling, however, that Mr. Robert Hardy, chief executive of both Iron Trades and Chester Street, should have sold Iron Trades to QBE for less than its book price, then joined it as chief executive and taken £1 million out of his various firms? Is that not disgraceful, and does it not demonstrate that we need a full independent inquiry into this sorry matter?
  Mrs. Liddell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the campaign that he has waged on behalf of sufferers from asbestos-related diseases for so many years. The last thing anyone needed was the scandal of the collapse of Chester Street, and I share his anxiety about some of the activities that went on.
  168
  The provisional liquidator is examining the state of Chester Street. It will be for the provisional liquidator, in the first instance, to investigate what went on in Chester Street. If he turns up anything that gives rise to further inquiries, the Government will not hesitate to pursue them.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I commend the efforts of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) to sort out the appalling situation involving Chester Street.
  May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to a recent letter from a constituent? She is a widow living alone, whose husband died in 1997 from an asbestos-related disease. Her claim has still not been dealt with. Will the Secretary of State ensure to the best of her ability that any necessary inquiry or investigation will not delay or stand in the way of those who have suffered and should be receiving compensation?
  Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Lady is right. We all have a great desire to find out what happened in relation to Chester Street and who was responsible for it happening, but we must have a twin-track approach. We must not only find out what happened, but protect the sufferers.
  I am very concerned that the provisional liquidator has been able to find only 5p in the pound to meet the claims; I find that very disturbing. I am also concerned about people whose cases relate to before 1972 because they are not covered by any of the existing schemes. We are working hard across government to find routes to assist those people. It is not an easy matter. I have spoken to senior people in the insurance industry, too. They are as appalled as we are at what has happened. We will not rest until we find a way forward. It will not be easy, but the hon. Lady has my commitment that we will do everything possible to help her constituent and others who are affected.
  John Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on his excellent work following the Chester Street collapse. My hon. Friends the Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and I were impressed by his speech at the rally on Saturday. He did an excellent job for the people. Sufferers in Anniesland would like to thank him personally for that. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the insurance industry meets its responsibilities in respect of pre-1972 claimants?
  Mrs. Liddell: Some of the issues involved relate to whether individuals are covered by any other insurance company. Where an individual was with an employer who was insured only through Chester Street, there is a significant difficulty. If, however, the individual's employer was insured with another company as well as Chester Street, the other company will meet the liability.
  I know my hon. Friend's constituency. Many of his constituents will have worked for British Shipbuilders. That company will acknowledge all liability in relation to victims of asbestosis, but all of us recognise that not everyone is covered. We must find out the full information and find the best way in which to help them.

  Scotland Act
  Mr. Michael Fallon: What representations she has received from the First Minister concerning borrowings under section 66 of the Scotland Act 1998. [155171]
  The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes):: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no representations from the First Minister concerning borrowings under section 66 of the Scotland Act 1998.
  Mr. Fallon: If the rest of the public sector in Scotland were to follow the example of teachers in receiving higher pay awards than their counterparts in England, beyond the tolerance of the Barnett formula, would the Minister expect that difference to be financed by the use of tax-raising powers before any recourse to borrowing?
  Mr. Foulkes: The question is a pretence because it is nothing to do with section 66, which relates to meeting a temporary excess of sums paid out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund or providing a working balance for the fund, and which is repaid. A lot of nonsense is spoken about teachers' salaries north and south of the border, not least by the hon. Gentleman. Let me give some facts. New Scottish teachers appointed at the beginning of the 2001–02 school year will start at a salary of £16,005. Newly qualified teachers in England and Wales start at £17,001. Experienced teachers in Scotland at the top of the main scale will be paid £25,644 from April 2001 and in England and Wales the sum will be £24,965. There is a different structure. There are swings and roundabouts. The hon. Gentleman has never been in favour of devolution. He is now trying to undermine it. He will not succeed.
  Mr. David Marshall: Does the Minister agree that the Barnett formula is a transparent, fair and stable way of financing Scotland that has served both the United Kingdom and Scotland well for almost three decades? Does he further agree that those who seek its scrapping do so not in the best interests of Scotland, but in the hope of stirring up trouble between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive? Will he therefore confirm that the Government have no plans to scrap the Barnett formula?
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I could not have said it better myself. The Barnett formula is transparent, fair and stable. It allows the Scottish Parliament to decide its own priorities within a finite budget. That is the important thing. Opposition Members in different parties are mischievous and are working together in a common cause to try to undermine devolution. As I have said, they will not succeed. The Barnett formula is working successfully and we have no plans to change it.

  The Advocate-General was asked—

  Devolution Issues
  Mr. Eric Joyce: If she will make a statement on her role in devolution issue cases to be heard before the Privy Council. [155194]
  The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): My role in cases in which I intervene is to present arguments from the perspective of the United Kingdom Government. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the highest domestic court for devolution issue cases. Such cases may raise issues involving human rights, European law or legal aspects of the devolution settlement under the Scotland Act 1998 that are of importance to the whole United Kingdom.
  Mr. Joyce: I am often asked by my constituents as I go round my constituency whether it is necessary for the Advocate-General to appear before the Privy Council, and, if so, whether that takes up much of her time. What should I tell them?
  The Advocate-General: I am delighted that my hon. Friend's constituents take such an interest in my interventions. Personal appearance by the Advocate-General in cases in the Privy Council is not a legal requirement under the 1998 Act, but it is certainly useful, and, I hope, helpful to the court, to have a responsible Law Officer available to present legal arguments in that new and developing sphere of law. It does take a lot of time. As some of my hon. Friends will know, a great deal of preparation time is required for legal research, and there are both conferences and days in court. I have therefore limited my personal appearances to cases that are more complex or involve interesting or novel points. However, if any of my hon. Friend's constituents wish to speak to me personally about the matter, I would be delighted to do so.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Could the hon. and learned Lady give the House some indication of the annual cost to the taxpayer of investigating and resolving devolution issues both in the Privy Council and in other places?
  The Advocate-General: The cost of the Advocate-General's appearances are subsumed in the general budget, and we have not done a case-by-case analysis. However, I assure the hon. Lady that it is probably cheaper to have me appearing as Advocate-General than it would be to instruct me as counsel.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Desmond Browne: If she will make a statement about the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 for fixed fees in legal aid. [155195]
  The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): My hon. Friend may be aware that a case on the subject of legal aid is due to be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on 25 and 26 April. The case concerns fixed payment levels under the criminal legal aid regulations in Scotland, and it is argued that such a system is incompatible with article 6 on the right to a fair trial. I have intervened in the case so far to make written submissions to the Judicial Committee.
  Mr. Browne: As my hon. and learned Friend will be aware, in the longer term, it is intended to address issues of exceptional cases in legal aid by the mechanism of regulations made under the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Bill which is currently before the Scottish Parliament. As she invariable ends up arguing the difficult cases before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, what discussions have there been between her as Advocate-General and the Scottish Executive on the shape of those regulations?
  The Advocate-General: The merits of the case to which I have just referred have still to be determined. However, on the general issue raised by my hon. Friend, I am pleased to say that there is a great deal of discussion on policy matters of common interest between policy officials and Ministers in United Kingdom Departments and those in Scotland. As Advocate-General, I have also encouraged my lawyers to have discussions on relevant legal issues as soon as possible to try to sort out any specific difficulties.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent advice she has given on the implications of the European convention on human rights; and if she will make a statement. [155196]
  The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): When requested, I give advice as a UK Law Officer on various matters, which include issues related which include issues related to the human rights convention.
  Miss McIntosh: The hon. and learned Lady will recall the advice that she gave on a recent road traffic case involving the right to remain silent under the Human Rights Act 1998. Does she share my concern that whereas road traffic cases were previously dealt with uniformly under Scots and English law, there may now be a difference of interpretation across the border?
  The Advocate-General: I appreciate the hon. Lady's interest in the matter, but I am not sure that I agree with her. The whole point of taking a matter to the Privy Council is to have it determined by the highest court. Regard will be given to the Privy Council's rulings in English courts as well as those in Scotland.

  Devolution Issues
  Mr. John McFall: In what proportion of the devolution issue cases referred to her she has intervened to date. [155197]
  The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Of the 1,237 devolution issues cases intimated up to 22 March of this year, I have intervened in 19, or approximately 1.5 per cent. Many cases involving devolution issues raise similar points and are dealt with satisfactorily by the lower courts. Generally, I intervene at appeal or Privy Council level where the case raises important issues for the UK as a whole. I examine every devolution issue intimated to me before determining whether or not to intervene.
  Mr. McFall: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that illustrates that the relationship between the Scottish Executive and Westminster is working, and that it confounds the critics of all parties who are sceptical and do not want the arrangement to work? Does she also agree that their criticism has been thrown back in their faces, and that the relationship is healthy, vibrant and dynamic?
  The Advocate-General: I am pleased to confirm that there is a high level of discussion and co-operation in the legal offices, as there is across the board, in relation to policy matters. The devolution settlement is working, and I hope that I will be able to play a small part in helping it to continue to work.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

  Guardians Ad Litem
  Dr. Vincent Cable: If she will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's proposals for reforming the funding of the courts' guardians ad litem. [155198]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): We plan to increase the funding for self-employed guardians' fees by 3.8 per cent. this year. We have proposed new contracts incorporating graduated fees to distribute this increased funding in a way that preserves self-employed status for those guardians who want it.
  Dr. Cable: The profession of guardian is a very important one and it is crucial for some of the most vulnerable people in society—the 10,000 children who appear in court during care and adoption proceedings. Is the Minister aware that the profession is incensed at the way in which the Department's accountants, prompted by the Inland Revenue, have introduced a fixed-fee system that is completely insensitive to the necessity that guardians adapt their work to the needs of the individual case? Will she agree to retract the proposal and consult the profession, whose members have not yet been consulted? Will she introduce a more effective scheme to protect both children and members of the profession?
  Jane Kennedy: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of the current circumstances. The new Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service has offered a six-week delay to allow for further consultation. It has offered enhanced graduated fees in the most difficult cases, as well as an independent review both

  173
  of the banding criteria and of the quality of service delivered to children after six and 12 months under the new system.
  I do not accept that the only way, in the interests of children, to remunerate guardians is according to an hourly rate, which is the case advanced by the guardians. I do not accept either that the quality of services delivered necessarily increases with the number of hours worked. Time spent and quality delivered are not the same thing. Fair graduated fees will co-exist with quality standards. I am confident that, when they have had time to consider the proposals further, the guardians will see that they are fair.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: One hazard with what my hon. Friend has just said is that the guardians are absolutely essential, and are self-employed. They are very worried about the proposed scheme, which was supposed to have been introduced at the beginning of this month. Does my hon. Friend accept that it is essential that the Department reconsider the proposals carefully, as it would be bizarre to lose the services of a great many skilled people who are desperately needed just because of a rather absurd decision that cannot be defended by reference to any consultation?
  Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is mistaken. In fact, 111 of the guardians are not self-employed, but are employed directly by the panel. We inherited 57 different rates and allowances applicable to self-employed guardians, and that was one of the key problems identified by the Inland Revenue. The ways in which those rates and allowances apply in the guardian service are incompatible with self-employed tax status. The Department brought forward the proposals for a graduated fee structure to ensure the continued availability of self-employment as an employment status. It is a fair structure, and there is no diminution of the funding available for these services. I am confident that once the guardians have seen the details of the proposals they will accept what is on offer.

  Family Graduated Fees Scheme
  Sandra Gidley: If he will make a statement on the family graduated fees scheme. [155199]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The family graduated fees scheme and the rates to be paid have now been settled. The scheme will pay barristers set fees for different functions within a case, which will vary according to the category of family work. The fees can be increased to reflect complexity.
  The regulations to bring the scheme into force were laid before Parliament on 20 March. The scheme will be implemented from 1 May.
  Sandra Gidley: I welcome the changes and improvements to the original scheme, but family law barristers still have concerns about the current scheme. First, they are paid on a different basis from solicitors—who are still paid hourly—and wish to see an integrated scheme. Secondly, there is real concern that the longer, more complex cases will not be adequately rewarded and that those arguably most in need will not receive the representation that they deserve. I share the concern that
  174
  those most in need will not receive representation. Will the Minister undertake to review the scheme in 18 months' time to see how it is working and to ensure that there has been no reduction in the services available to those most in need?
  Mr. Lock: I agree in principle that counsel and solicitors should be paid the same rate for the same type of work. However, solicitor-advocates may not always play the same role as banisters in family work, and that needs to be considered. We want to achieve a level playing field. We are confident that the rates we have set are more than adequate and appropriate for the job. We are confident that there is a proper supply of well-qualified barristers to do the work that the hon. Lady has identified, and we will, of course, keep the matter under review.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: What mechanism is the Minister putting in place to ensure that, following this part of the reform of the funding of the legal system, there is an audit comparing past and current provision of proper access to justice for all, as it is suggested that, as a result of the changes, some of the poorest in our society will be denied access to justice?
  Mr. Lock: I find that quite astonishing. I have just been able to announce that legal help is now available for a further 5 million people as a result of the reforms and controls that this Government have introduced. That contrasts sharply with the way in which legal aid expenditure was treated under the previous Government. They cut millions of people out of receiving legal aid, instantly denying them access to justice.

  Lay Magistracy
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: What her policy is on maintaining the lay magistracy.[155200]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) on 6 March 2001, Official Report, column 210W.
  Mr. Fabricant: Hardly. After all the closures of magistrates courts that we have witnessed up and down the land, including my own—which had lasted for 600 years until this Government came into power—what assurance can the Minister give lay magistrates that they will not be replaced by stipendiary magistrates?
  Jane Kennedy: I simply offer the same assurance that I have given on many occasions in the House. The Government recognise the valuable role and service that the lay magistracy offers to society. Their civic responsibilities are very wide. We admire the work that they do and we are confident that they will continue to do that work long after the hon. Gentleman has retired.
  Mr. David Taylor: As a member of the Magistrates Association, I am delighted to hear the Minister again spell out her robust support for the lay magistracy. Nevertheless, there remain concerns which I hope she will be able to lay to rest about the

  175
  delays in the publication of the Auld report. Are those delays linked to the views of the Home Office, which is thought to be less charitable and positive about the lay magistracy? It is thought that the Home Office may have a secret agenda to do what the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) has articulated.
  Jane Kennedy: I would seek to reassure my hon. Friend by saying that Lord Justice Auld is currently drafting his final report, which will be published as soon as it is available. It would be premature to comment on the review before it has been completed, but Lord Justice Auld published a resumé of his early findings last year in which he foresaw a continuing role for the lay magistracy.
  Mr. John Burnett: As a result of court closures in Devon and Cornwall, there have unfortunately been a number of resignations from the lay magistracy. I hope that the Minister agrees that we need a representative lay magistracy. It is much to be regretted that a young mother in my constituency has had to resign as a lay magistrate because she is unable to afford three hours per day travelling to the court in Plymouth. Are any steps being taken by the Government to assist magistrates, witnesses and other court users to get to the large city courts, now that the Government have closed so many magistrates courts in our local rural towns?
  Jane Kennedy: There are more than 30,000 magistrates across England and Wales. I am sorry to hear of the resignation of the lady whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned, as it is always to be regretted when a magistrate feels that they cannot continue their service. However, the recruitment of lay magistrates is a matter for the local lay magistrates to determine and they review their recruitment requirements regularly. Clearly they will follow carefully the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made and I will look into the case that he has mentioned.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Following the closure of two magistrates courts in my area, lay magistrates have told me of the difficulty that they will have travelling one hour to court and one hour from court. Will the Minister make an assessment of the Government's policies on maintaining the lay magistracy? Will she review the assessment of those policies if they can be demonstrated to have an adverse effect on the reach, accountability and scope of magistrates?
  Jane Kennedy: Obviously I will give that undertaking and I will continue to keep the recruitment and retention of magistrates under review. I was pleased to see the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues at our meeting on 19 March to discuss the local proposals that the magistrates courts committee is considering. All representations have been carefully noted and the committee locally will continue to consider responses to the consultation exercise as it proceeds. The committee will be responsible for maintaining recruitment and retention of benches locally.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Having heard today of the closure of courts in the west country, in Staffordshire—from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—and in Wales, does the
  176
  Minister recognise that although she comes to the Dispatch Box month after month, smiling sweetly and talking fine words about keeping the magistrates going, there is friendly fire from her hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor), who has mentioned the Home Office's not very well hidden agenda to undermine the lay magistracy? Are not the Government imposing huge costs—as we warned—as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998? The Act states that prisoners cannot be seen handcuffed because that is somehow inhumane and somehow equates to torture. Is not that undermining magistrates courts and causing them to close? The Minister's fine words are incapable of being believed.
  Jane Kennedy: My fine words and sweet smile, as the hon. Gentleman describes them, contrast with the fine rant that he brings to the Chamber. The Government's policy is that the magistrates courts are best managed locally by the magistrates courts committee under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.

  County Courts
  Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the planned closure of county courts in England. [155201]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The court service operates 220 county courts at present. We anticipate that the consultation process as a result of the managing the civil courts programme will result in a substantial increase in the number of locations at which county courts can serve their local communities.
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply and I am encouraged by its the content. Can he assure the House that in assessing responses to the consultation paper on modernising the civil courts, he will make it clear that the local delivery of justice and not cost will be the overriding objective?
  Mr. Lock: I have just explained that we are planning to deliver county court services in an increased number of locations. The hon. Gentleman must understand that, on the principle of full cost recovery, it is the court users who pay for the cost of running the system. It would not be fair to those users to operate courts in locations where there is not sufficient demand. We will take every care to meet local demand as we expand the number of hearing centres where county courts are able to sit, but finance will have to be a consideration.

  The President of the Council was asked—

  University Visitor Jurisdiction
  Mr. John Bercow: If she will make a statement on her role in respect of the jurisdiction of visitor in respect of certain universities. [155215]
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I act, on the Queen's behalf, as visitor of 17 universities and colleges. I receive petitions mainly from students and former students with complaints or grievances who have exhausted the institutions' complaint or appeal procedures.
  Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Lady says that she has responsibility for inspection, regulation and dispute settlement in respect of no fewer than 17 universities, which thankfully is five more than come under the aegis of the accident-prone Lord Chancellor. How many has she visited, how many have sought her agreement to changes in their constitutions and how many disputes has she been asked to settle? In respect of that last question, where conciliation is required, may I offer a helping hand?
  Mrs. Beckett: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman off hand how many of the institutions I have visited. I doubt whether it is all that many. I cannot tell him from memory how many have sought changes to their constitutions, as there are frequent changes, but I can certainly write to him about that.
  Last year, we dealt with 21 disputes. So far this year, there have been about a dozen.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his offer of mediation. I strongly support alternative dispute resolution methods. We are authorising cases under the pilot mediation scheme and are hopeful that some students will take that course rather than going straight to the formality of the present procedures.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The President of the Council was asked—

  Parliamentary Data and Video Network
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: If she will bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to improve hon. Members' access to the PDVN system. [155217]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons is indeed keeping the use of information technology by hon. Members under review. The Information Committee also has an important role in that respect.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does the Minister accept that it is important in the 21st century for Members of Parliament to be able to access their e-mails and the internet not only within the Parliamentary Estate but remotely, from their homes and constituencies? I congratulate members of the Parliamentary Communications Directorate on the work that they do, but does the Minister accept that people trying to access the House of Commons facilities remotely are finding it difficult because of the limits of the technical resources that are available? Many people feel
  178
  that that is because of a restricted budget. What can the hon. Gentleman do to ensure that we have a 21st-century internet and e-mail system for a 21st-century Parliament?
  Mr. Tipping: I agree that the employees of the Parliamentary Communications Directorate work hard and do an excellent job. I also agree that it is important that all Members of Parliament, whether at Westminster, at home or in their constituency, should have equality of access, which is not the case at present. Budget is an issue, but so is change management. I hope that steps will be taken in the not too distant future to make changes that will be for the benefit of all hon. Members and, more particularly, their constituents.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: May I, on this rare occasion, endorse the words of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—especially in relation to the staff of PCD, who do a tremendous job? My hon. Friend will be aware that many of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman may be addressed if the House adopts the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body report. Will he put on his other hat, and find time for an urgent debate on that before Easter?
  Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend is quite right that the SSRB report makes very interesting reading. It puts great weight on the consideration of information technology. I will put on my other hat and remind my hon. Friend that this matter is for the House to decide, but I also point out that there are a great many demands on time in the House. I am conscious of the fact that the issue is real and pressing; I note what he says.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman has surely noticed that the programme to which we were working—with a general election to be held on 3 May—has changed. We have a whole extra month to fill up, so the excuse that we could not find enough time to deal with the SSRB report has disappeared. Will the hon. Gentleman please agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) that we now have time? When are we going to get this done?
  Mr. Tipping: I am grateful for the interest that the hon. Gentleman takes in such matters. He has pursued the issue hard both in the Chamber and outside. I do not dispute the need for change.
  I know nothing about timetables for general elections—3 May or any other date—but I know that a great deal of business has to come before the House. This is one issue; I hope that we shall be able to address it in the not too distant future.

  Parliamentary Reform
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What further proposals she plans to bring before the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on parliamentary reform; and if she will make a statement. [155218]
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Committee has initiated several important experiments in the way the House works—Westminster Hall sittings, the hours of Thursday sittings, programming and deferred voting. The Committee will look at other matters such as the use of IT, but the priority must be to keep those experiments under review.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I am pleased that we are to look at other matters. May I invite the Leader of the House—albeit out of season—to consider the long summer parliamentary recess during which there is no scrutiny and no accountability by this place? Often, disasters occur which would normally mean statements at the Dispatch Box. We commit our armed forces to combat situations about which there would normally be statements at the Dispatch Box. There is summitry about which there would normally also be statements at the Dispatch Box. After each summer recess, may we have a written report from each Minister of his or her stewardship during the closed period and a statement from the Prime Minister, when Parliament reconvenes, about what has passed during those long summer weeks of recess?
  Mrs. Beckett: With respect to my hon. Friend, we do not commit our armed forces every, summer recess, although I appreciate that it has happened occasionally. My hon. Friend makes a serious point. The Government take steps to keep the House and the country informed. As to the precise mechanism that my hon. Friend suggests for so doing, I do not undertake to agree to it, but I certainly undertake to give it consideration.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the right hon. Lady find an opportunity for the House to review the trial arrangements for programme motions in the Chamber and in Committee? She will be aware that her Committee published a new report on the issue yesterday. I think that she will acknowledge that the report owes its genesis to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) who, during this Parliament and previous Parliaments, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, has been anxious to improve the way in which the House scrutinises legislation. It was very much on his initiative that the new report was produced.
  The right hon. Lady is also aware that there is cross-party agreement on that admirably brief— one-page—report, although the Committee was not unanimous. As the unexpected weeks available for good business in the House give us an opportunity to do so, can the House itself now debate the issue, to ensure that, if and when there is an election, the new Standing or Sessional Orders in the new Parliament can take account of the Committee's advice?
  Mrs. Beckett: Certainly, I recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. He is entirely right that the recent, brief report received cross-party support. One might almost say all-party support, although he is right, too, to point out that the report was not unanimous. He is also right to pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) who, down the years, has certainly made a substantial contribution to the House—not least, perhaps, during these past days in making the report.
  180
  I have noticed that during the past couple of days a whole raft of issues has been raised for which it is confidently predicted that it will be easy for the Government to find time. As ever, I shall give what favourable consideration I can to those matters, but the purpose of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers was indeed to encourage reconsideration of the trial. The need for new Sessional Orders will in any case make that necessary.
  Mr. David Winnick: May I suggest one parliamentary reform, namely to try to stop the practice whereby, from time to time, a Government Whip comes marching in with a stick? At one time he would have walked backwards. Is it really necessary? I have written to my right hon. Friend on the subject. Does she not agree that just as Black Rod no longer interrupts our proceedings when it is necessary to state that an Act has become law, messages from Her Majesty could be read out by the Speaker? Why on earth do we have this pantomime performance in the 21st century? Wakey, wakey!
  Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that he has written to me on the matter, and I am compelled to tell him that it is more a matter for the Procedure Committee than for me. I understand his point, but he will know that there are different views on the matter throughout the House.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Mercifully, there will probably be only one more meeting of the ghastly Modernisation Committee before the general election. Following the right hon. Lady's comments, I should perhaps put it on record that although the report published yesterday had the support of two of my colleagues, it certainly does not have the support of the official Opposition.
  Returning to the question asked by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), has the right hon. Lady considered the inappropriateness of a Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of the House at that, chairing a Committee that changes and proposes amendments to the Standing Orders of the House which affect Back Benchers on both sides of the House? In her reflections on the so-called wonderful experiment that we have had to endure for the past four years, has she considered giving the chairmanship to a representative from the Back Benches rather than herself?
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady is her usual gracious self. She is right to place on record the fact that the report to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred did not attract the support of the official Opposition, but it is also right to place on record the fact that it did attract the support of two of the most senior and experienced Conservative Members. With regard to the hon. Lady's remarks about inappropriateness, she will know that it was this party's manifesto proposal that there should be a Select Committee on modernisation of the House and that it should be chaired by the Leader of the House. As I have pointed out to her before, it is not unprecedented for a Select Committee to be so chaired. [Interruption.]
  In light of the comment made by the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, I shall make only one other enlightening remark on the subject. I have never before thought it

  181
  necessary or desirable to do what I am about to do, and I am not sure that it is the right thing to do now, but in view of the words of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I should perhaps tell the House of a resolution carried at the end of the Committee's deliberations last week. I accept that the hon. Lady had left the room at that point—perhaps she would have tried to prevent the resolution being carried. The Committee resolved:
  "That the Committee pay tribute to the Chairman for the exemplary manner in which she has presided over the Committee's deliberations."
  I fear that that was moved by a Conservative Member.

  Deferred Divisions
  Mrs. Betty Williams: What assessment she has made of the experiment with deferred Divisions; and when it will be reviewed. [155219]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Deferred Divisions appear to be working well in allowing debate after the moment of interruption without forcing the majority of the House to remain until late into the night to deal with matters of minority interest. There had been 33 deferred Divisions as at 28 March, which is a potential eight and a quarter hours of voting time; in only eight were more than 100 votes recorded in the No Lobby, and in 21, fewer than 20 Members voted in the No Lobby.
  Mrs. Williams: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the system will continue in the next Session? Does he agree that the official Opposition do not want serious debate in the Chamber and are intent only on wasting time?
  Mr. Tipping: What I can confirm is that the system is an experiment, and it is a matter for the House to decide. I can say candidly to my hon. Friend that I support it. It saves time and is in the best interests of the House. Of course, there is an argument that if some Opposition Members—I stress the word "some"—had not been keen to devote so much time to certain subjects of so little interest, it might not have been necessary for the House collectively to assert its right to protect itself.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) meant to refer to the next Parliament, rather than the next Session of Parliament, when she asked her supplementary question.
  Will the Minister not accept that deferred Divisions may well undermine and negate the influence of Back-Bench opinion on both sides of the House because the influence of Beck Benchers' speeches will have been forgotten by the time the Divisions take place, and that good government results from Back-Bench opinion on both sides of the House being properly expressed?
  Mr. Tipping: Of course good government depends on exchanging ideas and opinions, and I have spent many happy hours late at night in the Chamber, listening to the debates. Those Members who wish to take part in the debate can, and they frequently do so at length, but I do not think that deferred Divisions have changed the weight of opinion or the importance of Back-Bench opinion.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), answered Question 30 by referring me to a previous answer, given some time ago. It may not have been out of order, but do you think it proper that she should do that in answer to an oral question, without at least informing me that she was going to do so, thus preventing me from looking up the answer to which she referred?
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I have no responsibility for the content of ministerial answers. None the less, it is helpful to the free flow of Question Time if an answer is readily understandable by all Members seeking to take part in the exchanges. I will look into the issue raised and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter that I raised with you on a point of order yesterday—my inability to find out from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the circumstances in which a landfill site in my constituency was to be used to bury carcases. It is now some five days since I wrote to the Minister asking him to tell me what was going on. I have tried writing to him, e-mailing him and sending him post in the normal way. Even though you have never been contaminated by service in government, can you give Back Benchers some guidance on what to do when Ministers simply will not answer letters?
Mr. Speaker: Like the hon. Gentleman, I used to be a Back Bencher, and all I can say is that he must keep pestering the Minister.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is grave anxiety in my constituency about the proposals on whether to vaccinate. Have you had any indication from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—or, indeed, from the Prime Minister—on whether they intend to make a statement, given that we were told before last weekend that the Government would take a decision on that very serious issue in the next few days? We have reached that
184
point; my constituents are waiting; and there is deep anxiety about the uncertainty and lack of clarity on this difficult issue.
Mr. Speaker: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's problem, but it is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any notice of a Minister in the Department of Health coming to the House to give Members information on food safety? You will remember that the previous Government were criticised in the reports on BSE for dealing with food safety in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, so food safety was transferred to the Department of Health, which now deals with it; yet in all this crisis, not a single Health Minister has made a statement on food safety issues—which, of course, affect everyone—if only to reassure hon. Members that there is no such problem with foot and mouth.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that Health Ministers will take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you been asked whether a statement could be made by one of the Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the grant of £1.2 billion to Railtrack? The company has immediately said that it is not enough, but the House of Commons should at least have some idea of what is being proposed.
Mr. Speaker: No application to make a statement has been received.

BILL PRESENTED
  ELECTIONS
  Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Secretary Reid and Mr. Mike O'Brien, presented a Bill to postpone local elections in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, to require polls for different elections in Northern Ireland to be taken together if they are to be taken on the same day, and to make consequential provision: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 80].

  Graffiti (Control)
  3.35 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale of spray paint to minors; to authorise local authorities to require people subject to community service orders to undertake the removal of graffiti; and for connected purposes.
  This Bill follows a debate that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) a year ago, when he was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). There is tremendous concern about the amount of graffiti in our constituencies; the problem is causing great distress. Graffiti is a form of vandalism to public and private property and it gives the streets an air of desolation and threat, which is frightening, in particular, to the older people who frequently write to us about the problem. The younger people who perpetrate the crime endanger themselves on many occasions by going into railway stations and on to live railway lines in the middle of the night. People have been seriously injured as a result.
  Some people argue that graffiti is an art form, and I would accept that some graffiti is. I am well aware that people carry out university dissertations on the subject and, in secret parts of my constituency that only young people can reach, there are some brilliant examples of graffiti art. They are much admired and even photographed.
  Most graffiti, however, is just a messy scribble that bears as much relation to art—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. May we have some order in the Chamber? The hon. Lady is entitled to speak to her motion.
  Dr. Tonge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The sort of graffiti that I have described bears as much relation to art as a sheep pickled in formaldehyde. There are scribbles all over our cities—likewise the so-called tags. Tags are the signatures of graffiti artists who go round their neighbourhoods marking out their property rather in the way that dogs pee against lamp-posts. It is a disgusting habit.
  In Richmond upon Thames alone, £150,000 was spent in the past year on trying to remove graffiti, but we all know that it is a losing battle. London local authorities combined have spent £10 million in the past year removing graffiti from public places and many private homes—and what a waste of public money that is. How many better classrooms, how many teachers and how much care for the elderly could £10 million provide?
  Some 20 per cent. of criminal damage against property each year is graffiti damage, and 900,000 offences in 1999 in the London area were graffiti offences. An officer working in my borough, Inspector Mark Jones, does undercover work to try to catch graffiti artists, and there has been a lot of success recently. Two weeks ago, six graffiti artists were caught red handed—although I do not know what colour the paint was. Inspector Jones has told me that the police would like greater powers to apprehend and search the young people involved. The police know
  186
  perfectly well where they are going and what they are going to do, but young people just walk away laughing because they know that the police have no powers.
  Community service orders in Richmond upon Thames require graffiti merchants to clean graffiti off walls and buildings. That is an eminently sensible punishment. The problems of the health and safety regulations which used to stand in the way have been overcome. The Bill requires people who are subject to community service orders for graffiti offences to undertake the removal of graffiti in their area. The punishment must fit the crime. However, the whole process is a waste of money for local authorities that are strapped for cash, and a waste of police time for a police force short on personnel. We are attempting to stop the problem at source and have pressed the Government for some time by calling for a ban on the sale of spray paints to minors.
  In response to parliamentary questions, the Government insist:
  "There are no plans at present to restrict the sale of spray paints to juveniles; this would penalise young people who have a legitimate reason for their purchase."—[Official Report, 16 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 206W.]
  What legitimate reason might a young person of 15 or 16 have? If he requires spray paint for art at school, surely that can be purchased with a note from the lecturer or teacher, or his parents can get it. Would it limit young people's freedom so much if they were unable to buy it? Supermarkets and do-it-yourself outlets in my area sell spray paint and I have been told that it is sometimes possible to buy five or six cans for a pound. That is ridiculous. In addition, spray paint does not have to be bought: it is easily stolen. It is often on low shelves and can be scooped into a rucksack before the young person goes off on that night's activities.
  The Government also refer to the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 which makes it an offence to sell a substance to a minor knowing that it or its fumes are likely to be inhaled for intoxication. There is evidence that the fumes of spray paint are intoxicating and that young people get a high from them. Why are there no prosecutions under the 1985 Act? Why are there no test cases? We never hear of anyone being taken to court for selling those substances to young people. Preventing or trying to prevent the sale of spray paint to minors is a practical step that we can take.
  I implore the Government to take our Bill seriously so that we try to stop the vandalism and waste of public funds that are expended on it. I urge them to support the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Jenny Tonge, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Edward Davey, Mr. Paul Burstow and Mr. Tom Brake.
  GRAFFITI (CONTROL)
  Dr. Jenny Tonge accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of spray paint to minors; to authorise local authorities to require people subject to community service orders to undertake the removal of graffiti; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 July, and to be printed [Bill 81].

  Business of the House
  3.44 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We will shortly debate a motion tabled by the Leader of the House on the business of the House, but before we can sensibly do that we need to have an idea of the terms of the timetable motion. I have just been to the Vote Office. It does not yet have the timetable motion, so we do not know its terms. That is a peculiar state of affairs, not least because the Leader of the House announced the timetable motion yesterday. May I suggest that it would be best for us to adjourn our debate until the timetable motion is in the Vote Office?
  Mr. Speaker: No.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a copy of the Elections Bill, which has just been delivered an hour late to the Vote Office. The opening paragraph relates to explanatory notes, which will be prepared by the Home Office and published "as Bill 80—EN." We have been to the Vote Office, and although we shall debate the Bill shortly, no explanatory notes are available. [HON. MEMBERS: "We'll discuss it tomorrow."] Hold on; I believe that, since the Bill has been published today, it is important to publish the explanatory notes, too. Could you advise the House on that, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill was presented only today. The explanatory notes are a matter for the Minister, not the Chai.
  Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on what appears to be a growing phenomenon of parliamentary truancy whereby hon. Members—I am sorry to say that, they are principally Labour Members—bunk off rather than turn up to ask the questions that they have tabled. Given that that is discourteous to the House, I ask you, in the words of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, with which I am sure you are familiar—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a proper point of order. I am here, and so is the hon. Gentleman. That is all he has to worry about.
  3.46 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move,
  That, in respect of the Elections Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
  The motion simply provides for amendments to be tabled in advance of Second Reading. The Bill needs to receive Royal Assent quickly: certainly before the Easter recess. We believe that all those involved in local elections—candidates, parties and electoral administrators—need certainty. Local authorities are obliged to incur wasted expenditure in anticipation of elections on 3 May, for example, through printing ballot papers and sending out postal vote papers, until the Bill receives Royal Assent. I therefore propose that all its stages be taken tomorrow.
  188
  To be helpful to the Opposition and, indeed, all hon. Members, we propose that hon. Members can table amendments straight away rather than having to wait till the end of Second Reading.
  We made draft copies of the Bill available to principal Opposition spokespeople yesterday evening to give them extra time to consider its provisions. I hope that hon. Members will perceive the motion as a common-sense measure and endorse it.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As the Minister knows, I have raised a point of order on the explanatory notes. Does he not accept that they would be helpful to hon. Members? Can he suggest when they will be available? If amendments are to be tabled before Second Reading, the explanatory notes would be helpful, especially to Back-Bench Members, who do not have the advantage of large offices to advise them. They help hon. Members to determine the sort of amendments they may table.
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that hon. Members will benefit from explanatory notes. I assure him that we will provide them as soon as possible. The motion that we are considering covers only the procedural question of whether amendments can be tabled in advance of Second Reading.
  Mr. Hogg: The Minister has heard my point of order on the timetable motion. If he was in a position to disclose a draft copy of the Bill to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, why was not he in a position to place a timetable motion in the Table Office? When can we expect it to be there?
  Mr. Clarke: I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the same commitment as I gave to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I shall use best endeavours to ensure that we make it available as quickly as possible.
  I hope that I have clarified the motion.
  3.49 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning rose—
  Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to catch the Minister's eye earlier to query whether he had said that the main Opposition parties had been given copies of the Bill yesterday evening. One has to bear in mind that there are other Opposition parties too. I wonder whether the Northern Ireland parties had a copy of the Bill yesterday evening, because I was not aware of it, and the Bill specifically affects Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Speaker: I hope that the Minister will take note of that point of order, because I would expect all Opposition parties to be given notice.
  Mrs. Browning rose—
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A promise was made yesterday that we would receive a draft copy, because most of the Bill has to do with Northern Ireland. That promise was not kept: my party did not get a copy until this morning,

  189
  after hunting round the various Whips' offices and making phone calls. We did not get our copy until just before the House sat this afternoon. Northern Ireland parties are implicated in the legislation in a big way, so surely they were entitled to see the Bill as soon as possible.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for me to apologise to hon. Gentlemen from the Northern Ireland parties? I do not know why what happened did happen, and I apologise. As both the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) have said, the Bill very much affects their part of this country; they were entitled to see it, and I apologise that they did not have it earlier.
  Mrs. Browning rose—
  Mr. Martin Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put the case for the many independents in local Government? Surely they are entitled to as much consideration as the candidates from the regular political parties.
  Mrs. Browning: Third time lucky, Mr. Speaker.
  Given the representations that we have just heard in the form of points of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could begin by saying something that I was going to ask you about. I collected the Elections Bill from the Vote Office after Question Time at 3.30; it was an hour late and, as we have heard, there are no explanatory notes to go with it at the moment—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady. The Bill was made available as soon as it was presented to the House.
  Mrs. Browning: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I said that the Bill was late because earlier in the day I had asked the people in the Vote Office when they had been notified that it would be delivered to them. I was told that it was expected to be there by 2.30. That is why I suggested that it was an hour late.
  In the circumstances—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady will take my word for it: I heard the Bill being presented earlier today, and it could be placed in the Vote Office only after it was presented before the House.
  Mrs. Browning: Of course I accept your word for that, Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Browning: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to complete a sentence first.
  I would like to make a helpful suggestion, because clearly we are dealing with matters of great concern to Members in all parts of the House. I appreciate the fact that those on the Conservative Front Bench received a draft copy of the Bill last night, and we are very grateful
  190
  for that. None the less, the examination and scrutiny of any Bill is equally a matter for Back Benchers on both sides of the House.
  In view of the representations that you have just heard in the form of points of order from other parties whose representatives did not receive a draft copy, Mr. Speaker, are you prepared to advise the House of whether you will accept manuscript amendments until a late stage, just before we begin of our proceedings on the Bill tomorrow afternoon? Many Members will not wish to draft their amendments until they have had sight of the explanatory notes.
  Mr. Eric Forth: My hon. Friend will not have forgotten that the Government intend to take all stages of the Bill under a guillotine tomorrow. How does she imagine that the House will be able to judge what will happen in the Committee stage? Hon. Members may wish to table amendments for Report. How does my hon. Friend imagine that they will be able to do that if we are operating under a guillotine?
  Mrs. Browning: That is exactly why I began by suggesting—and would have suggested, even if I had not heard the representations from other parties—that you might consider manuscript amendments for tomorrow's proceedings, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend is right: we shall be taking all stages of the Bill under a guillotine. Indeed, the House will not need me to remind it that tomorrow we shall be taking all stages of two Bills under guillotine motions. Careful deliberation will therefore be needed to ensure that we have adequate time, especially for the Committee and Report stages of each Bill. That applies particularly to the Elections Bill, as we have had so little time to consider it.
  Having had a few minutes on the Bench in which to flip through the Elections Bill, I immediately see many matters that are not only detailed but potentially controversial. Although there is agreement between the parties on wanting the Bill to proceed, it cannot do so at the expense of proper scrutiny on the Floor of the House, or of the right of people to ask questions and to have the right length of debate.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend advances a coherent and constructive argument. Does she not feel that the Government are wrong to introduce a programme motion for the Bill? We are dealing with local government democracy in the Bill, and it is entirely inappropriate that there should be a programme motion. Bearing in mind the complications in the Bill, if the House needs to sit late tomorrow night, it should have the opportunity to do so and should not be inhibited by any programme or guillotine motion.
  Mrs. Browning: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am concerned, because we shall be dealing with two important Bills tomorrow under those terms. During the business statement yesterday, the Leader of the House was asked whether we would sit late tomorrow night. I forget her exact words, but she implied that we would not. That suggests that the guillotining is going to be pretty ruthless.

  191
  My hon. Friend asked about the Government's intention to programme. Programming has become the hallmark of this Government. Although there is co-operation, and a need to see the Bill discharged, I none to the less urge the Minister to allow the House—particularly its Back-Bench Members—to give the Bill the proper scrutiny that it deserves.
  Mr. Hogg: Is there not a further problem? This is the first time the local government representatives and their associations will have seen the Bill. They may well want to make representations about its contents. In the ordinary course of events, no amendments would be taken after the House rises tonight. In those circumstances, how on earth are those people going to have their point of view properly listened to by the elected representatives sitting in this place?
  Mrs. Browning: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. Glancing through the Bill for just a few minutes, I notice, for example, a provision about the extension of the nomination period in relation to individual candidates. There is also the matter of clause 6, which deals with compensation to local authorities or candidates. The House will want to probe exactly what is intended by that, and, in the absence of an explanatory note, I have not been able to second-guess it at this stage.
  The programme for tomorrow's business includes two very important Bills. The Elections Bill will require a lot of debate and scrutiny. Mr. Speaker, may I urge you to consider being as flexible as possible, according to the powers available to you, in relation to representations from Back Benchers on both sides of the House, and to the ways in which amendments could be tabled to the Bill? Perhaps you could also give us guidance on how the Report stage will be handled, as we shall not have heard the relevant deliberations by the time any amendments would have to be tabled?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the hon. Lady agree that the most difficult part of the Bill has to do with Northern Ireland? We have two systems of voting there. We have a system involving putting a straight "X" for electing Members to this House, and the "one, two, three" single transferable vote system in local government. That leads to all sorts of complications, because the constituencies for Westminster are not—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. We are not scrutinising the Bill at the moment. We are discussing the business of the House, under motion 3. That motion is very narrow, and deals with the ability to table amendments. We are, therefore, going wide of the motion if we start discussing the detail of the Bill. That will come later.
  Mrs. Browning: May I pick up the thrust of the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)? The measures dealing with matters pertaining to Northern Ireland are important and no doubt amendments to them will be tabled, which brings me back to timetabling. How will the allocation of time be dealt with? It is a great pity that a timetable motion is not before the House now, because we would have a clearer idea of how time will be divided up between the various parts of a Bill that we have only just seen.
  4 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: The problem is that we have only part of the information. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, we know only the barest details of what confronts us and what is, after all, an extremely important and rare, if not unprecedented, event in our constitutional arrangements. We are discussing nothing less than changing election dates. I should have thought that even this Government would want to ensure that the House has a proper opportunity to consider those matters in detail, yet we do not know how much time they will deign to give us tomorrow.
  The Leader of the House was kind enough to say yesterday that an allocation of time motion relating to the Elections Bill and, indeed, another Bill would be tabled. We have been told that two Bills will be considered on the same day.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must be very firm: the right hon. Gentleman is going wide of the motion. I cannot allow him to do so, because I am sure that he will want to speak on other matters.
  Mr. Forth: You can take that as being absolutely for sure, Mr. Speaker. I am concentrating on this matter right now; I am warming to my theme.
  The Leader of the House told us yesterday that there will be proceedings—plural—on the Elections Bill. Until the motion was tabled, that was the only hint that we will have debates on Second Reading, in Committee, and on Report and Third Reading.
  Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend will want to remind the House that unless the Bill is amended in Committee, there will be no consideration on Report and the process will be further truncated.
  Mr. Forth: Regrettably, that is true and my right hon. and learned Friend is correct. I hold out no great hope or optimism that we shall be able to amend the Bill in Committee. It has been in our possession for only a few minutes, but even a glance at it suggests to me that there is ample scope for amendment. Therefore, we should be concerned about the opportunity given to us by the motion properly to amend the Bill.
  The motion says that
  "notices of Amendments, new Clauses"—
  that is a useful hint—"and new Schedules", which is an even bigger hint, I would have thought,
  "to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time."
  That suggests that we shall be able to table amendments, new clauses and new schedules right up to the vote on Second Reading. That in turn suggests that, were we to agree to the motion, which I hope we do not, we would face a possible plethora of manuscript amendments being tabled after Second Reading and before we consider the Bill in a Committee of the whole House. We would then be in the invidious position of facing the possibility of debating a number of manuscript amendments of which most Members of the House were unaware until that point.
  Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend contemplate this point? He is discussing manuscript amendments being

  193
  tabled up to the point at which we begin consideration on Second Reading, but the truth is that the House needs to consider and reflect on the arguments advanced on Second Reading. That argues for amendments to be tabled in Committee.
  Mr. Forth: Of course, my right hon. and learned Friend is correct, although I had not quite reached that point in my reasoning. When considering any Bill, never mind a Bill of such gravity and importance, we would usually expect the opportunity to consider what had been said on Second Reading, take soundings, undertake consultations, accept representations from outside and table amendments in Committee.
  That would be the normal process, but we are faced with an absurdity in this instance. Apparently, we are expected to engage in a truncated Second Reading debate under a guillotine; we will vote on Second Reading; then, and only then, the shutters will come down and it will no longer be possible to table amendments.
  I might want to delay submitting my amendment until I have heard the whole of the Second Reading debate. If time permitted, I might well want to hear the Minister's winding-up speech before considering what amendments to table for the Committee stage.
  Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend's textual exegesis is second to none, but, in fairness to the Leader of the House, does he not think that she possibly—and presumptuously—intended the word "proceedings" to refer to a single event?
  Mr. Forth: I cannot believe that. I think that my hon. Friend, unusually, has got the wrong end of the stick. I assume that the Leader of the House deliberately used the word in the plural because of the devastating combination that would confront us under a guillotine: in quick succession, Second Reading, a Committee of the whole House, Report—if amendments had been made in Committee—and Third Reading.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In the normal run of procedure, when we have a Standing Committee, there is the safeguard of a Programming Sub-Committee. How can the safeguards built into the normal passage of legislation by the good offices of such a Sub-Committee be taken into account when a Bill is being taken through all its stages in one day on the Floor of the House?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the tabling of amendments, which is what the motion is about.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend may wish to consider what he has said. It might have a bearing in some circumstances—but, guided by you, Mr. Speaker, I could not possibly speculate on that.
  It strikes me, at first glance, that items in the Bill mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)—we have had only a few minutes in which to look at it—suggest considerable scope for amendments, which, of course, are allowed by the motion. The controversial issue of a fixed date might be the subject of one debate; a change of circumstances
  194
  in the renomination of a candidate might be the subject of another. There is our friend "as if for", which is a variation of the "deeming" method that we have seen recently. There is the whole question of compensation—not easement of expense limits—on which I myself might wish to table an amendment.
  Mr. Hogg: In regard to limits on expenses, is it not difficult for us to determine whether it is appropriate to approve the motion until we have had the opportunity of receiving representations from the Local Government Association on whether the 50 per cent. figure is sufficient?
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend raises an important matter. We are being told that a Bill that we have only just received will go through all its stages tomorrow, and that the motion allows the tabling of amendments, new clauses and new schedules, all of which could well be the subject of serious representations from those directly involved in local elections and local councils up and down the land, whose circumstances will vary. Given the compressed nature of the timetable that is being suggested, I should have thought that the lack of any time for those outside the House to make legitimate representations to Members would seriously undermine the credibility of the Bill, should it be passed.
  It is all very well for the Minister to say, "It is all very uncontroversial; it has all been agreed, everyone is happy with it, and therefore we need not bother with it too much, need we?" We know from bitter recent experience—the other Bill that we are to debate tomorrow, which you will not want me to discuss or even refer to, Mr. Speaker, is standing testimony to this— that, if we do not scrutinise legislation adequately, mistakes are likely to arise.
  Mr. Hogg: Would my right hon. Friend care to make this point? We cannot judge whether the motion now before the House is appropriate until we know what, if any, representations were made to the Government by the Local Government Association and other bodies when the Bill was originally drafted.
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct, but I hazard a guess that the answer is adjacent to zero. That should disturb us all greatly; it should not give us any assurance.
  Mrs. Browning: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it might be helpful if when the Minister replied, he could say when authority was given for the drafting of the Bill? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Forth: The Minister has just indicated from a sedentary position that he is not going to bother replying to the debate. I think that that was the gist of what he has just muttered. I am beginning to think that this matter will now be subjected to a Division. I am certainly of a mind now to seek to divide the House on it, if only to seek to censure the Minister for the fact that he has indicated that he will not reply to the debate. A debate not replied to should be subjected to a Division, so that we can test the view of the House. I thought that I would give a little indication of that at this stage to help my colleagues.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am trying to be reasonable and rational, because I agree with the Bill. I wonder

  195
  whether my right hon. Friend would indicate whether—this specifically relates to the motion —the Clerks at the Table will accept new clauses, new schedules and amendments to be moved in Committee after the Bill has had its Second Reading. Clearly, in the light of what is said on Second Reading, it may be necessary to table amendments. Will they be acceptable in manuscript form?
  Mr. Speaker: It might be helpful if I said that the motion simply allows amendments to be tabled before the Bill has been read a Second time. It is about timing. It has no bearing on the scope of amendments that may be proposed.
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is helpful guidance and we are grateful for it, but can you tell us whether you would be minded to accept manuscript amendments in Committee, bearing it in mind that, in the ordinary course of events, amendments must be tabled by tonight? It would be enormously helpful to us if you accepted amendments in Committee and, if we have a Report stage, on Report.
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we are dealing with a Committee of the whole House. It is for the Chairman of Ways and Means to consider that matter, not me.
  Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible for you this evening, once you have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means, to say what the likely ruling would be? It would be of enormous value to the House to know that amendments could be tabled in Committee.
  Mr. Speaker: The Chairman of Ways and Means, like me, cannot deal with hypothetical matters. Obviously, amendments will have to be weighed up by the Chairman of Ways and Means, as they are weighed up by me.
  Mr. Forth: That is extremely helpful, Mr. Speaker. We are all grateful for that, but you referred a moment ago to amendments. The motion also talks about new clauses and new schedules. Therefore, potentially, a new schedule could—
  Mr. Charles Clarke rose—
  Mr. Forth: I will happily give way to the Minister, who is not going to reply to the debate.
  Mr. Clarke: I may have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but I just want to make it clear that, if he divides the House against the motion, amendments, new clauses and new schedules to he moved in Committee might not be accepted by the Clerks before the Bill has been read a Second time. That may be the effect of dividing the House. I want to make sure that he has understood that.
  Mr. Forth: I am always grateful for the patronising guidance of the Minister from the depth of his vast parliamentary experience. I always feel completely inadequate when faced by this Minister across the Chamber, and I find his guidance extremely helpful.
  196
  I should, however, tell him that I shall make up my own mind on what I do and whether I seek to divide the House, and that when I do, I will probably know what I am up to.
  Mr. Hogg: I shall be very chary in the way in which I phrase my intervention. Would I be right in supposing that, had the Government been minded to allow amendments in Committee, the motion could have been drafted in such a manner as to say so?
  Mr. Forth: Of course, but it is perfectly obvious that the Government's objective in this whole exercise is to minimise the opportunity for consultation, representation, debate, amendments and consideration. We can draw no other conclusion than that. Although the Minister has tried, rather feebly, to portray the motion as an act of parliamentary generosity by the Government, those of us who have been in this place for more than a dog-watch will know that the situation is precisely the opposite.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: As one who has been in this place for the same length of dog-watch as the Minister, I should perhaps tell my right hon. Friend that, before he takes into account the Minister's guidance on this Bill, on three occasions during our consideration of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, the Minister's guidance on likely events turned out to be terminologically inexact.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is nothing to do with the matter before us.
  Mr. Forth: No, but it is interesting.
  I should like for a moment to concentrate on the word "schedules", which is rather important to us in this debate. It would be one thing if we were dealing only with amendments—although amendments can be a matter of great seriousness and very wide-ranging, of course subject to selection by you, Mr. Speaker—but when we discuss the possibility, as is stated in the motion, of new schedules to the Bill, that raises the possibility of a wide-ranging debate and of considerable change to the thrust and direction of the Bill itself. No less could be said of new clauses.
  Once we get into the territory of new clauses and schedules and the possibility of their being moved were they to be selected, the relationship between Second Reading and Committee, and between Committee and Report, comes into play, as does the matter—which we are not discussing today, although we shall tomorrow—of the time available for them. Therefore, time and again, we keep coming back to the fact that hon. Members must make some type of judgment, within the terms of the motion, on whether we think that it is credible or acceptable, in terms of parliamentary accountability and scrutiny of the Bill, to countenance what is suggested in the motion.
  Although it may be possible for all these matters to be
  "accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time"—
  in other words, as I understand it, under the guillotine, right up until a Division, if there is to be one, on conclusion of debate on Second Reading—we face the possibility of a very complex schedule being tabled at the last minute trying to take account of what has been

  197
  discussed on Second Reading, and the House being forced under a guillotine either to debate the matter barely at all or to divide on a possibly very complex schedule, although we are scarcely aware of its content. That puts us in an impossible position.
  Even if the Government are attempting to say, "Aren't we being generous, having guillotined this Bill and said", as the Leader of the House did, "that we will have all the proceedings under a guillotine in less than one parliamentary day?", hon. Members are now in the invidious position that we—with you, Mr. Speaker—may have to make a very rapid judgment on a complicated manuscript new schedule or new clause and then be forced to make up our minds on that provision on a matter as important as elections.
  Mr. Hogg: Although we are discussing procedure, namely the motion on the Order Paper, does my right hon. Friend agree that we are aware of only part of the process? Until we see the timetable, we do not know when, for example, the Bill will be considered on Second Reading. We are seeing but part of the process, not the whole. How can the House conceivably vote successfully on this motion?
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I was going to touch on that issue, and now is as good a time as any to do it. We know that we have only just had the Bill and the Government propose that it should be dealt with tomorrow, but we do not know at what stage tomorrow it will be dealt with. It is an important point. My right hon. and learned Friend has highlighted the fact that those of us who will try to balance our time between wanting to participate in the upcoming debate and attempting to rush off and start drafting numerous amendments and new schedules to the Bill—as I fully intend to do—do not know how much time we have available to do that. The motion states simply
  "before the Bill has been read a second time."
  For the sake of argument, let us suppose that a statement were made tomorrow, or that you, Mr. Speaker, were to grant an emergency debate under Standing Order 24. From the time made available tomorrow for the debate on the programme motion, hon. Members could judge when the debate on Second Reading would start and conclude, and when any vote would occur. That in turn would tell us how much time we had to meet the requirements of the motion. However, we know none of that and we are being forced to debate this motion without knowing what the Government will impose on the House tomorrow.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Is not another serious possibility that, if consideration of the Bill is guillotined, as we expect that it will be, the passage of this motion may disadvantage any amendments or new schedules tabled with the benefit of knowledge of what has been said on Second Reading? Amendments tabled before Second Reading may take up all the available time.
  Mr. Forth: Indeed, and we shall therefore have an odd phenomenon. I propose to draft today, without having heard the Second Reading debate, amendments that necessarily will be somewhat speculative—although I
  198
  shall do my best to imagine what might be said on Second Reading. Conversely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) pointed out, those hon. Members who wait for the Second Reading debate and then try to make sense of new schedules or new clauses will be at a curious disadvantage.
  Mr. Hogg: May I point out a further disadvantage to which my right hon. Friend will be put? I know that it is not his practice to attend Westminster Hall—
  Mr. Forth: Never.
  Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend says "never", but I know that there is a debate on the future of the green belt, and that that is a master of some concern to him. He might be minded to attend the whole debate in Westminster Hall tomorrow—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether the right hon. Gentleman is so minded or not has nothing to do with the motion.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Speaker, from my right hon. and learned Friend's attempts at seduction.
  We are in an extraordinarily difficult position. The Government have tried to portray the motion as an act of generosity, but it is completely the opposite. The House is in an invidious position, with hon. Members being asked to tamper with the country's electoral arrangements—no less—in a limited amount of time and with no proper time allowed for representations from outside, consideration or consultation. There is the great risk that any amendments, new clauses or new schedules that are tabled will be defective, either for the reason set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West a moment ago, or simply because insufficient time has been allowed for their preparation.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The right hon. Gentleman makes the serious and welcome point that the House should never rush through legislation without looking at it. However, that should not detract from the fact that it would not be the first time that hon. Members had written new schedules or amendments without having any idea of what was contained in the Bill connected with the subject matter.
  Mr. Forth: It is always reassuring to know that there is a precedent, in which I am, generally speaking, somewhat of a believer. However, my point is that the House is being put at a peculiar disadvantage on this occasion. If we are to be bereft of a summing up by the Minister, there will be no option for some of us but to seek—
  Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no requirement, in terms of parliamentary propriety, to debate amendments in the chronological order of their tabling? Although no Conservative Member cares a tinker's cuss whether the Minister of State replies to the debate, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be entirely appropriate for the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office to be plucked from his office and instructed to return forthwith to the Chamber?
  Mr. Forth: We always welcome the Parliamentary Secretary for his courtesy and consideration to the House,

  199
  and his presence would be advantageous. However, the ordering of the sequence of amendments is for Mr. Speaker to determine. We always respect his wisdom in these matters, as we would on this occasion.
  Mr. Brady: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Forth: I was about to conclude my remarks, but before I do so I shall of course give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Brady: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend may have treated with undue levity the comments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for whom both he and I have great respect. The hon. Lady said that such a state of affairs was not without precedent. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that, in a constitutional measure of this sort, one should set a higher standard? We should not necessarily expect this measure to proceed without proper precedent. I know of no such precedent. Does my right hon. Friend?
  Mr. Forth: I certainly do not and would be interested to know whether the hon. Lady does, for the reason that my hon. Friend has given. This is a constitutional measure of the greatest importance—we know that the Prime Minister has agonised over it—yet the Government seek to rush it through in this unseemly way.
  All in all, this is a very sad day. The arrangements are most unsatisfactory. Even in the event of an elegant, comprehensive and lengthy reply from the Minister, I believe that some right hon. and hon. Members may have no option but to vote against the motion to express their disapproval of the whole matter.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: The core concern, as I see it, is that although the motion may be intrinsically sound and acceptable in itself, the fact that it does not have alongside it any timetable, programme motion or guillotine arrangements makes it extremely difficult to judge whether it is acceptable. For all we know, the Government may intend to bring matters to a conclusion at 7 o'clock or 11 o'clock tomorrow evening, or at 2 o'clock or 7 o'clock on Thursday morning. In those circumstances, it is extremely difficult for us to judge how the matter will be addressed in the House tomorrow.
  Liberal Democrats have no problem with the motion, and I think that that is probably true of other parties as well. The key issue is whether we will be given adequate time to debate properly the amendments that will be brought forward under the motion and give the matter the scrutiny that it requires. I hope that someone on the Government Front Bench can give us an indication of the intended timetable. I have been in the Chamber for a couple of hours, and I may have missed something, but as far as I am aware there has not even been any discussion across the House through the usual channels.
  Mr. Hogg: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman heard my point of order. I went to the Table Office and was told that no timetable motion had yet been tabled, so we must assume that the terms have not been drafted.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but that may not be entirely so. He will know
  200
  from his experience in government that discussions sometimes take place through the usual channels before the final version of a motion is tabled. It has been known for programme motions to receive the support of all parties in certain circumstances. Given, as I understand it, that the Conservative party—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have spoken at length about the narrowness of the motion. Programming does not come into it—it is strictly about the time limit for amendments. That is what we must debate.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. The importance of the motion—which we support—is not its intrinsic merit but how it fits with the business of the House. My concern is that we do not know how it will operate tomorrow, which will make it difficult to judge its merits.
  I plead with the Government to ignore the fact that the Conservative party seems to be at sixes and sevens on this issue. After all, Conservative Members have wanted these elections to be delayed for some weeks, and now that the necessary motion has come before the House to make that a practicality, it is difficult to understand where they are coming from.
  Will the Government give us an indication of what the timetable is? Without knowing that, it is extremely difficult to address the motion in a fair and balanced way.
  4.29 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The House should be aware of the immense part of the Elections Bill that refers to Northern Ireland. Four pages refer to England and Wales, but 12 refer to Northern Ireland. I would have thought it only right for a Northern Ireland Minister to be on the Government Front Bench, at least today, because the largest part of the Bill deals with Northern ireland.
  The amazing thing is that Northern Ireland does not need to be included in the Bill, as our elections do not need to coincide. They are not even in the same month. We in Northern Ireland know why this has happened—the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister want it, whereas the other parties do not. To us, this is a political move for political advantage.
  Elections are at the heart of democracy and there should be no interference, if possible, in the way in which elections are run. Part I of the Bill deals with parliamentary elections rules, about which I am supposed to table amendments. We then come to a large part about local election rules, about which I am supposed to table amendments. [Interruption.] I am looking at the motion, Mr. Speaker, and I am aware of what is in it; it is about tabling amendments, and I am sticking to that. I tried to get that through to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), but you cut me off before I put my question, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to stick to the subject of tabling amendments.
  I always thought that we tabled amendments after we heard what the Government thought about a Bill and what it meant. I have written a three-page letter to the Prime Minister, by request from the Northern Ireland Office, in which I put all my views. It was not even acknowledged and I do not know what the response will be. How can I

  201
  carry out my duty as leader of a party in Northern Ireland when I do not know the response of the Government to the Bill?
  Mr. Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman know of any discussion involving the Northern Ireland Office, his party or any of the parties in Northern Ireland—
  Mr. Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in answer to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said:
  "As for the way in which amendments will be tabled, it will be done in accordance with the usual procedures of the House."—[Official Report, 2 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 42.]
  As I understand it, the motion seeks to extend the normal procedures of the House. Am I right in saying that if the motion were to be rejected, we would fall back to the normal procedures of the House, which would be of lesser benefit to Members on both sides? Would it be in order to ask you to ask whether any Member of the House does not want the extension to the normal procedures, so that we can get on to some sensible business?
  Mr. Speaker: It would not be in order to ask me because I am not here to say what the benefits would be of approving the motion. All I can do is to advise the House on how narrow the motion is. It is very narrow, and I would say to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) that he is nearly going beyond its terms. Perhaps he will assist me by getting back to the terms of the motion.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad to hear that you think I am not beyond, but only nearly beyond, the motion, Mr. Speaker. I will not make any further comment and I will leave to your imagination what I am thinking.
  In response to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I know that all the parties in Northern Ireland have had discussions with either the Secretary of State or the Minister in charge of elections, and it is clear that the First Minister and his deputy want this delay, while the other parties do not. There are many within the Ulster Unionist party who do not want it either.
  It is all right for those in the House who have only four pages to look at; Northern Ireland Members have the vast bulk of the Bill to look at. When we table amendments, we will not know whether we are tabling them with the right view of the Bill, because there is no explanation—not even in the Bill itself. That is a legitimate point to make on this motion, Mr. Speaker, because it concerns the tabling of amendments. How can we do that unless we have some idea of the Government's view, which would usually come out in a Second Reading debate? That is what Second Reading is for.
  The matter is complex for Northern Ireland because it has different constituencies for local government. One constituency has four different—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is where the hon. Gentleman is going beyond the scope of the motion.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Perhaps I can ask for your help, Mr. Speaker. How can I table an amendment that will cover a situation in which, instead of one council, we have local government councils in four parliamentary constituencies?
  Mr. Speaker: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that whenever I wanted to table amendments, I sought the advice of the Clerks. That is my advice to him.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Clerks will have a long session, because there are great difficulties. As the largest part of the Bill concerns Northern Ireland, there should be adequate time to consider the amendments. We may get a bit of paper that says that the amendments will not be discussed at all. Even if they are on the amendment paper, with the guillotine we may never reach them.
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I want to reinforce what the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said. The motion is narrowly phrased but important, and I view it with dismay. I am perfectly prepared to accept that we need emergency legislation, although I would have put a date for the local council elections at the back end of this year—but that is not a matter for this debate.
  This is a profoundly unsatisfactory state of affairs, for several reasons. Critically, the motion is only part of the process, and until we also see the timetable motion we do not know whether it is right to agree to it. We are told that we can table amendments until the Bill has its Second Reading, but we do not know whether there will be a substantial gap between Second Reading and Committee stage. If the Committee stage is taken immediately following Second Reading, and that is to be concluded very early tomorrow, in the afternoon sitting, the proposal in the motion is wholly inadequate.
  Until we see the timetable motion, we are being asked to discuss an important matter of parliamentary procedure with only one part of it before us. That seems absolute nonsense to me.
  Another reason for not liking the motion is that I have already raised with several right hon. and hon. Members—and with you, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker—whether amendments will be acceptable during the Committee stage. You were kind enough to tell the House that that is, in essence, a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means. No doubt that is correct, but it would have been perfectly possible for the Government, when drafting the motion, to provide for the acceptance of amendments, new clauses and new schedules during Committee.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: As you, Mr. Speaker, were kind enough to say that the question of amendments at the Committee stage would be a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, I took that to mean that Members of the House would at least be able to table amendments at that stage so that they could be considered by the Chairman of Ways and Means. I regarded that as

  203
  enlightening the House. Did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) have the same impression?
  Mr. Hogg: Yes, I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend is right about that. However, whether the amendments, new clauses and new schedules will be debatable or debated is a matter partly for the timetable and partly for the discretion of the Chairman of Ways and Means. You are nodding, Mr. Speaker, so I assume that I have got it right, which is of great reassurance to me—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Amendments and new schedules can be tabled, but it is at the discretion of the Chair whether they are accepted for debate.
  Mr. Hogg: The point that I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) wants to make, and which I certainly want to make, is that as the Government thought it right to make provision for the tabling of amendments, new schedules and whatever up until the moment of Second Reading, it would have been perfectly possible for them to have covered the Committee stage and Report. Had they done that, people such as myself and my right hon. and learned Friend would have been much happier.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: I doubt it.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman says that he doubts it, but the truth is that many Members are seriously concerned about the House's procedures. They feel that the House has been abused by Labour Members over a long period—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that shouting by Government Members from a sedentary position once again reinforces a point that so many Conservative Members have believed for a long time—Labour Members do not care about democracy. They believe in an elective dictatorship, and this motion is yet another example of that.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will not answer that intervention.
  Mr. Hogg: In view of your comments, Mr. Speaker, I will not respond in detail to my hon. Friend's comments. However, had we more confidence in the democratic credentials of the Labour party, we should be happier with the motion.
  The plain truth is that the Bill is important. It will affect many individuals. It also raises technical points of some complexity. One can determine what the amendments should be only as a result partly of representations made from outside and partly from debate in the House. Under the motion, all that we will be able to do with certainty is to table amendments right up until the end of the Second Reading debate, but not thereafter. We should be much happier if we could do so during Committee and during Report stage, if there is one.
  That brings me to my final point. We have been told by the Minister of State, Home Office that draft copies of the Bill were given to my hon. Friend the Member for
  204
  Tiverton and Honiton and, no doubt, to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)—or whoever—in the Liberal Democratic party. That is good as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. The hon. Member for North Antrim made the point, as did the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), that the Ulster Unionists were not given a proper view of any draft Bill. Scottish National party Members have said nothing, because none of them are in the Chamber, but no doubt they were in a similar position.
  It is a lamentable state of affairs when significant minority parties are ignored. Indeed, the matter goes much further than that. What are the rights of Back Benchers? I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton received the draft Bill. That is splendid, but as she knows full well, I often proceed on my own agenda, and I would have liked to have seen the Bill—and so, I am sure, would my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
  Mrs. Browning: I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that in my opening remarks I emphasised that although Conservative Front-Bench Members received a copy of the draft Bill last night, as shadow Leader of the House I was concerned about the rights of Back Benchers.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is always so concerned, which is very much to her credit, but I take advantage of the opportunity to say that it is the duty of the Government to consult the House if they want their legislation to be passed. We are the House; it is not only my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: The House, c'est moi.
  Mr. Hogg: No, we are the House, and I even include the hon. Gentleman in that, although I sometimes find that a rather difficult thing to do.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has been saying for a long time that the Government should have published enabling provisions for the legislation some time ago. If the Government had heeded his advice, a draft Bill would have been published 10 or 14 days ago and we would have had an informed discussion last week after proper consultation with the Local Government Association and other representatives. As it is, an important constitutional Bill will be rammed through the House tomorrow on the back of this motion and a timetable motion, the contents of which we do not know—and on any view of the matter that is profoundly unsatisfactory.
  4.46 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) have made a particularly important point about the fact that a copy of the draft Bill was provided only for official Opposition Front-Bench Members and not to the hon. Gentleman, even though, as he pointed out, he is the leader of a party in Northern Ireland.

  205
  I have the advantage of having a copy of that draft Bill. One of the significant changes to the Bill since last night refers, as the hon. Gentleman suspected it would, to Northern Ireland. Clause 4 contains no fewer than six changes to the text about Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] I am trying to restrict my comments to the motion. The concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be as good as his word and to restrict his comments to the motion, he will have to wait another day to continue with his point.
  Mr. Hawkins: My point concerns the way in which amendments can be tabled, and it was made by the hon. Member for North Antrim. He is a party leader, but he did not have the advantage of seeing the draft Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton did, so it is difficult for him to know how to table amendments. As he says, much of the Bill relates to Northern Ireland. One of the significant changes made to the Bill since last night relates to the text on Northern Ireland, and I have counted no fewer than six amendments. That makes it more difficult to table amendments—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The motion is not concerned with difficulty; it is simply about timing.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply wanted to echo the point about minority parties which was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. It will be difficult to debate amendments when even the leaders of minority parties have not have the chance to see the draft Bill.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. Charles Clarke: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond briefly to the debate. On an earlier point of order, I apologised to the leaders of Northern Ireland parties for the difficulties. I subsequently learned that part copies were given to the party offices yesterday evening, but they took more time to emerge than is desirable. I apologise again for those difficulties.
  I emphasise that whatever the date until which local elections are postponed, we need legislation forthwith to effect the postponement. That is why we are using this rapid process, and everybody agrees that it is in the greater interest of all those involved in the local elections rapidly to enact the legislation.
  Mr. Forth: Surely the Minister must concede that we have been put in this position because the Prime Minister has delayed making his decision until the last possible moment, so to say that we must agree to the motion because of the timetable for the local elections is to put things back to front.
  Mr. Clarke: I hear that political point, but I simply say that the Prime Minister likes to take decisions on the basis of the facts, rather than on the basis of situations that otherwise might become apparent.
  206
  The main point to make on the motion is that the House has only one matter to determine: does it wish to extend the rights of Members to give notice of amendments, new clauses and new schedules? That is the only issue that must be addressed.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell rose—
  Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way.
  I hope that the House will agree that we should extend the rights of Back Benchers to ensure that we have a more informed debate, and for that reason I commend the motion to the House.
  4.51 pm
  Mr. Graham Brady: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I am forced to do so, as the Minister was not prepared to deal with a brief inquiry that I directed at him. He has spoken very briefly, which, of course, is an improvement on what he originally offered to do; he originally was not going to have the courtesy to reply to the debate. Will he give us some small detail of the Government's timetable for the provisions? That is directly pertinent to the matter that we are debating. If the timetable is to be particularly compressed, there will be additional difficulties in tabling and debating amendments or new schedules.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The point the hon. Gentleman makes is not only repetitious, as it has been made many times during the debate, but outside the strict terms of the motion.
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not seek to repeat any point at all; of course, I have not made a speech in the debate.
  Before hon. Members decide how to vote in any Division that may be called, it is important that they know the practical implications of the motion. If we allow amendments to be tabled before the completion of Second Reading, the Minister must intimate whether that will be our only opportunity to table amendments or whether we shall have other opportunities to do so and whether there will be a period between the conclusion of Second Reading and the commencement of the other stages.
  Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can the House do anything to protect the Chair from being harangued by the Government Deputy Chief Whip, who is probably asking for a premature closure?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly in order for any hon. Member to approach the Chair at any time.
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you care to help me on one matter? I can, of course, understand the ruling that an hon. Member is out of order, but the word "repetitious" troubles me. Having been a Member for 20 years, it occurs to me that our arguments are repeated many times, and when did that become—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be familiar with Standing Order No. 42.
  Mr. Brady: We are all familiar with Standing Order No. 42, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to detain the

  207
  House. As I said at the commencement of my remarks, I had not intended to speak. I hope that the Minister will take note of the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand how important it is that we know the Government's timetable before we arrive at a conclusion on the motion. I implore him to think again, and not to be so arrogant as to refuse to give important information that is directly pertinent to the matter in hand.
  Mr. Miller: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a straight question? Is he in favour of extending the normal practices of the House for the purposes of this business, or is he in favour of sticking to the normal practices?
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making some very interesting interventions, in one of which he suggested that the Leader of the House had inadvertently misled the House in a statement on Monday. However, I am pressing the Minister on the vital point that we cannot make a rational judgment on the motion unless he is prepared to give us important but simple information on whether the timetable will be tight and compressed, whether there will be a gap between Second Reading and Committee and whether we shall have a longer period to debate—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating himself, and in my hearing. The fact of the matter is that what the motion seeks to do is quite independent of any other timetable motion, which presumably will be discussed by the House on a future occasion.
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You were good enough refer me to Standing Order No. 42, but might it not help the House if it knew that repetition per se is not objectionable? Repetition is objectionable only if it is tedious.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That will be a matter for my ruling.
  Mr. Brady: The timetable may be outwith the scope of this motion, but my point is simple. My decision on how I cast my vote in any Division on the motion will depend very much on the Minister's response to my question.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mrs. Browning: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You were not here at the beginning of the debate, but I am sure that you will have followed what happened. Before the conclusion of this debate, may I please have an answer to the question that I asked initially? Will manuscript amendments be acceptable on all stages of the Bill tomorrow?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot add to the ruling that Mr. Speaker gave a short while ago. It was entirely definitive, and I stand by it.
  Mr. Brady: I was about to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, on the question of the tabling of amendments, probably the
  208
  most worrying feature of the debate so far is the fact that the Minister does not seem to know whether the contents of the motion are prescriptive or merely permissive?
  Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend makes an important point. More to the point, the Minister does not appear to know whether the Government intend to timetable this business or what timetable will be applied.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is either wilfully or carelessly mishearing my rulings. This motion has nothing to do with the timetabling.
  Mr. Brady: My aim was quite the contrary, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without challenging your ruling, I was simply seeking to conclude my sentence but, at that point, you interrupted my remarks.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should consider his reputation in the House before making such a suggestion. I advise him to desist from continuing with that argument.
  Mr. Brady: That is precisely what I was trying to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was attempting to conclude a sentence, to conclude a point and to conclude my remarks. All I want from the Minister is an indication of what the timetable will be, because that will inform my decision.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will be in serious trouble if he goes on defying the Chair after a ruling has been made. I take it that he has now sat down and concluded his speech.
  4.58 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The common objective of us all must be to try to enact sensible legislation on this fairly narrow point. It is plain that, regardless of the time that there may be between the Bill's different stages, it will be a tight timetable. The Leader of the House tabled this motion to enable amendments to be tabled before Second Reading, which is unusual.
  When you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were not in the Chair—Mr. Speaker was in the Chair—a perfectly logical supplementary question was asked. Will amendments be considered by the Chair—you were not here, but you might have to consider them—in Committee and on Report?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has a collective memory on these matters and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard me respond to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), repeating, in effect, Mr. Speaker's ruling on that question. The position is unchanged and the motion before the House in no way affects that speculative situation.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: You called me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I fully understand that, but may I raise a point of order about the collective memory of the Chair? I have been here throughout the debate, so I have a collective—or, at least, an individual—recollection of what was uttered. What came home to me was that Mr. Speaker made it clear that you, in your capacity as

  209
  Chairman of Ways and Means, will consider amendments in Committee. I take it that you will also consider amendments on Report.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is again going over the same ground. Mr. Speaker has given the correct position. Such matters will be considered in due course. This, however, is not the time.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall return to my serious point. Much legislation has been erroneous in this Parliament, not least because time for debate has been unduly truncated. The process of debate—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is again directing his remarks towards the amount of time that is available for discussion. That is well and good, but it is not within the terms of the motion to extend the normal time in which amendments can be tabled. It is a separate matter.
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I build on what my right hon. and learned Friend said?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I have dealt with that.
  Mr. Hogg: On a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman begins by saying that he wants to build on one matter and then changes his ground. Can he be clear?
  Mr. Hogg: Yes, of course. Mr. Speaker said that it was for the Chairman of Ways and Means to give a ruling. You could give a ruling now on whether you will accept manuscript amendments during the Committee and Report stages—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is testing the patience of the Chair. Mr. Speaker said that the matters would be discussed on their merits. That is the exact position.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Incidentally, when would you like the election?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is most assuredly not a matter for me.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: My final remark was directed at the importance of our ability to table amendments at an appropriate time so that Bills can be properly considered and their errors corrected. All hon. Members will realise that the legislative process is not the monopoly of the Government of the day; it relies on the will of the House. The procedure, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are astute in protecting, is designed to give every Member due opportunity to contribute to proposed legislation in the hope—sometimes misguided; often well directed—that it will better meet the country's needs.
  Mr. Forth: Has my right hon. and learned Friend resolved for himself the dilemma that we all face?
  210
  Given that the motion allows amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be tabled before Second Reading, is he, like me, going to draft those today speculatively, or does he intend to table them at the last minute when he has heard that debate?
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: My understanding is that I am entitled—indeed, encouraged—to table amendments, new clauses or new schedules now and until a decision is made on Second Reading. I also understand that I am entitled to table amendments in Committee for your consideration, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be dealt with as you think fit. I might be looking too far ahead and further guidance might be forthcoming, but I believe that, in addition, I will be able to do that on Report. I shall do my best to do all those things.
  Mr. Forth: Given the circumstances that the motion outlines, does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that he has sufficient opportunity to receive representations from local government interests in his constituency? Such representations would inform the process—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is completely irrelevant to the motion.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I entirely understand that. The answer to my right hon. Friend's question would depend on the time that was allocated.
  One has to have time in which to table sensible amendments; we must also have an opportunity to reflect. I shall determine the amendments that I shall table pursuant to the ruling on which I am concentrating. If I have calculated correctly, the time available lasts until tomorrow night if the Elections Bill receives a Second Reading. Following the Chair's guidance, which we have just received, I anticipate further discussions on timetabling, with which we cannot deal now.
  The Bill is complex.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some extremely important prospective legislation has been tabled on the Order Paper for discussion today. The whole world awaits it. The measure will be discussed in Parliaments throughout the world. When will we end the nonsensical debate that we are currently holding? Conservative Members are wasting time. Why will they not stop?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate is proceeding in order. When it does not, the Chair takes corrective action.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will bear in mind that we are discussing a complex Bill. We want to get it right—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is incorrect. We are not discussing a Bill, but a technical motion, which extends the amount of time for tabling amendments. That is the sole, narrow point before the House. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to stay within my ruling, I suggest that he remain seated.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Of course, I always stay within your rulings, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In directing our

  211
  attention to the amendments that the motion gives us an opportunity to table, our objective is to improve the Bill. I hope that the House supports that.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to keep within the rules of the debate. At the beginning of our proceedings, the Minister apologised to the minority parties. He also said that the Northern Ireland Office or someone else had advised him that we had been given information through our offices late last night. I must put it on record that some of us were here until late last night. I understand through consultation with the leader of the Democratic Unionist party that notice was sent to Stormont. Surely the information should be provided to us here rather than in Stormont.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, I apologised earlier for what had happened. I want to clarify matters further, and I shall write to him and his colleagues with a full account of events.
  Question put:
  The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 11.

  Division No. 172]

  [5.8 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Allan, Richard

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Cann, Jamie

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Casale, Roger

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Caton, Martin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Austin, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Barnes, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Clelland, David

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Coleman, Iain

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Connarty, Michael

  Benton, Joe

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Berry, Roger

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Best, Harold

  Corbett, Robin

  Betts, Clive

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blackman, Liz

  Corston, Jean

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cotter, Brian

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cox, Tom

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cranston, Ross

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Crausby, David

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Breed, Colin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cummings, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Darvill, Keith

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Burgon, Colin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Burstow, Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  212

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dobbin, Jim

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Doran, Frank

  Keetch, Paul

  Dowd, Jim

  Kemp, Fraser

  Drew, David

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Khabra, Piara S

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fisher, Mark

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flint, Caroline

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Flynn, Paul

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Livsey, Richard

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foulkes, George

  Lock, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Love, Andrew

  Galloway, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gapes, Mike

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Macdonald, Calum

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McFall, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gidley, Sandra

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Goggins, Paul

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McNamara, Kevin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Grocott, Bruce

  McWilliam, John

  Grogan, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gunnell, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hain, Peter

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Martlew, Eric

  Harvey, Nick

  Maxton, John

  Healey, John

  Meale, Alan

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Merron, Gillian

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Heppell, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hill, Keith

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Moore, Michael

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hope, Phil

  Mountford, Kali

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mullin, Chris

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Olner, Bill

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jamieson, David

  Öpik, Lembit

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pike, Peter L

  Joyce, Eric

  Plaskitt, James

  213

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stringer, Graham

  Pond, Chris

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pound, Stephen

  Stunell, Andrew

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rapson, Syd

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Rendel, David

  Timms, Stephen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Touhig, Don

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooney, Terry

  Truswell, Paul

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Roy, Frank

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ruane, Chris

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tyler, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tynan, Bill

  Salter, Martin

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Sanders, Adrian

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Watts, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Webb, Steve

  Sheerman, Barry

  White, Brian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wills, Michael

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

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

  Wood, Mike

  Soley, Clive

  Woodward, Shaun

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Woolas, Phil

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Worthington, Tony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mr. Greg Pope.

  NOES

  Body, Sir Richard

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Chope, Christopher

  Shepherd, Richard

  Davis Rt Hon David (Halternprice)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Mr. Crispin Blunt.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That, in respect of the Elections Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.

Orders of the Day

  International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.22 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  At the outset, I remind the House that the Bill has attracted wide support and interest around the country. Non-governmental organisations from Amnesty International to the Red Cross and Save the Children have all supported it. Some of those organisations will have tuned in at 3.45 pm in order to follow the proceedings of the House. I have to say that they will have viewed with incomprehension the proceedings they have watched for the past hour and a half, which have correspondingly reduced the time available to debate this historic step on international justice.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Rubbish.
  Mr. Cook: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to continue to decry the views of those organisations, I warn him that, from what I know of Bromley, it is precisely the place where many members of Amnesty International, the Red Cross and Save the Children live. I hope that those members saw the gesture that he made as he dismissed his constituents' views.
  There could be no more appropriate week in which to consider the Bill on International Criminal Court ratification. Only three days ago, ex-President Milosevic was arrested. He is today in prison—a fate far better than that which befell the many thousands of victims of his wars in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo.
  There could be no clearer case for the need to achieve international justice than that of Milosevic. We have all seen the harrowing photographs of his victims: the starved prisoners of the concentration camps in Bosnia; the families burnt when their homes were fire-bombed in waves of ethnic cleansing; the hundreds of thousands of Kosovars fleeing terror; and the corpses of the men of an entire village, whom I saw where they had fallen herded together in a farm outbuilding to be massacred by paramilitaries.
  I warmly echo the statement by President Kostunica that Milosevic's arrest proves that no one is above the law. Ex-President Milosevic has been arrested for his crimes against the Serb people. I believe that it will be valuable for the Serb people to learn the scale on which Milosevic looted their country; that he made himself rich while he made them poor; and that he rigged their elections and abused the power that came with the false results.
  Milosevic was not a great nationalist, but a great enemy of the Serb people. I therefore support Milosevic being charged and tried for his crimes in Serbia, but that can be no substitute for a trial of Milosevic for his atrocities against the other peoples of Yugoslavia. As soon as Milosevic has submitted to legal process for his crimes in Serbia, he must be surrendered to the tribunal in The Hague to face justice for his crimes against Bosniacs and

  215
  Kosovars. I urge the Government of Serbia to make that day more certain by serving Milosevic with the indictment drawn up by the war crimes tribunal.
  What makes the case of Milosevic unusual is the fact that there is an international tribunal to pursue justice throughout the former Yugoslavia. Apart from Rwanda, no other part of the globe has an international mechanism to call dictators to account.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be entirely wrong to see proceedings against Mr. Milosevic in Serbia on the basis of allegations of corruption and fraud as in any way a substitute for his appearance in The Hague on the basis of indictments consisting of allegations against him in respect of crimes against humanity? It should not be thought, should it, that an appearance in Serbia will somehow constitute a tholing of his assize?
  Mr. Cook: I entirely agree. I have said that on a number of occasions over the past three days. I think that what is happening now can serve as a useful step along the road, ensuring that more people in Serbia understand the importance of handing Milosevic over for trial in The Hague. It can, however, be only one step along a road whose end must be in The Hague, where Milosevic must stand trial for his wider atrocities.
  As I was saying, it is only in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda that such mechanisms are available. There is no institution to bring to justice the Idi Amins or the Saddam Husseins, and there is nowhere for the victims of their crimes to seek redress before the law. That is the case for a standing international criminal court.
  Both international criminal tribunals are providing a valuable remedy for crimes against humanity, but months if not years were lost in devising the structure of those tribunals and drawing up the rules of procedure. That is the case for a permanent centre of legal expertise and agreed procedures.
  I began by referring to the wide support for the Bill throughout the British community of non-governmental organisations. There is also support from the legal community that is as near to being universal as is possible among lawyers. Even the Opposition have hitherto expressed enthusiastic support for the establishment of an international criminal court. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who speaks from the Front Bench most frequently on the issue, is on record as saying:
  "I have mentioned our broad support for the court, support the Conservative party has offered for decades. We have always supported the principle, and shall continue to do so by helping the Minister in any way that we can."—[Official Report, 27 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 945.]
  The Opposition now have an opportunity to prove how helpful they wish to be.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: As the Foreign Secretary knows, I represent Aldershot, which is the home of the British Army. Perhaps he can tell us what support there is for the Bill among senior service men, and what reservations any of them may have entered, privately or otherwise.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has been helpful by asking my right hon. Friend
  216
  the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the armed forces. He answered, on 16 March, "None." I refer the hon. Gentleman to that answer, which continues:
  "The priority of the Ministry of Defence in the drafting of the … Bill and its passage through Parliament has been to ensure that members of the armed forces are fully protected from malicious or ill-founded prosecution … The armed forces have been closely involved in the consultation process. I am confident that the Bill … provides all necessary protection."—[0fficial Report, 16 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 756W.]
  I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary, but can he tell us what reservations the British Government intend to enter, as, for example, the French Government have?
  Mr. Cook: I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is no provision in the statute for reservations. The French Government made a declaration; we have not yet resolved the question of whether we would wish to make one, but such a declaration would of course have no legal effect.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Cook: I will, but then, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must make progress.
  Mr. Brazier: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that, under the treaty as it now stands, if the prosecutor, who appears to be answerable to no one and who is appointed for a fixed nine-year term, decides that a member of this country's armed forces has not been sufficiently or satisfactorily investigated by our own criminal justice system, military and civilian, that prosecutor can decide to pursue a case against that member of the British armed forces?
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his understanding of the statute on that matter. The prosecutor can launch such a prosecution only if he or she can sustain a case that the case was dropped in order to conceal or to protect someone against whom there was a bona fide case. However, it would not be the decision only of the prosecutor. The British delegation to the Rome negotiations had written into the statute the provision that the prosecutor can launch an investigation—let alone a prosecution—only with the approval of the pre-trial chamber of judges.
  Indeed, when we reported that outcome of the Rome conference in 1998, the Conservative spokesman in the other place, Lord Kingsland, described the pre-trial chamber as
  "a great achievement"
  which will
  "wash out of the system any bogus allegations."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 20 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 626.]
  I hope that that will be of comfort to members of the same party as Lord Kingsland.
  It requires 60 countries to ratify the Rome statute before the International Criminal Court comes into existence. The passage of the Bill will put Britain in the first 60. That is important not just because we will have helped to

  217
  bring the court into existence, but because those that have ratified are the only countries with a say in setting up its procedure and appointments. As a country that had ratified the statute, Britain could nominate candidates, vote in the elections of the prosecutor and judges and have a say in the adoption of the procedural rules.
  Britain has a long tradition as an architect of legal innovations. The most recent example was the Lockerbie trial, where we created legal history by mounting a trial under Scottish Law in a third country. Britain has much to contribute to ensuring that the International Criminal Court gets off to the best and most sound start, but it is plainly in our own national interest to be there when the crucial decisions are taken; for our own judges to be eligible for election to the bench; and for us to have a say in who that prosecutor will be.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Would my right hon. Friend like to consider not only what a blow it would be to our national interest, but what view the other countries would take if, having played such a leading part in the formulation of the statute, we were to resile as a result of party games in this place?
  Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend helpfully brings me to a point that I wish to stress. The Bill reflects the statute negotiated at Rome. In the negotiation of that statute, the British delegation played an important role in securing the changes that we wished to see. I pay special tribute to Sir Franklin Berman, the legal adviser at the Foreign Office, who led the British delegation and who deployed his great expertise as an authority in international law to secure a number of improvements that strengthen the Rome statute.
  Those included steps that widen the remit of the court. First, the definition of war crimes now applies to internal conflicts, not only to wars between states. That was a highly significant amendment to secure as there have been few wars between states in the past generation, but all too many conflicts within states. Often, such ethnic civil wars produce the most savage crimes against humanity.
  Secondly, the offences before the court now include crimes of sexual violence, such as the use of mass rape as an instrument of ethnic cleansing. The British delegation was also instrumental in supporting the power of the court to try those responsible for forcing children into combat.
  Mr. David Winnick: Apart from all the mass murderers since 1945, is it not a fact that, if such a court had been in existence straight after the war, many Nazi war criminals and mass murderers who carried out the most horrifying crimes on behalf of the Third Reich would have been caught and tried? Instead, many of them got to the west or to Latin America and escaped scot free.
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a valuable and important point. At that time, we did not have a standing mechanism for implementing international justice. Moreover, the time that is lost as the Security Council resolves to establish such a mechanism is valuable time in which evidence can be destroyed and those who are accused can disappear.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way, and I think that my
  218
  intervention will not come as a complete surprise to him. I have always supported the principle of what the Government are trying to do with the court. However, could the right hon. Gentleman please advise me why—although the former Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) wrote to me to say that there was a strong possibility that the Government would be making representations to the new Government of Syria on the continued sheltering of the worst Nazi war criminal still at large, Aloȹs Brunner—in February, I was given yet another stonewalling response from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office saying that nothing had been done and that nothing was going to be done? Will the Foreign Secretary please make those representations?
  Mr. Cook: I am not sure that I would accept the hon. Gentleman's characterisation of stonewalling. The issue of Mr. Brunner's existence has been raised on many occasions with the Syrian Government, most notably by France, which is the jurisdiction within which he has been convicted. On all occasions, the Syrian Government deny all knowledge of him or suggest that, in so far as they have knowledge, he is dead. If the hon. Gentleman can furnish me with fresh evidence with which I can challenge that assertion by the Syrian Government, I would be very happy to do so.
  Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
  Mr. Cook: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, and then I must make progress.
  Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend is making a very important point. Although I very much welcome the establishment of the International Criminal Court, its powers will of course not be retrospective, and my right hon. Friend is making the point that very valuable time will be lost. However, United Kingdom courts already have jurisdiction over crimes—including the crimes of torture and of hijacking—that are committed outside the United Kingdom by non-nationals. Earlier, my right hon. Friend said that Saddam Hussein could not be tried by a future international criminal court for past crimes. He could, however, be tried under the other system. Why have the British courts not taken action against leading members of the Iraqi regime who are responsible for hijacking and kidnapping British citizens in Kuwait?
  Mr. Cook: Of course we will pursue any practical or reasonable way of bringing Saddam Hussein to justice. Currently—perhaps regrettably—the prospect of Saddam Hussein being held to account within British jurisdiction is highly theoretical and I do not anticipate circumstances in which he would enter our jurisdiction. However, although my hon. Friend is correct that the effect of the International Criminal Court Bill is not retrospective, it will catch every crime from the moment that it comes into effect. For me, that is one of the reasons why we should make all possible speed in bringing the treaty into effect, which requires those 60 countries to ratify it. I hope that Britain will be one of them.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay rose—
  Mr. Cook: If I could ask my hon. Friend to allow me to continue, I shall undertake to give way to him later.

  219
  I was describing the gains secured by the British delegation at the Rome conference. There were other gains to be secured in the sanctions available to the court. On those, the British delegation secured two important points of principle. First, the court will have the power to order those found guilty to pay reparation to their victims. That reflects the reality that those who abuse their power to torture and murder also abuse their power to make themselves rich.
  Secondly, the court will not have the option of ordering the death penalty. The Government have consistently lobbied against the death penalty in all circumstances. We therefore successfully resisted attempts by other countries to include the death penalty in the sanctions available to the court. We took the view that it would be inconsistent to lobby internationally against the death penalty while extending such a power to an international court.
  Perhaps the greatest achievement of the British delegation was to secure overwhelming support for an international criminal court. At the end of several weeks of negotiations, 120 countries voted for the statute, and only seven voted against.
  The Bill makes provision for the UK to meet its obligations to the International Criminal Court and therefore enables us to ratify the Rome statute. It may be for the convenience of the House if I briefly set out the principal purpose of each part of the Bill.
  Part I defines the International Criminal Court by reference to the terms of the Rome statute. The Bill follows closely the provisions of that statute.
  Part II provides for the arrest of suspects indicted by the International Criminal Court and puts in place an expedited procedure for their transfer to The Hague. In practice, these circumstances are likely to arise only when a national of another state who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court visits the UK.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Secretary of State has referred to the extradition procedure under part II. Will he confirm that the Bill contains no provision for the competent court considering an extradition application to review the merits of the arrest warrant, or the application to deliver?
  Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. As I said, the Bill proposes an expedited system of transfer that follows very closely the system adopted by the previous Government for transfer in relation to the war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. It has been standing procedure to expedite transfers required by an international court. We are not dealing here with normal extradition between two countries.
  Part III of the Bill enables us to give full assistance to International Criminal Court investigations—for example, by the seizure of evidence and by interviewing suspects and witnesses. There is also provision for freezing property and assets at the request of the court.
  Part IV of the Bill provides for prisoners convicted by the International Criminal Court to serve their sentences in British jails. It sets out how we shall put into effect other orders of the court, such as those involving forfeiture of assets, restitution and compensation.
  Part V incorporates into domestic law the offences in the statute of the International Criminal Court. Domestic courts will have jurisdiction over such crimes committed
  220
  in the UK or committed by UK nationals anywhere in the world. These provisions will also apply to anyone resident in the UK, irrespective of their nationality or of the country in which the alleged crime was committed. That removes any concern that the absence of such a provision could leave Britain a safe haven for war criminals who have not yet been indicted by the International Criminal Court.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there could be a serious loophole in the Bill unless there is a clear definition of the term "residence"? A person claiming to be in transit through the country could be just as big a criminal as someone who is resident here, but would escape justice.
  Mr. Cook: I am deeply sceptical that our courts could be bamboozled as easily as my hon. Friend seems to suggest. The concept of residence is not novel in law, and I am sure that the courts will be confident and comfortable when it comes to dealing with it.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Lord Archer of Sandwell, the former Labour Solicitor-General, took a different view of that in another place. In addition, the templates of other comparable statutes, such as the one passed in Canada, contain a provision for universal jurisdiction, rather than a residential qualification that is subject to interpretation. I hope that the Government will reconsider that in Committee.
  A question has been raised about executive jurisdiction, and I want to ask my right hon. Friend why clause 21 allows the Secretary of State a discretion when it comes to surrendering a person sought by the ICC. My right hon. Friend rightly referred to the test and the pre-trial provisions, so should not a request from the ICC be acceded to, rather than subject to political discretion?
  Mr. Cook: I shall respond first to my hon. Friend's question about the Secretary of State's discretion. The statute provides that that discretion is exercised only in consultation with the International Criminal Court. I hope that that will be some safeguard against my hon. Friend's anxieties.
  On my hon. Friend's other point, let us be clear that we are not talking about people who have been indicted by the International Criminal Court. In any case in which people have been indicted by the International Criminal Court, the Bill will give us the authority to apprehend them and transfer them to The Hague for trial. In that sense, the International Criminal Court will have universal jurisdiction. The Bill provides for us to ensure that that jurisdiction applies in Britain.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: I want to take the Foreign Secretary back to the achievements of Sir Franklin Berman and his team in their negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the pre-trial chamber of judges and said, in reply to an intervention, that it would review a decision of a prosecutor who had, in effect, gone bad and was bringing prosecutions against countries which should not be brought. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that it also works the other way, and that when prosecutions are not brought by the prosecutor, it is possible for people to appeal to the pre-trial

  221
  chamber—for example, state parties and the Security Council—to get the prosecutor to overturn the decision and proceed with a prosecution?
  I should be grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's clarification, because I am not quite sure of the terms of article 15, which seems to indicate that the prosecutor and the pre-trial chamber must both decide whether there is a reasonable basis on which to proceed. It is not clear whether one can appeal to the pre-trial chamber for a prosecution to proceed when the prosecutor has decided not to do so.
  Mr. Cook: I was asked about the safeguard on the prosecutor, on the basis that the prosecutor is not accountable. The pre-trial chamber is a safeguard against malicious or vexatious use of that power. Any state party can refer a matter to the International Criminal Court, and I welcome that. I can envisage circumstances in which we, as a state party, might wish to use that initiative to make a reference to the International Criminal Court. The Security Council can also make such a reference in circumstances in which it believes that the matter raises issues of threat to international peace and order.
  I should like to conclude my description of the Bill. Although we are not obliged by the Rome statute to incorporate these offences into our domestic law, we believe that part V provides an important safeguard for British citizens. It means that in all circumstances Britain will be able to pursue any bona fide allegation of an offence by United Kingdom citizens through our domestic courts, rather than allowing proceedings to take their course through the International Criminal Court.
  The central point of these provisions is to enable the International Criminal Court to launch prosecutions against war criminals who cannot be tried because the system of law and order in their state has collapsed or because the criminals themselves are too powerful to be held to account by their own people.
  The Rome statute creates the post of an independent prosecutor who can launch both investigations and prosecutions. The independence of the prosecutor is an important point of principle which Britain fully supported. The problem with dispensing international justice through the creation of ad hoc tribunals is that agreement has to be sought every time through the Security Council. The independence of the prosecutor means that a prosecution can be initiated, even in circumstances in which one or other member of the Security Council might have sought to block it.
  I stress that in creating this international remedy, there is no intention to release Governments from their obligation to maintain a domestic remedy for crimes against humanity; on the contrary, it is a fundamental principle of the Rome statute that the best place to try any crime is at the national level. The international community has not established a court so that its individual members can abdicate their responsibility to hold their citizens to account before domestic courts.
  Mr. William Cash: On the compatibility of the international and the domestic courts, where is the line drawn between the two in respect of the mental test that is applicable to a criminal act? Will offences be judged
  222
  on the same basis? What remedy is to be made available for any vexatious attempts to bring people to justice when that is not justified?
  Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the statement of the offences in the Bill and the statement of the offences in the statute of Rome—the basis on which the court will act—are identical. In schedule 8, the issue of intent is repeatedly stated in terms of the offences. The offences, as set out there, are identical to those that will be in the statute.
  Since the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) asks about vexatious prosecution, perhaps I can turn to the how the Bill and the court may affect British service personnel. I am aware of the concerns that some service personnel may end up before the International Criminal Court. Those concerns are misplaced. We took great care during the Rome conference to make sure that the service personnel of the UK—or, for that matter, of our allies—could not be exposed to politically motivated prosecutions.
  In the first place, the International Criminal Court has no authority to initiate an investigation where the allegations have already been examined by the appropriate national authorities. The International Criminal Court will be a complementary jurisdiction—that is to say, it will only step in when states have proved themselves incapable of investigating, or unwilling to investigate, a crime against humanity.
  Members on both sides of the House should have a robust confidence that the British legal system has adequate remedies for crimes against humanity and can satisfactorily demonstrate to the International Criminal Court that any such allegations have been properly investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted. In short, British service personnel will never be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court because any bona fide allegation will be pursued by the British authorities.
  Mr. Brazier: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Cook: I will on this occasion, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that we have already lost an hour and a half of this debate and others will wish to speak.
  Mr. Brazier: I understand that. However, if there were to be a case involving special forces—or a covert operation in which the identity of the people concerned had to be kept secret not only for their protection but for that of their families—how would we be able to show a special prosecutor that an adequate investigation had been carried out while maintaining the veil of secrecy if allegations were made by an enemy?
  Mr. Cook: It is no new legal principle that those who may be investigated may retain their anonymity. That is observed regularly in Britain and I do not see the problem there. However, the provisions on this matter in the Bill closely parallel the provisions in the statute setting up the war crimes tribunal for former Yugoslavia. The previous Government acceded to the war crimes tribunal for former Yugoslavia in the full knowledge that there were several thousand British service men in the area. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that that included some of those to whom he has just referred.

  223
  Although the previous Government knew that those personnel were serving in former Yugoslavia and would come within the remit and scope of the war crimes tribunal, that did not prevent them—quite properly; I approve of what they did—from agreeing not only that the tribunal should be set up, but that Britain should fully co-operate with it. They were right to do so because they were confident that the circumstances would not arise in which British personnel would be exposed to a vexatious prosecution. If that were right in the case of former Yugoslavia and the British personnel on active service in difficult circumstances there, it is equally valid in respect of the Bill and the International Criminal Court.
  Indeed, it is in the best interests of our armed forces that the Bill is enacted. The Bill ensures that all the International Criminal Court crimes are also offences under British law and can be investigated and prosecuted by British authorities. Without the Bill, our forces personnel would be at greater risk of prosecution before the International Criminal Court.
  Nor does the creation of an international criminal court change the law under which our armed forces operate. The definitions of war crimes in the statute are already part of the well-established law of armed conflict. They are already binding on our armed forces and form part of the basic training of every British officer. Indeed, most of the wording on the crimes committed during combat is wording drawn from the Geneva Convention Acts 1957 and 1995, both of which were brought to Parliament by a Conservative Government.
  I regret that the United States does not yet feel able to ratify a statute which it has signed. I fully appreciate the importance to the United States of the liberty and safety of its personnel. Britain also has many service personnel on duty abroad and, for the reasons I have given, we are confident that they are not at risk from mischievous prosecution.
  We will continue, as a friend and ally, to encourage the United States to join the International Criminal Court because it will give us a mechanism to address the rogue states which concern us both. The most powerful argument is always by example and if we want to overcome the doubts within the United States, the best way to do so is to show our own confidence in the court by taking part in it.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Supposing, heaven forbid, that we or the United States were ever in a position where we had to use nuclear weapons. Who would take the decision as to whether that offended against the ICC statute?
  Mr. Cook: I am happy to reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that matter was, indeed, debated in Rome. There is no offence within the Rome statute or before the International Criminal Court on the use of nuclear weapons per se, although the circumstances in which they are used are always a matter of judgment. However, that is a matter of judgment that any British Prime Minister or US President would have to exercise in the present state of international law. The statute does not make any change, nor is there any reference to nuclear weapons. The possession of nuclear weapons is not an offence.
  We should ratify because the International Criminal Court will give practical expression to values and principles which I hope the whole House upholds: that
  224
  those who commit crime should not go unpunished and that justice should be available to the victim through legal process. Those are strong principles, but they also have a powerful practical effect.
  The reason why we have laws against theft is not primarily to punish the thief but to deter them from committing the crime. Too much blood has been spilt in recent decades by dictators confident that they would never be held to account. From now on, totalitarian regimes will know that they can be held to account for crimes against humanity. They will be no more above the rule of law than Milosevic. If the International Criminal Court deters just a single future Pol Pot, it will have justified its creation.
  The other reason why every civilised society insists that crime must be punished by the rule of law is to prevent the victims or their relatives from taking the law into their own hands. In my experience, one of the greatest problems in drawing conflicts to a close is the cycle of revenge killings that perpetuate ethnic hatred. That produces a psychology in which the other ethnic community is held collectively responsible for the individual guilt of any of its members. By placing criminal responsibility where it rightly belongs—on the head of the individual—the International Criminal Court will help us break the mentality of revenge killing. It will make an important contribution to the process of reconciliation, without which there is no secure peace.
  These are powerful assets. They are why the International Criminal Court is supported both abroad and at home. Not a single one of the responses to the draft Bill opposed it in principle. I hope that the House will be able tonight to show the same unity in giving a warm welcome to a Bill which offers the hope of justice to the victims of oppression and which only dictators need fear.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Francis Maude: I agree with much of what the Foreign Secretary said, especially about the broad principles that inform the Bill. As I said when we briefly discussed the matter in the debate on the Queen's Speech in December, we support the Bill in principle. When the right hon. Gentleman first made a statement on the subject, we accepted that there was a case for establishing such a court. We expressed some initial concerns about the statute of Rome, many of which remain unresolved. We perceive some serious flaws in the Bill, but we are willing to work with the Government to resolve them, so that it reaches the statute book in a form that all will find acceptable.
  We welcome, as everybody must, measures that will allow those who have committed crimes against humanity to be brought to book. That is clearly common ground. In the other place, the Bill received the constructive support of the Opposition, and we will take the same approach here. Where we agree with it, we will say so; where we believe it can be improved, we will seek to amend it, as we have already done; and where there are parts with which we simply do not agree, we will oppose them.
  Let us consider the case for having a permanent International Criminal Court. The Foreign Secretary has rightly said that in recent years there have been continued breaches of international law of a most hideous kind, including ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia, genocide in Rwanda and mass murder in East Timor. Indeed,

  225
  activities currently being sponsored by the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe could well attract the attention of future tribunals.
  It is right that, in respect of those appalling activities, ad hoc tribunals should be investigating and trying individuals—but that is happening in relation to only two of those theatres. That demonstrates the case for a permanent court. Thousands of refugees from the ethnic conflict in Rwanda have been murdered in recent years, but the mandate of the tribunal is limited to events that occurred in 1994. Crimes committed since then will not be covered by the ICC either, as its remit will not be retrospective.
  Mr. Winnick: Is it not odd that someone who has been held responsible for at least half a million murders—I am referring to the person who ruled Uganda until it was liberated in the late 1970s—lives peacefully in Saudi Arabia, occasionally giving press conferences when he is allowed to do so, and the international community shows not the slightest concern about his not being brought to justice?
  Mr. Maude: That is a fair point. Such instances make the case for having a permanent International Criminal Court. I do not know off hand whether Saudi Arabia has signed and ratified the Rome statute. If so, the case that the hon. Gentleman cites would be capable of remedy. If not—and the reality is that the court will not have universal coverage for some time to come—it will remain unresolved.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: One reason why there will not be universal coverage is the attitude of the United States Administration. Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to urge that Administration, and the Senate, to ratify the treaty?
  Mr. Maude: I will come to the American position in a while and deal explicitly with that point.
  Against the clear deficiencies of the—currently two—ad hoc tribunals, we must balance the questioned effectiveness of the International Criminal Court. Serious commentators have questioned its effectiveness, and we believe that there are many deficiencies in the Bill. The case for a permanent court is founded on deterrence. It is said that the bad people who today think that they will get away with crimes against humanity will think again if they know that there is a court in permanent session with powers to pursue them wherever they are. In some cases, that may well be so, but it is not a panacea, any more than the existence of national courts guarantees that no one will commit murder in their own jurisdiction.
  We must acknowledge the advantages of ad hoc tribunals, which can be flexible and are focused on a specific area, but on balance we accept that the argument for a properly working International Criminal Court, which will give a consistent form of justice, is persuasive.
  Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is familiar with the requirement of British law that a person may not be committed for trial unless there is prima facie evidence to support the accusation. It is clear that under the Rome
  226
  statute a person can be sent for trial abroad in the absence of any test of whether there is such prima facie evidence. That makes me uneasy, and I would be grateful for my right hon. Friend's views on it.
  Mr. Maude: My right hon. and learned Friend is a practising lawyer, whereas I am a long-retired one: I have put my past behind me. As I understand it, the provision for a pre-trial panel of judges—
  Mr. Hogg: It is outside our jurisdiction.
  Mr. Maude: That is an absolutely fair point. No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend will want to be on the Committee that considers the Bill and pursue these matters in detail.
  Our serious concerns about the detailed provisions lie not with the concept of a permanent court but with the Bill as it stands. As I understand it, 139 countries have signed the statute and 29 have ratified it. As the Foreign Secretary said, the court will not be established until 60 of the signatories have ratified. There is of course a big difference between signing and ratifying. Signing is merely an expression of some intention to ratify.
  This is an important consideration in the light of the question asked by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) about the United States. States that had not signed the treaty by the end of last year would have been excluded from detailed negotiation of the Rome statute in years to come. That is explicitly why America and Israel signed up at the last minute, on 31 December 2000.
  We are still a long way short of the number of ratifications needed to set up the court. Australia signed up but has not yet even begun to introduce a Bill to ratify. Japan has not even signed. Israel signed but laid down many conditions.
  Mr. Robin Cook: I want to put in a good word for Japan and one or two other countries that the right hon. Gentleman has cited. Japan has not signed because it has no technical legal position to do so: it can only accede. It intends to accede, and will effectively sign and ratify at the same time. There is no lack of intention to join.
  Mr. Maude: I hear what the Foreign Secretary says.
  The United States has signed but has said explicitly that the statute in its current form should not be ratified. When, on the last possible day to allow the United States to remain in the negotiation process, President Clinton signed the Rome statute, he said:
  "In signing, however, we are not abandoning our concerns about significant flaws in the treaty. In particular, we are concerned that when the court comes into existence, it will not only exercise authority over personnel of states that have ratified the treaty, but also claim jurisdiction over personnel of states that have not …
  The United States should have the chance to observe and assess the functioning of the court, over time, before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction.
  Given these concerns, I will not, and do not recommend that my successor submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied."
  There is, therefore, a real concern in America.
  The Foreign Secretary referred to several matters that have caused concern to commentators; he said that they were the same as those relating to the statute that set up

  227
  the ad hoc tribunals, especially the international criminal tribunal in respect of Yugoslavia. However, although it is one thing to agree to provisions that apply only to an ad hoc tribunal for a particular area, which one hopes is time limited and does not involve embedding such provisions in domestic law, it is another thing to agree to provisions that are to be embedded in domestic law in such a way as to be avowedly difficult to amend, because the law would have to reflect internationally negotiated matters under an international treaty.
  Mr. Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman well describes the American wish to be part of the negotiations but not of the process. Will he go further and say that the United States ought to be part of the whole process and should not be allowed to exempt itself from it? If the US were allowed to get away with that, it would undermine the process.
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman's use of language is somewhat puzzling; he refers to the US being "allowed to get away with it" and says that it should not be permitted to be exempt from the process. America is a grown-up country that can make its own decisions. If a country as committed to law and freedom as the United States is concerned that the process has what President Clinton—not some republican President—describes as "significant flaws", we at least owe the Americans the courtesy of listening to what they have to say, rather than asking questions from the comfort of Britain. Many more American than British citizens are committed overseas in their armed forces, so we should be ready to listen to their concerns.
  Mr. John Bercow: Although, as my right hon. Friend pointed out a moment ago, Israel is only a relatively recent signatory, on account of reservations that it entirely legitimately expressed at the 1998 Rome conference, will he confirm that the historical record shows that Israel has been an enthusiast for the concept of the ICC since the early 1950s?
  Mr. Maude: I think that is correct. Israel's concerns—like those of the Opposition—do not flow from opposition to the concept of an international criminal court, but from anxiety as to how it will work in effect and about the dangers that could arise.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: The right hon. Gentleman criticised the language of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), but my hon. Friend's question was a good one. Do Her Majesty's Opposition urge the United States Government to overcome their difficulties and sign up to this law?
  Mr. Maude: Rather than urge the US Government to sign up to something about which they have—as President Clinton put it—"fundamental concerns", I would urge them to engage in the negotiating process as their signature allows them to do, in order to negotiate, over time, changes that would remove their concerns. Many of the concerns expressed by US Administrations of both colours are similar to those of the Opposition and are, I suspect, shared by countries such as Israel.
  Mr. Mackinlay: What are they?
  Mr. Maude: I am coming to that; the hon. Gentleman leads me neatly to my next point. The right course is to
  228
  address those concerns so that the International Criminal Court will be set up in such a way that we are all comfortable with it.
  Mr. Corbyn: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again on that point. Surely it is a bit off that the United States signs up to the principle in order to be part of the negotiations, but on the penultimate day the President announces that he has not the slightest intention of submitting the matter to the Congress or the Senate, and urges his successor to follow the same course. There will be a sword hanging over the whole process for ever—will the US sign up or not? If everyone says that they want the criminal court process to work effectively, should not all nations be persuaded to sign up to it? Would it not help if the House sent out the message that we think the United States ought to sign up to and ratify the statute?
  Mr. Maude: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman should be haranguing me; he should take the matter up with the Prime Minister, who could put it to President Clinton. It was President Clinton who expressed concerns.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North might like to be reminded of the words of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). We wish the hon. Gentleman well in his sad illness and hope that he will recover quickly. The Minister said:
  "The Americans have said that they would like to move towards signing the statute, and we hope that a way can be found to address their concerns."—[Official Report, 27 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 947.]
  Rather unusually, I find myself in agreement with the Minister. We, too, hope that a way can be found to address American concerns. Those concerns exist and we should not try to deny—
  Mr. Mackinlay: What are they?
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman keeps asking that question. If I had not given way to so many of his hon. Friends, I should have answered it. I shall now do so.
  Our first concern is that we have not been told what declarations—if any—will be entered into by the Government. It is odd that we are being invited by the Foreign Secretary to give a Second Reading to a Bill that will give effect to the statute of Rome when the Government have not actually got around to telling Parliament what declarations they will make. The Foreign Secretary says that, of course, the declarations are of no legal effect at all. In that case, it is odd that so many countries have entered into them, describing them as interpretative declarations that will have an impact on domestic law. We are dealing with domestic legislation, not just international law. Such declarations will have an impact on how the Bill and the statute of Rome are interpreted by our domestic courts. There will be an effect on domestic law.
  It is regrettable that the Bill has already gone through all its stages in the other place and we have reached Second Reading in this place, yet we have still not been told by the Foreign Secretary what declarations the Government propose to enter. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the Foreign Secretary has not taken this opportunity to let the House into some of his thinking on

  229
  the subject. Does he expect that the Government will want to enter into any declarations at all? If they do not want to do so, that is a perfectly honourable position. However, it would be nice to know; that would make a difference as to how the House may feel about the Bill. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to intervene to let the House into his ruminations on the subject. He was somewhat delphic about it earlier.
  Mr. Cook: I am happy to stand by what I have already said. A declaration has no legal effect. On the general principle, we do not want to encourage international treaties that are made into a Christmas tree, hung with declarations, by those who accede to them. The great majority of countries which have signed up have made no such declarations. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were many such countries, but at present there are two. One of them is France, which made an interpretative statement; the other is New Zealand, which made a statement rejecting the French statement. In effect, the right hon. Gentleman asks us to accede to the French declaration.
  Mr. Maude: The Foreign Secretary seems misinformed. My understanding is that Austria, Belgium, Belize, Finland, France, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and Spain have all entered declarations to the statute—[Interruption.] They may be relatively minor declarations; nevertheless all those countries have entered them.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Perhaps it would help if the right hon. Gentleman could move from a hypothetical discussion to a real one and suggest the type of declaration that the UK might use. For example, Israel, among others, made the declaration that politically motivated accusations could not entertained. Does he suggest that we should echo that declaration? Could he tell us what "politically motivated" might mean and who would judge what it is?
  Mr. Maude: I do not advocate such a declaration. I shall come to the specific declaration that I advocate when I deal with the main amendments that we want to make to the Bill.
  I think I can take it from what the Foreign Secretary says that he proposes that the Government will not enter any declarations.
  Mr. Cook: We have none in mind.
  Mr. Maude: We can take that as a definitive statement that the Government expect the Rome statute to remain without reservations, which is effectively what declarations are. It is helpful to have that confirmed. I think that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) wanted to intervene.
  Mr. Mackinlay: We want to know what the right hon. Gentleman's concerns are.
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman has contained his curiosity very well.
  Mr. Cook: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will clarify the number of declarations. As I said,
  230
  only two countries have made a statement that queries the legal effect of the statute. The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that other countries have made declarations; for example, the Austrian declaration to which he referred states that any documents making a request of the Government of Austria shall be in German. I would not rule out the possibility of our making such a declaration, but it has nothing to do with the terms of the statute.
  Mr. Maude: To satisfy the curiosity of the hon. Member for Thurrock, I shall move on to our second concern, which is more specific but very deep, and I suspect that it lies behind the concerns of the United States Administration. I refer to the position of the armed forces.
  We believe that the Bill does not give our armed forces the protection that they need. War by its very nature is chaotic. There are many examples of events in war in which dutiful, decent officers and men obeyed orders that unintentionally led to the loss of civilian life. There were tragic examples of that during the Kosovo bombings, when bombing orders led to the deaths of civilians. There was also the question of whether it was right to offer protection to the people of Kosovo while refusing to allow allied planes to fly at lower altitudes, which might have reduced the risk to civilians.
  Of course, that does not mean that it would be right to accuse the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister of being war criminals, as some in Serbia have argued. Nor, of course, does it mean that Lady Thatcher was a war criminal when she ordered the retaking of the Falklands. More importantly, perhaps, it does not mean that the pilots who flew on the missions were guilty of war crimes. It would be wrong, and the British people believe that it would be wrong, if British troops were subjected to politically motivated prosecutions or threats of prosecution for carrying out their duties in distant foreign lands. Yet there is a belief that such a threat exists.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who represent military constituencies, as he knows I do, share the concerns expressed by the Chief of the Defence Staff when he gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill? He made it clear that although he had been advised that prosecution of a junior officer was unlikely, he could not feel that the word "unlikely" filled him with much confidence. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Chief of the Defence Staff, as I do?
  Mr. Maude: I am coming to precisely that point, which is of great importance. The Foreign Secretary and other Ministers can offer all the bland reassurances that we have heard from them, but the reality is that soldiers, sailors and airmen will take seriously the doubts expressed by their military leaders and will, frankly, find them more persuasive than the reassurances of politicians of any colour. These are not fanciful concerns, but Ministers have sought glibly to brush them aside, giving bland reassurances that have failed to allay them.
  Mr. Cash: Clause 66, which deals with the mental element or test that I mentioned earlier, says:
  "In interpreting and applying the provisions … the court shall take into account any relevant judgment or decision of the ICC."

  231
  The number of those judgments and decisions will obviously grow in time. The clause continues:
  "Account may also be taken of any other relevant international jurisprudence."
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to probe that point extremely carefully as the Bill proceeds through the House, because that provision will probably be incompatible with the sort of mens rea test that we are used to in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Maude: We have specific concerns about the mental intent element allowed for in the statute for some of the offences. If my hon. Friend wants to pursue those points later in the debate or in Committee, he will be doing the House a service.
  On our specific concerns about the armed forces, it is helpful to consider recent exchanges. On 7 March, the former NATO commander Admiral Eberle said:
  "It is vital that commanders in the field should not be put in a position where they are concerned as to what is right and what is wrong at the expense of risking their own lives and those of the men they command."
  On the same day, two daily newspapers, The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian, carried on their front pages the concerns of several senior military officers about the Bill. The Daily Telegraph reported the concerns of senior officers, who said that
  "commanders faced either being accused of war crimes or changing the rules of engagement to the point where the enemy could be certain of 'getting his strike in first'."
  It went to on to say:
  "The International Criminal Court Bill adds to concerns expressed by the new Chief of Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce—and his predecessor, Gen Sir Charles Guthrie—that litigation … will diminish capability."
  The Guardian reported other officers' concerns, saying:
  "'Given wrong rules of engagement [British commanders] could find themselves liable to prosecution as war criminals', a senior defence source warned yesterday. He added that ministers were 'very aware' of such a prospect. He said he was concerned in particular about conflicts and operations, short of a full-scale war, even—paradoxically—where British forces were engaged in support of the UN. Another senior defence source said that future rules of engagement could, for instance, prevent a British warship from attacking a hostile vessel until it was too late."
  On Report in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Howell read out some of those reports and voiced the concerns of senior members of the armed forces about the Bill. He said:
  "Legitimate anxieties have been aired recently in the newspapers by members of the Armed Forces."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 347.]
  The Government's response was very interesting. Baroness Scotland, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said:
  "Although there has been much vaunting in the press of the concerns of the Armed Forces, the MoD has been assiduous in its duties—it has crawled all over the Rome Statute and the Bill and it is content, as are the higher echelons of each of the services."
  It is important to note that those words were spoken on 8 March. Baroness Scotland continued:
  "They said that they are satisfied that the legislation should not lay the Armed Forces open to prosecution when they are undertaking their legitimate duties as directed by a democratically elected
  232
  government. We all know that we can get excited about press stories and how much reliance we put on statements that we read."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 433.]
  Mr. Desmond Browne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: I shall finish this point first, because it is central to the matter.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said, the concerns had been expressed by Admiral Boyce, the recently appointed Chief of Defence Staff, in evidence to a Committee of the House only two days before Baroness Scotland was speaking. The transcript of his remarks only became available some little time later. The House should pay attention to what he said. He was asked about concerns relating to the Bill, and he said:
  "I think we need to be very careful indeed that when the Bill is taken through Parliament, we do not put ourselves in a situation where a junior person carrying out orders which he believes to be entirely proper can subsequently find himself in front of the International Criminal Court. So far I have been told that this is unlikely to happen."
  Probed a little further, he said:
  "I cannot say"—
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle)rose—
  Mr. Maude: I shall finish the sentence if the Minister wants me to, because the national court would have the opportunity to investigate the case if it were pointed in that direction by the ICC. That is simply an explanation, and I accept that it may be highly unlikely that that eventuality would occur, but when the Chief of the Defence Staff was probed a little further on whether that assurance gave him sufficient comfort, he said:
  "I cannot say that 'unlikely' fills me with huge confidence. I would be much happier with a completely unequivocal statement, but I guess that is probably the best I will get."
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Although my right hon. Friend has drawn to the House's attention the clear reservations of the Chief of the Defence Staff, he will have noted that the Foreign Secretary, in answer to my earlier intervention, said that he had received no representations from the Secretary of State for Defence.
  Mr. Robin Cook: The Secretary of State had received no representations.
  Mr. Howarth: We are getting to the truth that the Secretary of State for Defence had received no representations. Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is likely, therefore, that the chiefs of staff have not been talking to the Secretary of State for Defence about those very serious reservations?
  Mr. Maude: If the Secretary of State for Defence says that he received no representations at any stage, we of course accept that. Perhaps the serious concerns that the Chief of the Defence Staff expressed to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill were completely spontaneous. Perhaps he had not thought about such

  233
  matters before, and it was the first time that they had been discussed, but somehow we all find that a tiny bit unlikely.
  Dr. Starkey rose—
  Mr. Maude: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, but then I want to make progress because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
  Dr. Starkey: I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and I am in some difficulty. Will he confirm that, when members of our armed forces operate abroad, they have a code of conduct appropriate to the operation that they are undertaking, which sets out very clearly, essentially, what they are allowed and not allowed to do under international law in that situation, and that ordinary soldiers know full well that if they break those rules of engagement, they will be held to account? Will he explain why that is so very different from what he suggests?
  Mr. Maude: If the hon. Lady does not understand that there is a real difference in the effect on the mind between those who frequently make instant decisions facing the prospect of disciplinary proceedings in the armed forces, or even prosecution, possibly by a domestic court, and a process that is international in character and out of the control of those who command the armed forces nationally, she should try talking to some of the officers. Indeed, she might like to talk to Admiral Boyce, just appointed by the Government as Chief of the Defence Staff, who is expressing precisely those concerns.
  Mr. Browne: rose—
  Mr. Maude: I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman presses me to do so, but I am keen to make progress.
  Mr. Browne: I must press the right hon. Gentleman to give way. I am grateful to him for giving way, and I am listening very carefully to what he says. I understand the distinction that he makes between the temporal nature of the Yugoslav tribunal and the International Criminal Court, and it is an important distinction to make. However, the points of principle—which he seems to share, although he has not actually said so—in relation to the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the ICC are identical. His Government made our soldiers subject to that tribunal, which takes precedence over our national courts and is not complementary to them. Did he have those concerns when he, as a member of that Government, made our soldiers subject to that tribunal?
  Mr. Maude: To be precise, I was not a member of the Government; nor was I a Member of Parliament at the time. The hon. Gentleman makes the point in the opening part of his intervention that an ad hoc tribunal, which is limited in area and in time, deserves different consideration. The statute relating to the international criminal tribunal for Yugoslavia was not embedded into domestic law, but if the ICC statute were embedded into domestic law, it would be a different matter.
  Mr. Browne: What about the principle?
  Mr. Maude: Those concerns are not absolute ones of principle; they have a practical effect. If a senior officer
  234
  of the British armed forces says that they are real concerns, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Government Benches should at least do him, and our armed forces, the courtesy of taking those concerns seriously. That is what we shall do, which is why we shall probe and press those matters as the Bill passes through the House.
  Will the Foreign Secretary categorically tell the House today that Admiral Boyce's concerns have now been completely met and that, if Admiral Boyce were to be interviewed by the Select Committee once again, he would say that he has now been given "a completely unequivocal statement"? Will the Foreign Secretary respond?
  Mr. Robin Cook: I am very happy to respond to the right hon. Gentleman because it gives me the opportunity to repeat a passage of my speech that he obviously did not fully absorb when I delivered it. I told the House that British service personnel will never be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court because any bona fide allegation will be pursued by the British authorities. That is certainly unequivocal. No one could point to anything in that statement that lacks conviction; it is a comprehensive statement.
  I return to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) asked the right hon. Gentleman. He is mistaken about the war crimes tribunal. As far as I am aware, no time limit has been set for that tribunal; it can last for ever. It is confined only in its geographical coverage. That coverage contains several thousand British soldiers, and it did when the right hon. Gentleman's Government applied the war crimes tribunal to that region. Why is it wrong for us to act on the same principles on which they acted, when we have a cover that they did not provide for British troops—if they are tried before a British court, the international court does not apply. That was not the case when the Conservative Government adopted the war crimes tribunal. They did not give British personnel the safeguards that we are giving them.
  Mr. Maude: The Foreign Secretary asserts that British armed forces personnel will never be tried for the reasons that he sets out, but he put that differently earlier. I was listening to his speech, and he invited the House to put its faith in the robustness of the British legal system, saying that the ICC would, as a matter of automatic trust, accept that such matters had been fully investigated and pursued domestically, so that, in practical terms, there could be no question of their being pursued by the ICC. With respect, that is not the same as providing a cast-iron guarantee, such as that sought by Admiral Boyce, that that will not arise. It is still in the category of being highly unlikely.
  If the Foreign Secretary is willing to make the robust assertion that no armed forces personnel can be pursued in the ICC in that way, perhaps he would like to tell that to the very active QC, Geoffrey Robertson, who pursues such matters vigorously and has said:
  "We have to be prepared, in theory"—
  I accept that he said, "in theory"—
  "to have our soldiers tried"

  235
  by the ICC. That is the point. Of course it is highly unlikely, in theory, that that will happen, but if the Foreign Secretary wants to tell the House that it will be impossible for British armed forces to be pursued in that way, let him agree to amendments that would make it impossible. If he is so confident, let him amend the Bill to make it impossible. That will provide the sort of reassurances sought by the senior officers whose concerns have been clearly articulated.
  Mr. Brazier: My right hon. Friend makes a very powerful case. Will he make it clear to the House that if we find the Government unwilling to accept the amendments that he will move in Committee, and if the Third Reading debate takes place before the election, we shall feel obliged to vote against the Bill on Third Reading?
  Mr. Maude: I am coming on to that.
  Mr. Worthington rose—
  Dr. Starkey rose—
  Mr. Maude: I shall not give way again because I have given way a great deal. I have been speaking for quite some time, and many hon. Members wish to contribute to this important debate.
  I shall deal with the four specific amendments with which we are particularly concerned. They are necessary for the Bill to become acceptable, and we shall want to vote against the Bill's Third Reading if they are not accepted.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Excellent. Tell the court's supporters.
  Mr. Maude: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman says "Excellent". That shows that, if anyone is playing political games, it is not Conservative Members. We have repeatedly and consistently said that we are in favour of the proposal, but it is spectacularly helpful of the hon. Gentleman to point out to the House and to the public that one party—the Labour party—is relentlessly playing electoral politics with the issue. We have taken a consistent and principled stance, and we shall continue to do so.
  Mr. Worthington rose—
  Mr. Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Maude: No, I shall not give way. I have given way a great deal and I now wish to make progress.
  Lest it be thought that it is only the Conservatives who have expressed concerns, Labour Members might like to reflect on the view of Lord Shore of Stepney. He said:
  "We are putting ourselves unnecessarily in the dock by accepting a number of these foolishly agreed clauses in the convention."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 360.]
  Mr. Robin Cook rose—
  Mr. Maude: Before I deal briefly with the amendments that have to be made, I shall give way to the Foreign Secretary. I must then make progress.
  Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to put right the quote that he attributed to Geoffrey Robertson, whom I know well. The right hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Robertson as saying:
  "We have to be prepared, in theory, to have our soldiers tried".
  The right hon. Gentleman should share with the House the full quote. Mr. Robertson, in fact, said:
  "It is entirely fanciful to imagine that a Briton against whom there is evidence of war crimes would not be prosecuted under our own military procedures. We have to be prepared, in theory, to have our soldiers tried, but"—
  this is what he added—
  "in practice, it will never happen."
  The right hon. Gentleman did not give us that bit.
  Mr. Maude: If the Foreign Secretary is absolutely confident that that will never happen, let him agree to amendments to the Bill that will guarantee that it will never happen. If he agrees that, he will have our support. As it is, we have relayed the concerns felt by those who take responsibility for the command of the armed forces, and they have not been reassured. If the Foreign Secretary agrees to our amendments, we will be willing to support the Bill on Third Reading.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I hope that the Foreign Secretary will listen to this point. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mark Littman QC, who is a highly respected international lawyer, took a view that is worthy of serious respect, even though I do not agree with it? He took the view that the Government acted unlawfully in the bombing of the former Yugoslavia—
  Mr. MacShane: Him and other loonies.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Mr. Littman took the view that the Government acted unlawfully in the bombing of the former Yugoslavia and Belgrade in the circumstances that arose over Kosovo. If the international prosecutor took that view, what would prevent members of the Government—
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend, but is it in order for an hon. Member to call another hon. Member a loony?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): That is not the kind of language that one would expect from hon. Members.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Although I hope to be called to speak, I was asking my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) a question. A serious lawyer suggests that the British and United States Governments acted contrary to international law and that what they did might have been a war crime because quite a lot of civilians were killed. Could the Government have been prosecuted? We need an answer to that question before we drive the Bill through.
  Mr. Maude: It is extremely revealing that the Foreign Secretary introduced the Bill in a portentous and

  237
  high-minded way. Since then, however, we have been bombarded with fatuous interventions from a sedentary position from his Parliamentary Private Secretary.
  Mr. MacShane: I am not the PPS.
  Mr. Maude: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is even lowlier than that. He has derided the real concerns that many serious people—much more serious than him—have about this important Bill. Others outside will have noted the extraordinary spirit of levity with which he has approached the debate.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) asks an important question and it deserves an answer from the Government. I hope that Ministers will respond properly to that concern later.
  Mr. Mackinlay rose—
  Mr. Maude: No, I shall not give way, even though it is tempting to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I shall proceed to the conclusion of my speech.
  We believe that four amendments must be made to the Bill. First, there should be a seven-year opt-out as the French have taken and as is provided for under article 124 of the Rome statute. When it comes to the robust defence of the national interest, perhaps we sometimes have something to learn from the French. They deliberately took that option to ensure that there would be no hazard to their armed forces.
  Secondly, the Secretary of State should have discretion over the issuing of warrants from the ICC. That could be accomplished by the Government making the appropriate interpretative declaration to the statute. It is important to ensure that a vindictive prosecution pursued for the settling of political scores cannot be undertaken in that way.
  Thirdly, the legal test for what a military commander "should have known"—as set out in clause 65—needs revising. It is extremely subjective and that gives most concern in relation to the protection of our armed forces. When the issue was raised in the other place, we were told that the Bill must reflect the exact words of the statute of Rome, but that cannot be correct. In relation to this specific provision, the Canadian Government and Parliament have a different form of wording, which imposes a tougher test—a higher test for the mental element, which is one of the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) mentioned. They talk about a test of criminal negligence and about a commander who would be criminally negligent if he did not know the facts that put civilians at risk.
  Fourthly, the Government should amend the Bill to ensure that, if the statute is ratified, the declarations that the Government intend to make—if they make any—should be laid before both Houses of Parliament. I understand that there is the possibility that declarations and subsequent renegotiations may create new criminal offences in domestic law and it is right that those should be properly debated by the House before they pass into our law.
  238
  That is the very minimum that must be put into the Bill to protect our armed forces from vexatious and malicious prosecutions by rogue states. Let us be under no illusion about that. Let us remind ourselves of the immense power that the court will have and that it needs to have if it is to pursue the high objectives that have been claimed for it.
  We support the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, but, as I have said, for us to be able to support it on Third Reading, the Government will need to show a great deal more flexibility and a great deal more readiness to meet the proper concerns that many people have raised than they have done hitherto. We look forward to that happening in Committee.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: I am astonished and delighted to be called so early in the debate; I have just finished writing my speech.
  We have just listened to a strange contribution. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said that he supported the Bill, without showing the slightest enthusiasm for it. Every difficulty was considered in the context of an Army commander. This Bill is of great importance and we should greet it with enthusiasm.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his team. I am certain that our presence at the Rome conference and our contribution towards the Rome statute were important factors in reaching this solution. I doubt whether the outcome would have been the same under the right hon. Member for Horsham.
  The Bill is welcome. Many of our predecessors here and in the other place have been persistent in their efforts to reach this day. A gap in our justice system is gradually being filled—we are trying to end the cliché that it is easy for the greatest mass murderers to get away with their crimes when single murderers are convicted. I like what Kofi Annan said about people all over the world wanting to know that humanity can strike back. Tyrants and demagogues have unacceptably exerted their power without running the slightest risk that they might have to face up to justice. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Bill. We have to accept that it is not perfect. It will not create a perfect International Criminal Court, but it is crucial that we do not allow the best to drive out the good. If we do not embrace the Bill, we will not get an ICC. It is an important step.
  Other significant improvements in recent years include the two tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Their establishment is a great achievement, and the previous Government must take some credit for that. Offenders are appearing before them and being convicted. They are powerful examples of international co-operation. I could not believe it when the Conservatives said that they want to set up the ICC, but only if it does not apply to us. They do not want anyone from Britain to be subject to its control. We cannot give that unconditional undertaking. We have to hope that no one from Britain will be involved in it—we can ensure that that happens by investigating and prosecuting in our courts.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman probably knows that I have always been sympathetic to the principle behind the Bill. However, one matter puzzles me. What happens if a British service man is prosecuted and acquitted in this country, but the ICC prosecutor is

  239
  not satisfied with that result? Will he be able to draw the service man into the process, or is he safe from such prosecution?
  Mr. Worthington: That is an important question, which the hon. Gentleman asks with respect. He wants to know that people will not be subject to vexatious inquiry. I am satisfied from what I have read that if we go about an investigation in good faith, no individual has the power to take further action. Any additional inquiry—never mind a prosecution—would be subject to a court of judges. Those safeguards were negotiated in Rome.
  We must make progress and it is only by establishing the ICC that we will get the procedures right. We will not do that if we stand outside the process. I had no great hopes of satisfactory prosecutions in the two tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. However, they are an inspiration to us, as was the Scottish prosecution of the Lockerbie incident. People who would not otherwise have been prosecuted for a mass murder have, because of international co-operation, been convicted. I recently returned from a visit to Cambodia with the International Development Committee, and I am pleased to hear that steps are being taken to establish an international court to prosecute those who committed the atrocities under Pol Pot. That is also an inspiration. Such actions mark the way forward.
  The way to make progress and to get the answers that we want is by making an enthusiastic commitment to the cause rather than by doing what the Conservatives suggest. The major value of the ICC is its preventive or deterrent effect. We hope that people will be deterred by the knowledge that their crimes will be punished. Indeed, the Conservatives have always argued about the power of deterrence for domestic crime. If it works in a national context, it should work in an international setting.
  I am enthusiastic about the Bill, and my comments must be taken in that light. I should like retrospection explained in more detail. Why will the ICC consider only offences that occur once it has been established? Idi Amin was mentioned; I am puzzled as to why his crimes will not be subject to the ICC. I accept the principle of retrospection if an act was not a crime when it was committed and the person involved did not know that he was breaking the law. However, I find it difficult to accept that principle if people are mass murderers and criminals in many other ways. Why is the ICC not a legitimate technique to bring them to justice? Why will they not be subject to it?
  The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) recently visited Sierra Leone, where he will have seen the consequences of heinous crimes against humanity. It is unacceptable that it is not possible to bring Foday Sankoh's followers to justice for their crimes against the children of Sierra Leone. Those were crimes any time, any place. I am puzzled that people cannot be prosecuted because the law cannot be applied retrospectively. Perhaps I have not read enough about it, but I think that others will wonder why the criminality of Idi Amin and Foday Sankoh are not subject to the ICC.
  The Act and the court will be imperfect. However, we must press on. One major imperfection is that different states will not be equal before the law. The countries that are currently subject to international action are Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. They are not big, powerful
  240
  countries. The people who will be prosecuted are not likely to be on the winning side in a dispute. It will not enhance the court's legitimacy if the only people prosecuted are small fry and losers. Some actions, such as those by Russia in Chechnya, have been criticised. The actions of the Chinese in Tiananmen square have been criticised, and in some countries, the scale of the bombing of civilians would constitute a war crime. However, powerful countries such as America would not be prosecuted for them.
  The court's partiality is therefore a huge imperfection, but we gain more by establishing an International Criminal Court than by delaying. Its existence would have helped us with the problems that President Pinochet posed. Fifty or 60 years ago, establishing the Nuremberg trials was right; so is setting up the International Criminal Court.
  We must begin by reducing the problems. The court is a weapon against wickedness, not the solution. We must build up a culture of justice with which to replace the current culture of immunity. The establishment of the Yugoslav tribunal must give Milosevic some palpitations. Now that the rotten core has fallen, it will not be long before Mladic and Karadzic are taken, too.
  The imperfections are substantial, and one of the major problems is the attitude of the United States. The only good action that Clinton took in his last days in office was signing the relevant statute. However, there is no optimism that the new presidency will do anything other than run away from the International Criminal Court. American attitudes to international activity are a genuine problem. I hope that the Americans have been taken aback by the universal expressions of disgust about their attitude to Kyoto, but I doubt it. Their attitude to the International Criminal Court is also disturbing. Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary said:
  "American leadership in the world could be the first casualty of the Court".
  What does that mean? Does he mean that leadership stems from activities of which the court would disapprove? Does he believe that the United States would be subject to vexatious complaints? The statute's framework provides protection against that. Rumsfeld's comments are so antagonistic that it is difficult to ascertain the progress that can be made. That seriously weakens the court.
  Ann Clwyd: On this occasion, I want to defend the United States, which had an ambassador for war crimes; other countries should follow suit. One of his roles was negotiating an agreement with Cambodia, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and persuading that country to set up a war crimes tribunal there.
  Secondly, the United States funds Indict, an organisation that I chair and that exists to bring Iraqi war criminals to justice. We have collected evidence—and continue to do so—that we have submitted to the Attorney-General for prosecutions that can take place in this country. The United States should be complimented on that.
  Mr. Worthington: I compliment the United States on that, and I stress that there are many Americans whose internationalism hon. Members want to encourage. However, it would be wrong to deny that we were depressed by recent comments from the United States.

  241
  We must press ahead with the International Criminal Court. Who remembers who was President of the United States at the time of the Nuremberg trials? [HON. MEMBERS: "Truman."] I know that it was Truman, but his words at the time do not matter; the establishment of the Nuremberg trials matters. We must set up the International Criminal Court and thus establish a framework for the compliance of countries such as America and China, which are not currently involved in it.
  I was pleased that the right hon. Member for Horsham said that he would approach the Committee stage constructively. I hope that that will happen. I recently endured the Committee stage of the International Development Bill. All hon. Members supported it and our Committee stage should therefore have been useful—but it was not.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): It is interesting to know that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that the Committee proceedings on the International Development Bill were useful. For hon. Members' information, five new clauses were not even debated because we ran out of time. I was not aware of any truly constructive contributions from Labour Members; Conservative Members made them all.
  Mr. Worthington: If hon. Members examine the record of proceedings, they will realise that it is difficult to interrupt a monologue. We had to endure a monologue from the hon. Lady. Her approach was not constructive, and she gave us no opportunity to make suggestions.
  I concede that there should be many opportunities to consider the details of the Bill and for Members of all parties to make constructive suggestions. If the hon. Lady leads for the Opposition in Committee, I hope that she will approach the Bill in that spirit. She will then realise that Labour Members can contribute constructively if they are allowed to do so.
  We should greet this important measure enthusiastically. It is being introduced at the end of the Parliament, and I am proud of our achievement. Let us get the proceedings under way and then make the necessary improvements.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: My party supports the Bill warmly and unequivocally. I have long taken a great interest in the extension of the effectiveness of jurisdiction over crimes that are committed internationally. Within 12 months of becoming a Member of Parliament, I introduced a little-remembered measure, the Tokyo Convention Bill, to enable the then Labour Government to ratify that convention and thus deal with crimes, including hijacking committed on board aircraft. It is therefore satisfying not only that such a major and historic step forward in extending international criminal jurisdiction over war crimes was agreed in the 1998 statute of Rome, but that we are among the first to try to implement it.
  I want briefly to mention the position of the United States, in which I have a peculiar personal interest. The United States has not always been reluctant to get involved in establishing an international criminal jurisdiction to deal with war crimes and crimes against
  242
  humanity. In the last years of the second world war, the American Administration took on Churchill as Prime Minister and Viscount Simon as Lord Chancellor, who sought to deal with the top Nazis by simply lining them up and shooting them as a political act. Led by John J. McLoy, who was assistant Secretary for War, and Judge Sam Rosenman, the American Government took the view that it was important to bring those criminals to justice. They argued intensively with the British Government for two years. It was not until the San Francisco conference that Anthony Eden was finally forced to agree. I have a particular interest in that, because my late American father-in-law, who was later the president of the American Law Institute, was the counsel to Jack McLoy, who came to this country and drew up the documents that were ultimately ratified in San Francisco.
  I therefore ask the Americans to look to their history and see what an important role they played in establishing this approach to dealing with the scourge of the 20th century—the horrors of crimes committed in war, which have violated the Geneva conventions and whose perpetrators have not always been effectively brought to justice.
  The American Administration—both the present Administration and that of President Clinton before it—have felt some inhibitions about the process—perhaps for political reasons, but also because Americans have been brought up in a climate of constitutionalism, which makes them keen to ensure that any steps they take do not result in a denial of due process to their own citizens. However, it has to be said that by taking their present stance on this matter, they have done little to protect American citizens—a point that has been well made by at least as many authoritative lawyers in the United States as have been cited on the other side of the argument by the official Opposition.
  States that adhere to the statute of Rome will be at liberty to prosecute American citizens under their own domestic arrangements, whether or not the United States decides to adhere to the system. Indeed, if the United States does not adhere, under the terms of the statute it will be open to the International Criminal Court to prosecute American citizens who have committed international criminal offences. It is therefore hard to see the argument that lies behind the current American position.
  I much prefer the argument deployed by the Foreign Secretary when he opened the debate: that by adhering to the system, ratifying the statute and enacting the provisions that incorporate into our domestic law crimes under the statute, we enable ourselves to deal with such matters within our own jurisdiction. That is the same broad principle that was cited in support of the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into our law. It is better to have rights secured by our domestic law, so that such crimes can be handled by our domestic courts—and it seems to me that that argument applies as much in the United States as it does in our own different constitutional situation. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the countries that have come together to draft the statute, with such regard to process, will create a system that offers less protection than the due process of law enjoyed by citizens of the United States within that country.

  243
  Surely this country is right to be among those that seek to bring the provisions into early effect. We must recognise that the great doubt that people in this country have had about the efficacy of international law has stemmed largely from an awareness of the impotence of international law in the face of the most monstrous crimes in history committed in the last century—its impotence to do more than denounce the offences, and its failure to bring to justice the Pol Pots, the Idi Amins, the Saddam Husseins and the others whose names will reverberate throughout history for the monstrosities that they have been guilty of perpetrating.
  This development must be welcomed in broad terms, and it is right that the British Government should seek to lose no time in bringing it into operative effect. In passing, however, I would like to say a little about the process domestically. A number of people in both Houses of Parliament, including myself, have taken the view that Westminster's procedures for the scrutiny of treaties have been deficient. The speech by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) to some extent demonstrated the need for different procedures, because by using this adversarial forum he was able to make a number of assertions that would not stand up to the kind of scrutiny to which they ought to have been subjected before the Bill was brought before us.
  If we had automatic pre-legislative scrutiny of treaties, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman would not have been able to cite The Daily Telegraph's unnamed authorities as evidence in support of his views. If Admiral Boyce, to whom he alluded, had raised a serious objection, it could have been scrutinised and argued about specifically in Committee.
  Mr. Maude: I was not relying on the report in The Daily Telegraph; I was using it to show that when that remark was quoted, that was all the evidence that we had, because the transcript of the evidence given to the Committee was not available. The Minister in the other place brushed everything aside as mere reports, but it turned out that at the same time, the Chief of the Defence Staff had expressed serious concerns before a Committee of this House investigating another Bill. Despite that, Ministers were pooh-poohing such suggestions and saying, "There's nothing to worry about; the military are happy about this." That was simply not true.
  Mr. Maclennan: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is invalidating my point by referring to Admiral Boyce in that way. He may even be fortifying my case for better and more direct scrutiny of the concerns of such people. A remark made in that way, which was clearly not central to the considerations of the Committee in which it was made, was not capable of being examined or answered either by the members of the Committee or by the Government, who, if the military had general concerns, had no doubt considered such matters with them in the consultative process.
  Mr. Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. Does he agree that one of the great problems is that not only does this House have no right to pre-scrutinise treaties, but it has no say whatever over
  244
  treaties, only over the consequential legislation? Does he not accept that that is a serious flaw in our democratic process?
  Mr. Maclennan: I accept that. I do not argue against the idea that the treaty-making power—the prerogative power—goes effectively unscrutinised, save by the grace and favour of Her Majesty's Ministers. In a modern democracy, that seems wholly unsuitable.
  I must acknowledge that there has been some modest movement in the right direction in the past year. In its second report of the Session 1999–2000, the Procedure Committee sought to ensure that if a treaty was laid under the Ponsonby rules, it would be referred to the appropriate Select Committee of the House—appropriate, that is, in the opinion of the Government. Twenty-one days were to be set aside to give consideration to the treaty. We have, therefore, made a modest step in the right direction, although I do not believe that it is nearly enough. I was sorry that the Liaison Committee in another place decided that, owing to resource constraints—which, of course, I understand—it would not at this time set up a comparable Committee, although there are certainly experts in matters such as these in the other place.
  If we had had that kind of scrutiny, it would not have been possible for the Opposition to seek to throw dust in the jurymen's eyes in the way that they did, in the long and wholly unpersuasive speech by the right hon. Member for Horsham. He lost sight of the overall objective in raising his concerns in a rather non-specific way. Some of his points had already been answered by the Foreign Secretary. His concern about our military personnel being whisked off to the International Criminal Court by a prosecutor acting irrationally not only seemed fanciful but appear to have been provided for by the fact that the ICC could not proceed in such a case if the matter was being acted on in this country. Such circumstances would block the ICC taking any action.
  I look forward to the Bill going into Committee, where I have no doubt that we shall hear in greater detail some of the arguments that have been deployed in rather general terms today. However, we should not allow such matters to deflect us from the substantial step forward that this provision represents for the international community. Many of the decisions taken in the work leading up to the agreement of the statute in 1998 were wise ones. They built on the substantive public international law that existed: it was not a legislative process in that sense.
  The procedural arrangements, in whose establishment the British Government played a major part, seem calculated to give reassurance that, although there will be differences in the way in which we conduct criminal trials—there will be no guarantee of a jury, for example—the rule of law will operate. Extensive effectiveness will be achieved as a result of these measures.
  This is one of the most important Bills that I have encountered in my 35 years in the House—I celebrated my anniversary on Saturday. In my youth, I was very idealistic about the extension of world peace through world law. I remember reading at that time a famous book by Emery Reeves, called "The Anatomy of Peace". Since then, I have felt more and more that that was a hopeless aspiration. The Bill to some extent rekindles the aspiration towards a deterrence to the kinds of acts that have scarred the previous century, and which I hope will be a diminishing experience in international society in the century in which we now live.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Before I come to the Second Reading of the Bill, I note that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) alluded to his 35 years in the House. I suspect that his speech might be his last substantive contribution in this Chamber, although perhaps not in this palace. I hope that he will be resurrected in the gentle pastures of another place. Despite the fact that he started out as a Labour Member of Parliament, and went to lead the Social Democratic party before becoming a Liberal Democrat, I would like to place it on record that, during the two Parliaments in which I have been in the House, he has been a Member for whom I have had admiration. I also appreciate his never-ceasing courtesy and friendship.
  I welcome the Bill and recognise how important it is, but I am frustrated that it has taken so long to reach Second Reading. The Canadian Parliament secured Royal Assent for the equivalent legislation last June. I studied the Canadian legislation and introduced my own Bill, modelled on the Canadian law, some months ago. That process showed me that there was greater clarity in the Canadian law than there is in our Bill.
  Before the Bill goes into Committee, perhaps the Minister will revisit the Canadian legislation. I shall give a small example of how it helps in terms of clarity and reassurance. Part of it states:
  "In proceedings for an offence under this Act the accused may rely on any justification, excuse or defence available under the laws of Canada or under international law at the time of the alleged offence or at the time of the proceedings."
  We do not have a comparable clause, no doubt because our draftspersons considered it unnecessary. It is often useful to have such a declaration in a Bill, and a similar provision might have gone some way towards assuaging the concerns expressed by Her Majesty's Opposition.
  This is a profoundly important occasion. If we look back over the past 100 years, we see that legislators here and in other democratic Parliaments have tried—they failed, but they tried—to build up, in a fragile way, some international jurisprudence and international tribunals to combat the appalling atrocities of genocide, war crimes and so on. In that context, reference was made to the Nuremberg trials.
  I am something of an amateur student of the first world war, and it is interesting that the guiding light for the proposals that we are now discussing was one of the good aspects of the much-discredited treaty of Versailles, articles 228 to 230 of which provided for an international court to deal with war crimes. Eighty years ago next month, trials were opened in the Supreme Court at Leipzig, as a consequence of the treaty, to deal with war crimes. It is true that the trials took place under a German court, but the British team of observers gave them a clean bill of health.
  I mention those trials not only for anecdotal reasons but because they were conducted domestically, and the international observers—including the British—thought that they were conducted fairly and appropriately. Our primary intention must be to ensure that the trials of those
  246
  who commit war crimes and atrocities are heard in domestic courts. That was achieved, to some extent, 80 years ago.
  A significant British jurist who was part of our representation at Leipzig wrote:
  "'In my view the object of the War Criminals' Trials at Leipzig was to establish a principle, to put on record before history that might is not right, and that men whose sole conception of the duty they owe to their country is to inflict torture upon others, may be put on their trial. As a result of the Leipzig Trials the fact is now on record that German soldiers and sailors have been put into prison by their own countrymen, who acted through no slavish coercion by a successful enemy, but because their consciences were outraged by evidence which their honesty forced them to admit. History will pay far more attention to sentences on German soldiers and sailors of six or ten months' imprisonment, passed by a German Court, than it would to far longer sentences passed by 'military tribunals' of the 'Allied and Associated powers'."
  That is a true principle and it should be our primary objective. Trials must take place in domestic courts, but we must have the international court as a safety net in case of failure so that despots and people who fail to recognise wrongdoing can be arraigned before the international community.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say and I derive from it the comforting thought that, possibly under the new court, we shall depart from the principle that war criminals are always thrown up by the losers, but seldom by the victors. Does he share my budding optimism?
  Mr. Mackinlay: That is absolutely correct. It leads me, very appropriately, to a matter that the shadow Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary debated. With the greatest of courtesy, I think that both did not so much get it wrong as miss the point.
  The shadow Foreign Secretary kept coaxing my right hon. Friend to give an undertaking to reassure those whom he described as our senior military officers—he did not name them—that British soldiers would never be brought before the court. I was somewhat disappointed that my right hon. Friend said that there is no need to make such a declaration as a codicil to our ratification, claiming that it simply would not happen. In a way, that is wrong and slightly foolish. It is wrong because, if we are confident about our position, we should ultimately be prepared to be tested by institutions by which we expect everyone else to abide.
  I could cite recent cases, but that might create controversy, so I shall give two historical examples: the massacre at Amritsar, which most people recognise was wholly unjustified, was carried out on the orders of British officers, and no prosecution in the British courts followed the sacking of Cork city by Crown forces 80 years ago. If an international court or institution had existed then, it could have said to the United Kingdom Government, "You have failed, for political reasons, to recognise that Crown forces engaged in wrongdoing. If we have the opportunity, we shall arraign those responsible before the International Criminal Court."
  Those examples show why the United States is unhappy about the court. The massacre at My Lai, in which Lieutenant Calley ordered and committed such atrocious murders, is within the memory of every Member

  247
  in the Chamber. Although he went through some form of trial in the United States following massive public pressure, it became a charade. We must recognise that even in what we consider to be proud democracies with good court structures, people sometimes fail for political reasons.
  We can never say that we will always be able to do that which is right. Therefore, we should submit ourselves to the international court, recognising that, even in our case, politicians, generals or subordinate officers could be subject to it in extreme circumstances, and rightly so.
  Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman takes considerable interest in the armed forces. When people put on the Queen's uniform, they accept obedience to their civilian masters. If someone is answerable to a British court martial, he is tried by his peers—people who understand the pressures that he was under. If he goes before a jury, he is tried by his civilian peers. The point about the international court is that legal specialists with no military experience will be able to second-guess a British legal investigative process that may have concluded that neither of those two forums would ever have convicted the man.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The point is that the veracity of our courts martial system must be subject to a litmus test of fairness. If we have in place some pretty good ground rules for courts martial, the International Criminal Court will not come banging on the door of the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence, saying, "We want this officer." We would be able to show that matters were being thoroughly pursued and prosecuted and that appropriate sentences would be passed.
  Mr. Blunt: That is an extremely important point. The hon. Gentleman refers to a test that must be satisfied and what he considers to be the entirely reasonable actions of our courts martial. He described as a charade the trial of the officer involved at My Lai. I am sure that that was not the view in the United States. Judges will be elected by a majority following a secret ballot of the states that are parties to the convention, and their view of what is a charade or a fair trial may be different from his.
  Mr. Mackinlay: In the My Lai example, it is generally held that the court proceedings, the decisions and the executive action of the President of the United States were perverse: the President of the United States—under executive action, not judicial authority—allowed the guy to go home. Clearly, that would not be permissible, and the beauty of the ICC is that it would counteract the judgment of Presidents or Prime Ministers in acting so wrongly.
  That leads me to my next point, which was not discussed by the shadow Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The historical importance of the legislation will relate not so much to the commander in the field as to Presidents, Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers and Defence Ministers, who will have to pay regard to proportionality. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) referred to the use of atomic weapons, but nothing will be changed by the measure. Surely we believe that regard should always be paid to proportionality.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is not in his place, has been exercised about the Falklands conflict. I do not always agree with
  248
  either his historical analysis or his conclusions, but I remember him probing on an unanswered question. Had the aircraft carrier gone down in the South Atlantic, Prime Minister Thatcher would have faced political and military defeat and it has been suggested that using battlefield nuclear weapons on Punta Arenas against Argentina was at least contemplated. I do not want to debate whether that necessarily happened, but some good people think that the possibility was at least explored.
  That is where the legislation is important. It will temper the ability of Prime Ministers to use weapons out of all proportion and scale to the situation to save their political bacon. Its long-term effect will be to make people exercise their political views much more cautiously when committing armed forces to conflict.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: If the Bill is enacted, might not a sword hang over a future British Prime Minister? Might not that Prime Minister hesitate before deploying weapons that could protect British troops' lives? Surely the first responsibility of Members of Parliament is to protect our troops, whom we send into battle on our behalf.
  Mr. Mackinlay: That has always been so. At present, mercifully, our Governments—Labour and Conservative—have regard to the existing rules of war. If we took the hon. Gentleman's argument, if I can term it thus—he advanced it in the form of a question—to its logical conclusion, we would not agree to existing Geneva conventions and codes of war.
  We are, after all, merely building on an arrangement that already exists. We are talking about something that is fragile and inadequate, but we are adding an extra building block to the conduct of international relations and the conduct of war, while reminding politicians and commanders that they must have regard to proportionality. Of course there will always be collateral damage—innocent people will be killed in any war—but politicians and commanders must have greater regard, or at least continuing regard, to balance.
  I am surprised that one matter has not been raised—I shall raise it now. I recognise that no easy decisions were involved in the controversial area of the bombing of Dresden, and Nuremberg. Historians will debate the issues for decades. It could clearly be argued that there were military objectives for the bombing and overriding reasons for it to happen, and it is equally clear that many people take the opposite view, but I do not believe that the head of Bomber Command or Winston Churchill could or would have been brought before the international court, because it was obviously a grey area. We are talking about despots, who will use weapons of mass destruction—or genocide—without regard to what represents at least some semblance of justification in terms of the war objective.
  Mr. Howarth rose—
  Mr. Blunt rose—
  Mr. Mackinlay: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) first, and then give way to his commander.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Gentleman says that he dismisses out of hand the idea that the court might have indicted Sir Arthur Harris or Winston Churchill: he says that it is

  249
  inconceivable that it would have done so in the circumstances. I put it to him, however, that he cannot give the House, our armed forces and the people of this country that absolute certainty, because the court will have a life and a momentum of its own.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that if the had legislation existed, Bomber Harris, Winston Churchill and other commanders would simply have had to contemplate a bit earlier in order to feel confident that, if challenged, they could advance a justification for what had been a very painful decision. We are, as it were, cautioning politicians and commanders that they must take account of certain considerations.
  Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mackinlay: Yes, but for the last time; otherwise I might tax the patience of the House, and I have one or two more things to say.
  Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago "We are talking about despotic regimes." What he must consider, however, is not just Dresden as a matter of history, but Baghdad as a matter of current events. He must consider circumstances in which the United States and the United Kingdom are on their own in taking actions that will be judged by judges elected through a secret ballot of the majority of the states participating in the treaty.
  Mr. Mackinlay: That is indeed how the court will be constituted, but I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider this: unfortunately, the rulers of even the regimes that he and I would consider to be despotic have considered themselves to be legitimate. If the big players such as the United Kingdom and France are not prepared ultimately to submit themselves to an international court, how on earth can we expect the baddies of this world to do so?
  As in so many instances, we must say that we are confident enough about our rules for decision-making and our concept of justice to be prepared to submit ourselves to a judicial regime, so that we can exert leverage on regimes we do not like and cause them to submit themselves to this system, or—I shall return to this point—at least persuade them to hold courts in their own jurisdictions when there has been flagrant disregard of, for instance, the rules of war.
  Clause 65 lays down explicitly the rules to which commanders must have regard. I expect that they appear in other statutes, but they are useful here as an aide-mémoire for politicians and commanders. The Secretary of State for Defence is not present, but if he were I would have a go at him. In the past year I asked a parliamentary question about Sierra Leone: I wanted to know how many irregulars had used United Nations uniforms or insignia to deceive the Sierra Leone forces or, indeed, British forces. The Secretary of State was very dismissive, as can be seen in Hansard, and I was a bit put out. I am pleased to note from article 8, on page 72, that making
  "improper use of a flag of truce, or of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury"
  250
  is now considered to he a serious international offence. That is an important step forward: the provision will be on our statute, and enshrined in law.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Where is that?
  Mr. Mackinlay: It is on page 72. I will show the hon. Gentleman where it is later.
  Let me say something about a matter on which I intervened on the Foreign Secretary earlier. I understand that, under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the House accepted that there should be universal jurisdiction in respect of cases of torture, enabling United Kingdom authorities to feel the collars of those who might be transient—passing through; just touching the soil—to take them into custody and to prosecute them for torture. Regardless of whether such people are United Kingdom citizens and regardless of whether they are resident, the fact that they are within our jurisdiction enables us both to arrest and to prosecute them. We have not, however, applied the same test in this Bill, and I know that that was questioned by some noble Lords.
  I think we should make it abundantly clear that if it is in our capacity to arrest anyone who is guilty of war crimes, genocide or the other matters to which the Bill relates, and to hand that person to our domestic courts where he or she could be tried under the Bill, we should do so. There should not be this blurred, vexatious appeal provision, which is open to misinterpretation—the test of whether such people are resident.
  Mr. Worthington: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this issue. As he probably knows, the Canadians have used the test of presence in the country rather than residence. Would it have been possible to define Pinochet as a resident? He was certainly present. I think that we should explore the matter in Committee.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I have probably missed the most obvious example. Pinochet was present in our country, but he was not necessarily resident according to United Kingdom case law. I hope that we will revisit the issue in Committee to make it watertight, and to ensure that we fulfil both the spirit and the letter of our obligations.
  I am proud to have been involved in the debate. I think that when we look back on it in 20 or 25 years the workings of the International Criminal Court will still be embryonic, or at least in their infancy, but we may feel that this evening we took a great step forward that has been denied to other generations. We have tried to create an international criminal court, and to ensure that the despots and wicked people who have killed and maimed whole generations—sometimes whole nations—and have brought good people to war cannot feel that there is a hiding place for them anywhere in the globe.
  7.50 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to speak in the debate. The Bill has a noble objective. Every hon. Member would be anxious to see the all too many dictators, international war criminals and perpetrators of genocide brought to justice. In so far as the Bill facilitates that and achieves the bringing to justice of those whom we would all recognise as serious war criminals, it will have our support.

  251
  In raising a number of serious questions, I do not wish to resile from my support for that noble objective, but there are serious questions about a Bill that hands international jurisdiction to the world at large in circumstances where we who have very high standards and do everything to maintain them—even if we sometimes fail—lose control. That is why I understand clearly the worries that the United States has. Perhaps I am expressing some of those concerns when I express my serious concerns about the Bill, and my hope that we can make sufficient improvements to it in Committee to overcome them.
  For obvious and genuine reasons, the concern tends to be articulated most spiritedly in relation to our own armed forces and to those of the United States. The possibility that they might find themselves arraigned before the International Criminal Court in circumstances that we would think were thoroughly unjust is a genuine concern. The question of whether the Bill complies with article 6 of the European convention on human rights—someone's right to a fair trial in all its aspects—needs to be crawled over in Committee, but I want to deal with the bigger issues of war and peace.
  When one is dealing with international war and peace, one is dealing with very difficult issues. Terrible decisions have to be made in the context of international law. Although perhaps 90 per cent. of international law is universal, the most crucial 10 per cent. is often on the margin.
  I was Solicitor-General at the time of the Iraq war, when we were bombing Iraq in a formidable way. I was Attorney-General when we were over-flying subsequently and doing many of the things that we are still doing in Iraq. I could sympathise with the present Government when they had to deal with the difficult questions of Kosovo and of international law that underlay the bombing of Yugoslavia in the recent Kosovo war.
  I mentioned in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Foreign Secretary, the views of Mr. Mark Littman QC. Although on balance I do not agree with those views—he condemned what we did in the bombing of Yugoslavia as disproportionate and consequently contrary to international law—it is a genuinely difficult question on which it would be possible for international tribunals to hold different opinions.
  When it comes to the use of nuclear weapons, one is on very difficult ground indeed, particularly internationally. Let me focus on that point in the context of the way in which the international community views nuclear weapons. About five years ago, the General Assembly of the United Nations raised a question before the International Court of Justice at The Hague. I personally argued the United Kingdom case before that court.
  The General Assembly, backing up the World Health Organisation, which I fear had suffered from a bit of entryism, although the General Assembly cannot be accused of that, questioned the legality of the use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance whatever, whereas we in the House today know perfectly well that the ability at least to use nuclear weapons was an absolute essential in the maintenance of peace between about 1950 and the collapse of the former Soviet Union.
  The General Assembly said that nuclear weapons could never be used. The judgment of the international court left the door open to the possibility of their use in proper
  252
  defensive circumstances—it is difficult to construe, but it did leave that door open—but what would be the position if we did have to consider using them? Heaven forbid that we should ever again have to consider using them in the context of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but if we look carefully at page 72 of the Bill and at paragraph 2(b)(iv) and (v) of article 8, we will ask ourselves whether we were entitled to use nuclear weapons in those circumstances. That is a genuine question.
  Mr. Mackinlay: That point has exercised me a lot. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is an advocate and has no doubt provided defence for people in the past. The defence of the United Kingdom and United States in relation to the use of atomic weapons is based on proportionality: invading the land mass of Japan would have involved a colossal and disproportionate loss of allied soldiers' lives, and there was an obligation to minimise the loss of our service men. That was the defence, and it would be accepted as a reasonable defence. For the record, I do not want people necessarily to think that I am defending the use of nuclear weapons, but I can understand the defence. It is legitimate. It is not a grey area. The bomb was a weapon and one has an obligation to use a weapon to minimise one's losses of service men in war.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman, in second world war terms, makes a powerful case, but we may be talking about very different circumstances. Consider how the International Criminal Court is made up. At the moment, 137 state parties are signatories. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) that there are about 170 members of the United Nations General Assembly, so the great majority of the General Assembly—the body that is opposed to the use of nuclear weapons at all—elect the judges. They elect 18 judges and the prosecutor by secret ballot. It is therefore possible that they will elect judges and a prosecutor who have a no doubt absolutely bona fide genuine dislike of a number of things on the international scene, including nuclear weapons. They may have a strong view about the attitude that we are taking to Iraq at the moment. We know that our attitude to Iraq is controversial in international terms, although we believe it to be right. The possibility is wide open that those who prosecute and those judges might take a very different view of the bombing of Yugoslavia: they might consider it disproportionate.
  In those circumstances, look at the position of the soldier, sailor or airman, which is what has been concerning our senior officers, including Admiral Boyce. We tend to use our armed forces as surrogates for our politicians in these matters. There will be those who will see the decision of our Prime Minister in Yugoslavia in a very different light—and who would have seen the decision of our then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, on the Belgrano incident in a very different light. I have no hesitation in saying—I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Attorney-General and had a close insight into the matter—that the Belgrano was an extremely dangerous warship even if it was very old-fashioned. It was tragic that it was manned by a very large number of inexperienced young men who lost their lives, but it had to be dealt with. The fact that we had an extremely modern submarine that could do that without posing too great a danger did not mean that we were not justified in doing it.

  253
  An international tribunal might have taken an entirely different view on the matter had the commanding officer of the submarine, the senior officers or a senior British politician involved in the decision come before it. Those issues are bound to haunt us. Although the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was right that we should consider those issues, they are also bound to haunt those who take such decisions.
  Mr. Gapes: I am not quite clear where the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is leading. I suspect that it may be leading to the conclusion that we should tear up our obligations under the Geneva conventions, reject the non-proliferation treaty and adopt a unilateralist view of the world that does not take into account international law in any form because it might be inconvenient for us. I hope that that is not what he is suggesting.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Indeed it is not—and I noticed the hon. Member for Thurrock worrying about the same thing. I believe very strongly in obedience to international law, and for 10 years I was personally responsible for doing everything that I could to ensure that our Government obeyed international law. I also believe that, in that period, they did obey international law. However, it is a matter of who judges and of whether one is judged by an independent and impartial tribunal that does not have a political agenda. I merely flag that up as a warning, which could be overstated. Nevertheless, we have to think very carefully about what would happen in relation to such issues should they be considered by the international court.
  Let us consider the role of the prosecutor. Who will control the prosecutor? The answer is that the prosecutor will be controlled partly by the pre-trial judges. In theory, ultimately, the Security Council will also have some control over the prosecutor. However, whereas in this dangerous world the Security Council cannot do anything positive without unanimity because each member has a veto, in this case, although the United Kingdom, the United States, France and perhaps every other Security Council member—except, hypothetically, let us say Russia or China—believed that a prosecution on which the international court was minded to proceed was really quite disproportionate and inappropriate, they could not stop it unless every member at least withheld its veto. Therefore, that degree of control which has been a very important part of the working of the Security Council in the 50-plus years since the United Nations was established does not work in quite the same way in this case.
  I am anxious that we may have to take decisions in matters of war and peace in which our service personnel and our politicians may find themselves subject to prosecution by the international court in circumstances in which we know that that would not be appropriate, and that that might prevent the taking of very necessary and difficult decisions in the international sphere—in relation to Iraq, for example—that we would otherwise take. I can quite see that that is an underlying worry for the United States that we shall have to tussle through and consider very carefully indeed. Those are the main points that I wished to flag up as warnings in relation to the Bill.
  254
  Senator Pinochet was mentioned earlier in the debate. I always felt that the people to try Senator Pinochet, if they thought it right, were the Chileans. That is now the position. He is in Chile, and that is correct. However, there is a difference between the European convention on extradition and that proposed in the Bill. In the European convention on extradition, the Home Secretary has a residual right not to surrender someone, for whatever reason he considers proper. Of course, if, in the Home Secretary's view, someone is rightly accused under international law, he would not exercise that right to prevent extradition.
  The Bill provides for no such residual right and residual power. It is therefore possible that our armed forces and those to whom our country entrusts those very difficult decisions—the Government of the day—could find themselves subject to courts in inappropriate circumstances. I believe most profoundly that that detracts not one iota from our duty to obey international law. To the extent that the Bill will heighten the realisation that we must obey international law, it will do good. However, if it were to inhibit us in the next 50 years from taking the desperately difficult decisions that have affected war and peace in the past 50 years, so that the member states that elected the judiciary and the prosecutor but did not have to carry the heat and burden of the day were to inhibit necessary, dangerous and difficult decisions, it might do long-term damage.
  I hate to pour a little cold water on a Bill that has such noble objectives, but the objective of this House is to ask the difficult questions in the hope that they can be satisfactorily answered.
  8.6 pm
  Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside): On 27 January 2001, a very important event took place in Central Hall in London. That event was the commemoration of the very first national Holocaust memorial day. Those who were present at that very moving and very serious event will have been struck by the way in which the event itself underlined the reason for having a Holocaust memorial day in the United Kingdom. It was about remembering and learning from the lessons of the Holocaust; remembering other horrific acts of genocide, such as Rwanda, Cambodia and Kosovo; and reinforcing the importance of individual responsibility. When the Prime Minister, in his contribution to that ceremony, referred very graphically to a scene from the very powerful film "Schindler's List", the importance of that individual responsibility was highlighted.
  I think that it is very appropriate that this Government—the same Government who instituted national Holocaust memorial day—are seeking in the very same year to ratify the International Criminal Court, and to do so as one of the first 60 signatories which are required to enable the court to go into action.
  It seems that we have not learned very much in the past 50 years, during which there have been more than 250 conflicts and more than 86 million civilians have died. In the 1970s, 2 million people—40 per cent. of the population of Cambodia—were killed by the Khmer Rouge in the killing fields of Cambodia. We know of other atrocities, some of which have already been mentioned in this debate.

  255
  We need an International Criminal Court. Currently, no international body can hold individuals, rather than states, to account. The idea for a court of this nature is not new. Indeed, we have to be persistent in pursuing and securing justice. In the 20th century—from the treaty of Versailles to the formulation by the League of Nations, in 1937, of the protocol establishing an International Criminal Court, to the tribunals of Nuremberg and Tokyo—some progress has been made. It was President Truman who described the Nuremberg tribunal as
  "The first International Criminal assize in history".
  There have been ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the Geneva conventions have been accepted. However, the basis for the Bill was established in some detail 50 years ago, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the conventions on genocide and invited the International Law Commission to study the establishment of an international judicial organisation to deal with genocide. That was in December 1948. Now, in April 2001, we are here on this historic night in the House of Commons Chamber, debating the legislation that will assist that court to go into action.
  Our discussions tonight flow from the Rome statute signed in July 1998, which the United Kingdom signed in November of that year. According to the most recent information available on the UN website today, 139 nations have signed the protocol establishing the ICC, and 29 states have ratified it.
  If this country adds its name to the ICC's ratification at this critical time, we will be one of the first 60 countries to do so. That will mean that we have played a crucial part in setting up that international court.
  It is important that the court be set up, and that that is accomplished speedily. It would be a permanent standing court, dealing with the most heinous of crimes—genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It would not suffer from the selectivity and difficulties encountered by the ad hoc tribunals that we have at present, good as their work has been.
  The ICC would enshrine in an international court the principle of individual responsibility. It would establish the principle that individuals cannot hide behind the orders of a superior. There would be no immunity for anyone found to have acted in a horrendous way. In the words of Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg international tribunal:
  "The idea that a state commits crimes is a fiction. Crimes are committed only by persons."
  We forget that at our peril. If we are truly concerned about individual responsibility and accountability, we must never the forget the responsibility of individuals for what they do.
  The Bill will also encourage states to take their own actions to deal with horrendous crimes. The principle of complementarity enshrined in the Bill is important, as is the principle of automatic jurisdiction. The provisions making British domestic law compatible with what is to be implemented internationally are extremely important. All those factors taken together make it more likely that states will take their responsibilities seriously.
  Setting up an International Criminal Court such as that described in the Bill in a proper and considered way will not only bring to account those who have committed heinous crimes but will act as a deterrent to the potential criminals of the future—the future Pol Pots—and perhaps the future actions of Saddam Hussein.
  256
  Various hon. Members have spoken about the possible difficulties that could arise from the ICC's proceedings, and I take them very seriously. For those of us who really care about international justice and about bringing those who commit atrocities to account, it is equally important that we look at the detail of what we are doing. It would not be acceptable for the ICC to be right in principle but to fail in practice, and we must not allow that to happen.
  I therefore agree that it is very important that there should be proper scrutiny of the detail of the Bill and of the provisions for the International Criminal Court. It is important that the pre-trial chamber properly assesses cases before they go to trial. It is important too that three judges will have to decide that there are substantial grounds to take a case to the ICC before that case can proceed.
  It is essential that the prosecutor should be independent and that he or she can be removed if it is thought that he or she is not acting in a proper or impartial manner. It is important that the prosecutor should be able to defer to states that are able and willing to conduct their own investigations. It matters too that the Security Council can defer investigation for 12 months if the prosecution stands in the way of international peace and security.
  Those and other points matter, and it is of the utmost importance that the detail of the court's proceedings are considered properly, but that must be done in the spirit of wanting the court to succeed. We must be determined that the court will be set up as soon as possible, and that it will be efficient. It must be accepted by everyone as having the highest standards.
  Elected Governments do many things. They make policy—as is happening tonight—and set a moral lead. By pressing ahead with setting up the International Criminal Court now, this Government are doing both. As Kofi Annan said:
  "In the prospect of an international court lies the promise of universal justice. That is the simple and soaring hope of this vision. We are close to its realisation. Only when no state, junta or army anywhere can abuse human rights with impunity will the innocents of distant wars and conflicts know that they too may sleep under the cover of justice. They will know that they too have rights, and that those who violate those rights will be punished."
  Setting up the International Criminal Court is a major step forward for humanity. For the United Kingdom to make that happen in the same year that it instituted national holocaust memorial day will give this country an important place in history. I feel proud to have been able to play a very small part in enabling that to happen.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Martin Bell: I shall, as always, be extremely brief. I have listened to the debate with great interest and, when it got partisan, not a little dismay. If ever an issue required seriousness, this is it.
  In some three hours, I have heard no mention of the quality of justice that the International Criminal Court will dispense, nor of the safeguards that it will offer to the accused. It is important that someone should make the case—and I am willing to do so—for the rights of accused alleged war criminals. That is especially true if people such as Milosevic, Mladic or Karadzic appear before the court. In cases such as that, a miasma of perceived guilt will attach to the accused.

  257
  Such matters are difficult. Nuremberg passed the test, but I am not sure that the criminal tribunal in The Hague passes it, and that is the model on which the ICC is to be based.
  I speak from experience. Inevitably, I have been closer to war crimes than most hon. Members. I know the pile of ash and bone that is left when a family is burned alive in its home, and the son and father have tried in vain to defend their relatives. I know what mass graves look like, and I know the stench of death. I know the tatters of clothing and bloodstains that mark scenes of mass execution.
  I have given evidence and depositions to prosecution and defence lawyers at the Hague. In every case from the first Tadic case onwards, the defence lawyers felt that the scales of justice were weighted against them—more or less perceptibly, but in every case. I testified in the case of Tihomir Blaskic two years ago. Blaskic was the senior colonel commanding the HVO Bosnian Croat forces in the Lasva valley in central Bosnia during the vicious side war between Muslims and Croats in 1993 to 1994.
  I gave evidence for the defence; I believed that there was no proper command and control, and that the Ahmici massacre, of which Blaskic was accused, was the work of freelance forces beyond his control. He was, however, convicted to a virtual life sentence. Now we know from documents found in the palace of the late President Tujman that he was indeed outside the command loop at the time. I trust that his appeal will succeed. Blaskic was one of many who was held for years before being tried. Are we proposing that the International Criminal Court have the same dilatory processes of justice? I hope not.
  There is also a problem with the judges. They will come, as they must, from many countries and diverse judicial systems. They will be at the peak of their careers and, we hope, at the peak of their powers. In fact, many of them are quite elderly. In a case that may last a year and a half, one may have to drop out for reasons of ill health and then the defendant will have the right to have the whole case heard again. Blaskic chose not to, and he may well wish that he had, because one of the judges was simply not there for the taking of half the evidence at his trial. If that is the kind of system that the ICC will adopt, I think that we should consider very carefully the rights of the accused, however notorious they may be.
  I get the impression that the international criminal tribunal at The Hague dispenses victors' justice. It is a prosecutor's court; it is, in some sense, a political court. I am afraid that when the new court is established and various high-profile cases come before it, as they come before the tribunal at The Hague, the ICC will then be under pressure to convict. It will cost hundreds of millions, maybe thousands of millions of dollars of United Nations money. In the absence of such convictions people will ask why that money is being spent and say that the court is ineffective. We must protect the rights of the accused and, above all, set up a court that will not feed on a diet of convictions.
  8.23 pm
  Ms Oona King: I believe that it is difficult to exaggerate the Bill's importance. It seeks to outlaw crimes against humanity, not just at one
  258
  time or place, as some of the international tribunals have sought to do, but at any time or place. In other words, it seeks to ensure that no one is above the law, no matter where they live or who they are.
  The International Criminal Court will be a permanent court based at The Hague, with responsibility for trying individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It will come into effect when 60 states ratify the 1998 Rome statute. To date, 139 states have signed the statute and 29 have ratified it. I will be delighted if the United Kingdom is one of the first 60 to ratify it, as I am sure it will be, following the passage of the Bill.
  The Government have played a pivotal role in the creation of the ICC. Notwithstanding the remarks of my friend the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), I believe that the ICC will, for the first time, provide the means by which justice may be brought to victims and murderers may be brought to justice. We have not had those means before with an enforceable mechanism.
  The ICC will deter potential war criminals and, I hope, contribute towards an end to the culture of impunity. It will also, for the first time, bring conflict within nation states into the jurisdiction of an international court. It will recognise crimes of sexual violence, which had gone unrecognised until very recently, and will go further towards prohibiting the use of child soldiers.
  It is important to place the ICC within an historical context. In the last speech that I gave on the ICC in this Chamber, I noted that the first real codification of war crimes was the 1884 Geneva convention. The House of Commons research paper, as ever, is extremely far-reaching in its gathering of evidence. It cites a war crimes tribunal in Greece in 405 BC that held individuals to account. More recently—in 1474—a panel of 28 judges of the Holy Roman Empire stripped one Peter von Hagenbach of his knighthood and sentenced him to death for his role in ordering the murder, rape and mutilation of citizens of the Upper Rhine. These war crimes were committed by men under his command, and his defence, back in 1474—that he was following orders from his superior, the Duke of Burgundy—was rejected.
  Despite the passage of 500 years, we remain at a fairly rudimentary stage of institution-building. That is what the ICC seeks to do. In fact, had Peter von Hagenbach committed his war crimes in the 1970s instead of the 1470s, he would probably have got away with murder, just as Pol Pot did. That is why I trust that all Members of the House support the principles behind the Bill. I certainly do, particularly in the light of my visits to Rwanda and Cambodia. Those countries vividly illustrate how genocide and conflict today take place within countries as much as between countries. The corollary is that most victims of war crimes today are civilians, not military personnel. As we have heard, in the last 50 years, more than 86 million civilians have died in more than 250 conflicts.
  Many people might be surprised that we have a plethora of laws prohibiting war crimes. I described them in some detail previously in the Chamber, so I will not list them again; suffice it to say that it is not the laws we lack, but the means to enforce them. The 1948 genocide convention took 50 years to muster its first success. If a week is a long time in politics, it is a lifetime in warfare. One need look no further than the meticulous plans that were laid relating to the genocide in Rwanda, which sought to

  259
  achieve a murder rate of 1,000 civilians per 20 minutes, to see that we have not a minute to lose. There must be an urgency brought to the Bill and I am delighted that the Government have found time for it, given the pressure of the legislative timetable.
  I was pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) say that this is one of the most important Bills he has had the honour to debate in this House in the 35 years he has been a Member. I concur with his judgment and believe that the Bill is so important that we must get it absolutely right.
  I wish to turn to some of the problems inherent in the Bill. The first is universal jurisdiction. The greatest concerns are about clauses 51 and 23, which allow Executive discretion. The Bill, as amended in the Lords, limits British jurisdiction to ICC crimes committed on British territory or committed abroad by UK nationals, or to those who are deemed, under the Bill, to be resident in the UK.
  The use of the term "resident" means that non-nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes will still be able to visit friends, seek medical advice or go shopping in the UK without fear of prosecution, because they would not be resident here. Other countries have sought to avoid this loophole; Belgium, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and South Africa have all decided on forms of universal jurisdiction to hold those accused under the statute to account. I would hope that we might be able to look at this in Committee and reduce the legal confusion by adopting the concept of "presence" instead of residence, as Canada has done. The definition of residence will add confusion and could undermine the intent of the Bill.
  I should like to cite an example. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo—a country in which I take a great deal of interest—over 1 million people have died since 1998 in a war that has sucked in the armies of more than six neighbouring countries and left the population prey to a number of crimes against humanity. Many of those crimes have been perpetrated by foreign mercenaries. The ICC might have no jurisdiction over the offender because, for example, neither the Congo nor the perpetrator's state of nationality had accepted ICC jurisdiction, or because the Congo had not accepted jurisdiction and the nationality of the offender could not be established. If that offender came to the UK, why should he or she not be at risk of prosecution?
  The case for universal jurisdiction is particularly striking when a British national falls victim to a crime against humanity committed abroad by a foreign national. On 28 December last year, Charlotte Wilson—a Voluntary Services Overseas teacher—was ambushed and murdered by a Burundian Hutu rebel group. The culprit of that crime, conceivably, could flee to the United Kingdom. I say that because, in my constituency, I have come across people who are alleged to have been war criminals in Rwanda and Bangladesh but have not faced prosecution. They could find a safe haven and be able to escape justice, even when their victims include a British citizen.
  I urge the Minister to reconsider accepting the principle of universal jurisdiction. We have already done that in the case of torture and when a person commits grave breaches
  260
  of the Geneva conventions. I hope that the Bill will treat equally all those who are present on UK territory, whether nationals or non-nationals, visitors or residents.
  I am also concerned about the large degree of Executive discretion in the Bill. There are a number of clauses that provide a Cabinet member with the discretion to take or not to take a certain course of action. I have concerns that this could result in a failure to fulfil the obligations under the Rome statue.
  I want to underline what the hon. Member for Tatton said about the quality of justice. We must ensure that justice is done on both sides and try to avoid the historical pattern: justice for the victors and an absolute lack of justice for the vanquished.
  Conservative Members have asked the Foreign Secretary to legislate so that British armed forces can never, in theory or practice, be brought before the ICC. That is a worrying position to take, because it implies that we want a criminal court only if somebody promises us that we will never be brought before it. In theory, British service people will never be brought before it, because any bona fide allegation will be investigated by British authorities. That does not mean that they will not be held accountable for their actions. Surely they would not want that. There is already accountability, and a code that can be invoked if they break it.
  It is also unlikely in practice that members of the British armed forces could be brought before the court.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Lady cannot make that assertion. She can say that any of our forces brought before our domestic courts will certainly get a fair trial, and that our judges, sharing the same culture, will understand the circumstances, but she cannot guarantee that the ICC will not seek to second-guess the decisions of the United Kingdom courts and take a wholly different view.
  Ms King: This is exactly the point: if we are able to show that we have had a thorough investigation, the ICC has no jurisdiction over our armed forces. Does not the hon. Gentleman understand the concept of complementarity around which the proposal is based?
  Mr. Blunt: The hon. Lady should consult article 20, paragraph 3(b) of which refers to trials in the United Kingdom that
  "otherwise were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the norms of due process recognised by international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice."
  It is the ICC that will have to interpret that article.
  Ms King: The hon. Gentleman has to recognise that the Government, and the previous Conservative Government, in signing the conventions, have accepted the jurisdiction of people who may not be British. We should uphold the rule of law and recognise the many built-in mechanisms that would prevent British service people from being brought before the ICC—for example, the role of the Security Council—unless we committed genocide by accident, say—and if we did, frankly, we should indeed be subject to the court. How can we

  261
  command any respect if we argue, as Conservative Members appear to be arguing, that we want the law to apply, but not to us?
  Mr. Bercow:
  The hon. Lady, whose sincerity and conviction I respect, is clearly content to accept the soothing bromides of the Foreign Secretary, but I for one, as someone who is sympathetic to the establishment of the ICC, am not. I invite her to envisage a scenario in which the Government of the day contend that they have conducted a genuine and thoroughgoing investigation into allegations of abuses committed by our armed forces, but the main Opposition party of the day contends that the investigation was defective, whereupon the ICC invokes that fact in support of its decision to bring proceedings.
  Ms King: That would be a court case. I do not follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I cannot envisage circumstances in which, for example, the British Government conducted their own investigation, the ICC felt that we were not able to prove that the investigation was sufficiently thorough or unbiased and, on top of all that, the Security Council had no wish to impede the case's progress to the ICC. We must not expect that our armed forces will be protected no matter what; they will be protected because their behaviour, on the whole, reaches the highest standards in the world. On the whole, our armed forces do not go around perpetrating crimes against humanity. However, if they do, I hope that they will not be free from the jurisdiction of the ICC.
  In conclusion, I underline the importance of the Bill in establishing a permanent and—I hope—universal jurisdiction for punishing the perpetrators of the world's most heinous crimes. Considering the blood-splattered history of the previous century, surely this is the building block we need. It will take us forward and prevent the recurrence of what has happened in the past. It will make the slogan "never again" a reality.
  8.41 pm
  Dr. Julian LewisEast): It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). I well remember the excellent Adjournment debate that she introduced in October 1999, when I had the pleasure of participating and endorsing most of what she said. Contrary to what some people might think, there is much consensus on the issue across the Floor.
  The war crimes aspect causes most concern, where it shades into the conduct of military activity in future conflicts and the way in which military personnel might be held to account. However, I want to leave that point until the end of my remarks and concentrate on the aspects of genocide and crimes against humanity, for which there are at least six good reasons why one needs an International Criminal Court—if satisfactory procedures for operating it can be agreed. The first reason is to punish past killers; the second is to deter future killers; the third is to embarrass those who shelter killers; the fourth is to force countries to put the killers in their midst on trial; the fifth is to prove beyond doubt that the killings actually took place; and the sixth is to bring out aspects of the truth that might otherwise remain hidden.
  262
  I shall deal briefly with those reasons in turn—beginning with punishment. I make no bones about the fact that I believe in the virtue of retribution for its own sake. That is an unfashionable statement, but if the concept of punishment or retribution means anything at all in the 21st century, it should certainly apply to the crimes we are talking about—genocide and crimes against humanity. Those are crimes whereby whole swathes of people are eliminated on a group basis. People who have done nothing whatever to incur the hatred, disdain or dislike of the people who attack them are nevertheless liquidated without semblance of pity or mercy. Even if it would not deter one future criminal from the acts committed by mass murderers in the past, every mass murderer whom it is in our power to punish should be punished because it is a matter of natural justice; the blood of the victims cries out for punishment to be carried out.
  I shall briefly refer to three examples. I hope that the House will forgive me if I go back to the period about which I know most—the second world war. The first example is Josef Mengele, the angel of death of Auschwitz, who, we now know, died in Brazil. We also know that he was so confident of not being punished that for many years he lived openly under his own name and his family in Germany were in communication with him. That tells us that if the authorities in Germany had had a real will to track down Mengele and bring him to justice, they could easily have done so. It is not for me to speculate why they did not.
  The second example is Walter Rauff, the man who invented mobile gas vans. They sometimes had a red cross on the side, but Jews were herded into them and exhaust gases were automatically funnelled into the back so that as the van drove off they were asphyxiated in the most excruciating manner. There are fascinating documents in the archives about the care and attention with which German firms that are still trading today designed those devilish contraptions—to make sure that the "waste materials" and other substances derived from the "process" would not impede the operation of the van. Walter Rauff also lived openly in south America for many years, even being interviewed by magazines, but he was never brought to justice. I like to think that, for all the reasons that I enumerated, an International Criminal Court would have made it much more difficult for him to escape the fate that he richly deserved.
  The third case is one that I mentioned briefly in an intervention on the Foreign Secretary—that of Aloïs Brunner, Adolf Eichmann's right-hand man, who was personally responsible for organising the death of more than 40,000 Austrian civilians, more than 40,000 Greek civilians, more than 20,000 French civilians and many Slovaks. He was known, at least by the 1980s, to be living in Syria under the name of Georg Fischer, as an honoured guest of, and an adviser to, the Syrian Government. I have raised the matter in the House on at least half a dozen occasions, in July 1998, July and October 1999 and in March and June 2000.
  On 20 June 2000 I thought that I was making progress. I asked the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), whether one contribution towards the building of trust between Syria and Israel would be for the new Syrian regime to clear up the mystery of its long-term sheltering in Damascus of the architect of the holocaust in wartime France and elsewhere, Aloïs Brunner. I asked

  263
  whether the Government would make representations to the Syrian regime indicating that it could not expect to be taken seriously in the search for peace as long as a war criminal of that magnitude was sheltered.
  The Minister replied that he would look into the matter and write to me. Eventually, he wrote to me in August of that year, and I was much encouraged by what he wrote because there had been a change of regime in Syria. He said that, with the passing of President Hafez al-Assad, more information "might become available" about Brunner. He said also that it might he possible for the Government to make representations once the new leadership in Syria had "settled in".
  It was with some confidence, therefore, that I asked another question on 27 February this year. I asked what representations had been made to the Syrian regime about the sheltering of that dreadful man, only to be told by the present Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz):
  "We have not made representations to the Syrian Government about Aloïs Brunner. There is general agreement that he is almost certainly dead. Inquiries in recent years by the French and German Governments and by journalists have failed to produce evidence of his whereabouts."—[Official Report, 27 February 2001; Vol. 364, c. 584W.]
  We heard the Foreign Secretary say this afternoon that if I had fresh evidence, he might consider making representations.
  My question in February was timely because, at the beginning of March, a French court thought enough of the possibility that Brunner was still alive and being sheltered in Syria to sentence him, in absentia, to life imprisonment. If the French Government can organise a trial to sentence a missing murderer to life imprisonment, I am disappointed—to put it mildly—that our own Foreign Office seems to have set its face against doing anything, even at the modest level of making representations to the new Syrian Government, especially when the former Minister of State suggested that he was minded to do so.
  Perhaps the background is that some professional diplomats in the Foreign Office think that it is not such a good idea to stir up feelings that might upset our relationship with the new Syrian Government, by pursuing that terrible criminal. Even if he is dead—he would only be 88, and plenty of people of that age are still going strong today, including my father—it is important that the record is set straight if Syria, under its new regime, is to be taken seriously in the comity of international society.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is right about Brunner, and we know Brunner's record. However, is he aware that I initiated a debate in the late 1980s about a notorious Nazi war criminal, who was responsible for murder by exhaust fumes before the gas chambers existed? That mass murderer was living in Chile under his own name. In replying to that debate on behalf of the then Government, Malcolm Rifkind made it clear that, although he was obviously concerned, he would make no representations. So the hon. Gentleman is saying nothing unique; I am afraid that successive British Governments have taken that line.
  Dr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman sincerely for making that point. I hope that he acknowledges that in no sense am I trying to be party political. I strongly suggest
  264
  that, in both those cases, the Government of the day received official diplomatic advice on what was, or was not, a wise course to follow. The hon. Gentleman may have been out of the Chamber when I referred to Walter Rauff, whom I assume is the criminal that he mentions, and I entirely endorse the sentiments that he expresses.
  People such as Rauff, Mengele and Brunner deserve punishment in their own right; it is fit and meet that they should be punished, but there are many more positive reasons to support the principle of the International Criminal Court. For example, it will deter people in future now that Milosevic has been taken into custody, although not yet for trial in that court, it is true. Nevertheless, the principle is illustrated that a head of state who wants to wage aggressive and barbaric campaigns against civilians can no longer shelter behind the idea that, whoever else carries the can for the orders that he gives, he will be immune.
  The ICC will embarrass countries into taking action that they otherwise would not take. That point has been sufficiently illustrated already. For example, would the Latin American countries have harboured so many terrible Nazi criminals for so long if a court had been available to put pressure on them to give up those criminals? Would so many Nazis have been aided by countries and organisations, and even some parts of the Catholic Church, to escape the retribution that they so richly deserved?
  Would members of the SS Galicien division have been allowed into Britain, or having been allowed to enter—perhaps relatively innocently, although I find that hard to credit—would they have been allowed to settle here when questions were being asked about the wartime conduct of so many of the division's members? As a Labour Member said previously, would Idi Amin have found it so easy to continue to have sanctuary in Saudi Arabia?
  The fourth reason that I mentioned was to force other countries to try criminals in their midst. Once again, the recent arrest of Milosevic shows the benefit of that.
  I should like to spend a moment on the fifth reason, which is to prove that killings actually took place. We know only too well the evil of historical revisionism and of the activities of the Holocaust review organisations and of propagandists such as David Irving, Ernst Zündel in Canada and Fred Leuchter in America—who purported to produce a "scientific" report that the gas chambers had not really been gas chambers at all.
  I was deeply impressed by the foresight of the late Lord Bernstein and the late Alfred Hitchcock. When the death camps were opened at the end of world war two, they anticipated that the horror was on such a scale that future generations might fail to believe that it had ever occurred, so they produced the unforgettable film "A Painful Reminder". They visited the camps before the bodies were all buried and they took, with the widest-angled shots possible, a comprehensive cinematographic record of what was found, so that it would become as difficult as possible to deny that the atrocities had taken place.
  The final reason is to bring out aspects of the truth other than the fact that killings had taken place. I was reminded of that by an article in The Times today under the heading "I funded Bosnian war, says Milosevic". It reports that Milosevic
  "had conceded for the first time that he had covertly funded the Bosnian and Croatian Serb armies."

  265
  When he was asked to account for all the money that had disappeared, he said that
  "the details should be kept a state secret, since the money went to finance Serb rebellions against the secession from Yugoslavia of Croatia and Bosnia, as well as to Serbian security troops and 'anti-terrorist forces'.
  The funds, not included in official budget figures, were designed to circumvent the international embargo against Yugoslavia, he added."
  When we consider the period when our Foreign Office believed that Milosevic was acting as a brake on the activities of Karadzic, how extraordinarily useful it is to learn that those of us who suspected all along that Milosevic was fomenting and supporting such activities were correct.
  Even before I deal with the issue of war crimes, there are some other problems with the concept of the court. Those problems have been alluded to and I shall run through them in short order. The first is the concept of "victor's justice". That term has been applied to the Nuremberg tribunals, but no one would deny that the 20 volumes of detailed evidence of Nazi crimes that was gathered at Nuremberg are anything other than an historical source of the first significance. The record of the Nuremberg tribunals makes it extremely difficult to deny the nature of the Nazi regime—and, after a gap of 50 or more years, there would be no shortage of people who would try to do that if they thought that the evidence was not against them.
  There is also the argument about the "clean hands" of those sitting on the tribunals. It is true, for example, that Stalin had a judge sitting at Nuremberg. However, the fact that we cannot bring everyone to justice does not mean that we should not bring to justice those people who are capable of being put on trial.
  Perhaps a more serious objection relates to the issue of enforcement. Some criminals are too strong to be brought to trial. However, the idea is at least put in the back of their minds that, if one day in future they lose power, they may then be pursued and be held accountable for their actions. The court is still worth while from that point of view.
  Problems of access, such as to the atrocities in Afghanistan and Chechnya, have been touched upon, but who would have thought that the time would ever come when dictators such as Todor Zhivkov in Bulgaria or Erich Honecker in East Germany had to face the consequences of their disgraceful activities? That time did come and the court will make it more probable that it will come for other people.
  There is little disagreement about the court in respect of the issues of civilian atrocities, genocide and crimes against humanity. The real concern applies to whether normal military action or honest mistakes made during normal military action could end up being defined as war crimes. I sympathise with the doubts expressed by my hon. Friends on the Back Benches. We only have to consider the way in which some recent legislation abuses the concept of human rights to realise that people fear that the definition of a war crime could be stretched too far and thus undermine the principles that the court is being established to support.
  Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend touches on an important matter. Does he agree that members of all political parties
  266
  in this House and in the other place often express amazement at the frequency with which the decisions of successive British Governments are challenged in the European Court of Human Rights? Does he also agree that, despite the best intentions, there is a great danger that something that we would regard as legitimate might be ascribed by a rogue state, which is nevertheless a nominal signatory to the new statute, as a war crime and could result in lawful actions by our armed forces being brought before the new court?
  Dr. Lewis: That is precisely my point, although my hon. Friend puts it more succinctly. I hope that Labour Members can tell from the sincerity of my positive approach to the Bill that my reservation is also sincere. My hon. Friend articulates my concern well.
  It is often said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There is also a danger that the devil makes work for idle hands. The argument is finely balanced. There are advantages to a standing court: for example, it helps to avoid disputes over whether trials are held retrospectively, which is one of the criticisms of Nuremberg. The disadvantage is that people might be tempted to run to a standing court with complaints that would not be entertained if it meant establishing an ad hoc court to consider a specific problem. I am inclined to think that the balance is in favour of a standing court.
  On military action and warfare, there is a long and sad history of attempts to outlaw aspects of war by international law. The Washington naval treaty and the Geneva gas protocol of the 1920s were subsequently flouted. It was deterrence that prevented gas from being used by the combatants in the second world war. The experiences of the Jewish people who fell under Nazi control—including my relatives and those of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King)—prove that it was used against the helpless. Similarly, in 1939, at the outset of the second world war, our bombers were instructed not to bomb land targets for fear of collateral civilian casualties. They bombed ships only at sea. In a real war, such restrictions soon go out of the window. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) has ably made the point that the principle of nuclear deterrence could be challenged.
  I have a final question, to which I would appreciate a response. What happens if the United Kingdom tries and acquits a member of our armed forces who has been accused of a war crime? Is that the end of the matter, or can the ICC decide that it is not satisfied with the verdict and that it will intervene?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) drew my attention to article 17 of the Rome statute, which states:
  "the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:
  (a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;"
  or
  "(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute".
  I do not need to point out that the insertion of the word "genuinely" into both paragraphs begs many questions.

  267
  Conservative Members do not want killers to escape justice, or people who commit crimes against humanity to laugh in the face of world opinion, as they have done in the past. However, in our pursuit of thoroughly admirable aims, we do not wish innocent service men to be brought before an international court simply because the processes in our democratic society, whereby they have been found not guilty, are deemed insufficient by that court.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief because some hon. Members spoke at length and thus prevented others from taking part in the debate.
  Although I welcome the principle of the International Criminal Court, as I welcome many other conventions and processes that were introduced in the past century, we must be objective about the practical effect. For example, the League of Nations was promoted by a courageous American President, Woodrow Wilson, and eventually rejected by the United States Congress and Senate. It collapsed partly through non-adherence and partly because of non-US participation.
  In giving the Bill a Second Reading, we should convey the strong message that we support the principle of the International Criminal Court absolutely, and that we ask for no exemptions or opt-outs. The US position appears to be a willingness to sign the basic protocol in order to participate in the negotiations, and a determination to ensure that it has no jurisdiction over any US citizen. That is unacceptable.
  Conservative Members have gone on at length about the potential for a case against members of the British armed forces. Obviously, we hope that circumstances would not arise whereby such a case could be made. However, signing up to an international court process means acceptance of its jurisdiction over oneself as well as everybody else. Embarrassing and difficult though that might be, it is what international treaties are all about.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) asked why the process could not be applied retrospectively. That is a serious gap in the measure. The only international legal processes that have had any effect in recent years are the Nuremberg tribunals after the second world war, the tribunals on Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and the more limited tribunal on genocide in Cambodia. Many other cases deserve such international tribunals. I do not understand why at least selective retrospection cannot be applied to specific areas of conflict. For example, someone has to be responsible for the horrors in Afghanistan, where hundreds of thousands of people have died in the past 25 years. The methods that are used to deal with the conflict in Chechnya should also be the subject of a tribunal. Other examples include the conflicts in Congo and in Latin American countries.
  The process has been hastened by the actions of Spanish Judge Garzon in his successful attempt to have Pinochet arrested in London. It is unfortunate that Pinochet was not extradited to Spain, but returned to Chile on the Home Secretary's decision, which was based on medical advice. That advice was curiously overturned by a military hospital in Chile, which decided that he was fit to face trial.
  Unfortunately, the process in Chile is far from over. Pinochet has been trying exactly the same tactics of evasion, delay and endless supposedly medical arguments,
  268
  and he now seeks the diminution of charges against him. I am sure that the Members who were so keen not to extradite him to Spain on the ground that he should face prosecution in Chile will be concerned that he may still be evading prosecution in Chile in the future.
  I visited Chile in December; my visit is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. I witnessed the hope and the fear of Pinochet's victims, and their concern that he should face some kind of process. People told me then that they wished that there had been an international process not only against the military dictatorship in Chile between 1973 and 1990, but against all the dictators in the southern cone—Argentina, Uruguay and Chile—for their persecution of so many people in that part of Latin America.
  If ever there was a case for a special process, it has to be the investigation of Operation Condor, and all the horrors that went with it. However, I suspect that there will be no such international process, because it would be too embarrassing to too many people. The causes of injustice, as well as the symptoms—such as the military power that leads to the injustice later—have to be addressed. Those causes have to be the imbalance between rich and poor, the unaccountable power of the military, the interference of multinational companies in other countries, and the corruption of the political process. Any process relating to the examination of Operation Condor, for example, would obviously seek to indict generals in all those countries of Latin America, but it would also seek to examine the role of multinational corporations, of the Central Intelligence Agency, and of Henry Kissinger, whom I saw wandering around the House only two weeks ago. He would be in a good position to tell us about the covert operations of the United States at that time.
  Much has been said about state parties, and the need for a prosecution system against them. When the Minister replies, will he tell us whether he has any expectation that the ICC process will give any hope to the people of Colombia, for example? The number who have already died in the various conflicts there far exceeds the death toll of any other conflict in Central or South America in recent times. The death rate in Colombia is still accelerating, as a combination of militias, armed forces, drugs barons and unauthorised gangs engage in civil war. The losers, as ever, are the poorest people in the poorest part of that country. We should look more carefully at the reasons for conflict in the first place: the grab for land, minerals or power, which so often leads to injustice and the reigns of terror that result in the death of so many people.
  There are two specific areas of the Bill that I would like the Minister to deal with when he replies to the debate. The first concerns clause 23(4), which says:
  "The Secretary of State may in any particular case, after consultation with the ICC and the state concerned, direct that proceedings (or further proceedings) under this Part"
  shall not be taken against a person covered by subsection (1) or (2).
  I cannot understand why subsection (4) is in the Bill, and I hope that it can be removed in Committee or on Report. It seems suspiciously like an attempt to limit the jurisdiction of the ICC over this country. If we deplore other countries seeking opt-outs from particular parts of the provisions, we should not be seeking opt-outs

  269
  ourselves. The whole point of having an International Criminal Court process is that one accepts the principle in its entirety.
  The second area of concern, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) mentioned, is the definition of ordinary residence in the United Kingdom. I intervened on the Foreign Secretary earlier to ask about this, and he thought that there was not a problem. I invite him to look again at that part of the Bill. I have read some legal opinions on the matter, and it seems to me that there is the most enormous problem with that issue, which really should be addressed. Instead of applying the difficult criterion of residence or non-residence—anyone who has dealt with immigration law will be aware of the niceties of the terms "residence" and "non-residence"—we should apply the criterion that anyone present in this country at any one time who is indicted by the ICC should be subject to its jurisdiction within this country.
  The process that brought about the development of the International Criminal Court is based on the horror at the genocide that has taken place in so many parts of the world and at the millions of people who have died in conflicts. Although we obviously want an International Criminal Court process that can bring to justice the perpetrators of such crimes, we also want to ensure that it is not a political victors' court. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) for making that point. It must be a court that will genuinely try people without being subject to huge campaigns of outside pressure to gain convictions at all costs. It must be seen to be an objective and trustworthy place in which decisions can be made. I hope that we shall agree to that tonight.
  I return to the point with which I started. I urge the House to consider the causes of human rights abuses round the world and the need for sufficient expenditure by member states of the United Nations and its agencies to ensure that the processes of the International Criminal Court are carried out. Last week I attended the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva on behalf of Liberation, a non-governmental organisation in this country. We heard an excellent speech by Mary Robinson, followed by one by Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Tragically, Mary Robinson is not seeking reappointment as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights—[HON. MEMBERS: "She is."] She has changed her mind. Excellent! I was not aware of that.
  However, Mary Robinson made the point very effectively in her speech that if the UN is serious about human rights, it must give her and her office the resources, the staff and the finances to do the job. It is no good going round the world hand-wringing about human rights abuses if we do not give the international agencies the necessary support and authority to deal with them. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading tonight, but I believe that there are at least two serious flaws in it that I hope will be corrected in Committee or on Report. I also hope that we do not go down the road followed by US Presidents such as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and by the Conservative party, who say, "This should apply to everybody but me." That will be impossible if we are to go forward with any kind of process of international justice and international law.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: This is an extremely important debate, and I echo the remarks of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) in that respect. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) deplored the air of partisanship that had occurred in the debate; I deplore that as well. It was regrettable that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) considered it a matter for party political advantage that Conservative Members might oppose the Bill on Third Reading owing to the practicalities and problems inherent in it.
  This is an immensely important measure. The wider case for it was made extremely eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), and I pay tribute to him for an excellent speech. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) made an extremely pertinent point. She said that it was absolutely essential that the court should work. If it fails to work, we run the risk of undermining the stability of international relationships. The consequences would be as serious as that, and that is why this is such an important measure. The Bill has the capacity to undermine the willingness of the states that have policed the world since 1945 to carry on bearing that burden and undertaking that role.
  If the Bill works as we would like it to work, it may take us forward to a new order of international relations in which proper justice—the true justice that is blind—is administered to those who have carried out such crimes and is applied fairly and freely across the world. In that sense, the efforts behind the establishment of the criminal court and its incorporation in our criminal justice system are much to be welcomed. However, we must consider the background.
  In 1951, the United Kingdom undertook to sign up to the European convention on human rights, but it was never expected that our armed forces would be subject to it in the way that they are now. We are in such a position that I and, I am glad to say, my party have come to the view that such is the effect on our armed forces that it is necessary to seek a derogation from the terms of the convention, just as the French were able to do when they signed up to the treaty much later than us. Although the intentions behind the measure are fine, we must be able to tell our armed forces rather more than how it should be implemented. By and large, they will be the means by which the United Kingdom, as a member of the United Nations Security Council, fulfils the role and responsibility that it has taken on in international relations and in policing agreements put in place by the UN.
  We have our own interest in international stability, which will always be important to the United Kingdom. Ours is a nation of 60 million people, so it will remain important whatever happens in future. The effect on this country of such a measure will be out of all proportion to that on other countries, so we must be able to tell our armed forces that we know what we are letting them in for. That is why the concerns of the Chief of the Defence Staff, which have been virtually expressed on the record, have to be taken seriously.
  To put the matter in detailed focus for hon. Members, I shall relate the experience of a soldier in my old regiment, the 13th/18th Hussars, who happened to be my driver when I was a squadron commander in the late 1980s. I met him again in Bosnia when I was a special

  271
  adviser to Sir Malcolm Rifkind when he was Secretary of State for Defence. A few weeks earlier, that soldier had been involved in a firefight in which he had chosen to fire on Croatian Bosnians who were engaging with his troop of armoured cars.
  Through such actions, the British forces in Bosnia had achieved a reputation as ones that the bandits did not mess with. That reputation did not adhere to the other forces taking part in the UN operation, because they were not as resolute, not as well-trained and not as prepared at junior non-commissioned officer level to take decisions such as that taken by that soldier. If the Bill is not implemented in the way that we all desire, the consequence will be that our armed forces will lose the will to engage in such operations. The Chief of the Defence Staff has expressed concerns, and how the Bill works is fundamental.
  Mr. Browne: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. So that we can understand the environment in which the events that he is describing took place, can he explain whether that soldier was under the jurisdiction of the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia when he made those decisions? Was he prevented from making the right decisions by being subject to the tribunal's jurisdiction?
  Mr. Blunt: Of course, the answer is no. He was subject to that jurisdiction, but I know him and I would not imagine for a moment that he knew either that he was subject to a tribunal or the exact detail of what would happen to him in The Hague if things went wrong. That is another issue, but it leads me to how we teach soldiers the laws of war. That process has to be gone through to bring home to them the consequences of their actions. The more complicated we make that process, and the more detail there is, the more concern we cause the chain of command in relation to people being prepared to take responsibility, and to act in circumstances in which an instant judgment must be made about whether such action is proper.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman think his driver was aware that he was subject to the terms of the Geneva convention? If he was, is there any evidence to suggest that British forces in Bosnia or Kosovo have felt in any way inhibited by their responsibility to adhere to the terms of the convention?
  Mr. Blunt: I hope that he was. I probably taught him the lessons in the course of military training. However, to an extent the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right: in the terms of the Geneva convention and the laws of war, the actions that he took, according to his judgment, were correct.
  That is what will happen if the court works as we want it to work, but I fear that the way in which it is set up may mean that it will not. The state of Israel has declared its concerns about the way in which the treaty had been set up. Part of its declaration states:
  "At the 1998 Rome conference, Israel expressed its deep disappointment and regret at the insertion into the Statute of formulations tailored to meet the political agenda of certain states. Israel warned that such an unfortunate practice might reflect on the intent to abuse the Statute as a political tool."
  Given the terms of the treaty, I must say that I believe Israel may have a point. We should consider the way in which the judges will be elected. In that context, I urge hon. Members to note the detail of what is in the treaty, and what was agreed in the Rome statute.
  272
  The 18 judges will be elected on the basis of one state, one vote. I refer to states that are signatories to the statute, have acceded to it and have ratified it. That would put states such as Mali and Trinidad and Tobago on the same footing as others as large as the United States of America—if, that is, the United States were to become involved in the treaty. A state in the position of the state of Israel, having received the treatment that it has received at the hands of the General Assembly of the United Nations, can be expected to have concerns about the sort of people who will be elected, by secret ballot, as judges to decide these matters.
  Once the judges are in place in a permanent institution, that institution—as other hon. Members have said—will be under pressure to act, and to produce work to do. We have seen, both in the institutions of the European Union and in those of the European convention on human rights, judge-made law and the pushing back of its boundaries. Given the nature of the judges who might be elected to serve on the ICC, exactly the same might happen.
  Mr. Browne: I am interested by the hon. Gentleman's use of the phrase, "produce work to do". He will know that in the last 50 years of the last century, 860 million people died in conflicts throughout the world. Like other hon. Members, I suspect that, far from the tribunal looking for work to do, work will be queueing up to be done. The notion that the tribunal will go around the world for political reasons looking for work to do is fanciful, is it not?
  Mr. Blunt: I hope so, but what if the institution does not work in the way that we intend? What way of protecting the interests of the armed forces is open to us? I am afraid that the House must take account of such considerations. It must consider whether the 170 or 180 states belonging to the United Nations that could accede to the statute could produce an agenda that was against the interests of the permanent members of the Security Council—against, perhaps, the interests of the United States and the United Kingdom—such as the agenda that currently operates in the skies over Iraq.
  I should have thought that a large majority in the United Nations would say that the actions of our pilots in bombing Baghdad amount prima facie to a war crime. If the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence were not going to be put on trial in the UK, the International Criminal Court, if it had a majority of judges so willed, would seek leave to put a case. That is my concern. Potentially, the way in which the institution is set up will not act in the interests of global stability.
  Labour Members have properly advanced the argument that it is right to have an international system of justice and that it is not right for the United Kingdom to say that we should have an opt-out. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) made those points clearly. To an extent, he is right. We will subject ourselves, if the Bill becomes law, to the jurisdiction of the ICC. That is why it is so important, when we act to limit the sovereignty of our action and the ability to conduct our affairs as we would want, that we are confident that the institutions that we are setting up will meet our needs. In the end, our needs are met through nations such as the United States, Great Britain, France,

  273
  Germany—the great democracies of the world now—having the ability, to an extent, to influence and to police world affairs, as they have in the past.
  The United Kingdom and the United States have a proud record of protecting the interests of liberty and freedom in the decades since 1945. The issue is that, in the new world order to be policed by the ICC under the mechanisms set up in the Rome statute, there is a threat to our willingness to go on making the contribution in security terms. The threat has been made explicit in the United States, and I believe that the Senate will never ratify the statute. To an extent, that will undermine its whole effectiveness. The fact that we cannot get the United States to agree to the statute punches a huge hole through it. Of course, it was always going to be enormously difficult, with the traditions and history of the United States, to get the United States Senate to agree to the statute, but I do not believe that the set-up for the election of the judges, who in the end will make the decision, was ever going to be acceptable to the United States.
  Within the statute, greater account should have been given to the size and importance of countries. After all, that is why the United Nations Security Council was set up with five permanent members in 1945—it recognised the realities of the security issues of the day. I do not believe, on the amount of attention that I have been able to give to the statute and to the proceedings before us, that we can be satisfied that it does that. I regret that, so far, I have not been able to give the matter the attention that it deserves. I hope to have the opportunity to do so in Committee.
  9.35 pm
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: In December 1948, the United Nations Assembly first discussed the idea of an international criminal court. There is no doubt that tonight's debate is another small step on the road to achieving that aim—a road that has already taken well over 50 years. If it takes us a few weeks longer, it is understandable.
  There has been so much interest in the debate that not all hon. Members have been able to speak in it. However, Opposition and Government Front Benchers took many interventions, as did other speakers. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes)—to name just three hon. Members—are disappointed that they have not been able to speak, and we are sorry that we have not been able to hear their speeches.
  There is no doubt that there is great interest in the Bill's safe passage, if that is the will of the House. I shall speak only briefly—which will please the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who so kindly criticised the way in which I handled another Bill in Committee—because I want to give the Minister an opportunity to answer the many questions that have been asked. We shall be able to raise other issues in Committee.
  When the Foreign Secretary opened the debate, hon. Members—perhaps inevitably, in the context of this Bill—thought of the Balkans, particularly now that Milosevic has been arrested and there are discussions on
  274
  the point at which he should be sent to The Hague to face trial for the hideous crimes against humanity for which he is widely believed to be responsible. We want Milosevic to be arraigned at The Hague before too much time has passed, but we must, as I hope the Foreign Secretary will agree, respect the decisions of those who have to live most immediately with the consequences, and of course we wish them well.
  The Foreign Secretary also quite rightly pointed out the greater and wider interest in the Bill among non-governmental organisations, including Amnesty International. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was slightly waspish in his view of the Opposition's attitude and support for the Bill. At the same time, however. I join him in paying tribute to the legal team, under the leadership of Sir Franklin Berman, who negotiated on behalf of the United Kingdom. The Foreign Secretary said that our concerns were misplaced. He will therefore undoubtedly ensure that all our concerns are dealt with fully in Committee.
  In reply to the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) quite rightly reiterated the Opposition's broad support for the principle of the Bill and offered constructive support in working with the Government. He also raised the issues that are on everyone's lips and on which assurances and clarification are sought. Those issues were certainly raised in the speeches that we have heard today.
  The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie must agree with us on some of those issues, as he said that this is not a perfect Bill and that it will be an imperfect court. He also made the point that if we do not embrace the Bill, we will never have an international criminal court, but I take issue with him on that. Although he seemed to believe that any criticism of the Bill must be wrong, he asked various questions about it. He asked, for example, for further explanation of the powers of retrospection. I look forward to the amendments that he said he may table.
  The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie also expressed reservations about the United States' position—a theme that was taken up by other Members. Although he said that signing up to the statute was the only good thing that Clinton had done, he also said that the reservations that Clinton added to his signature were very disturbing.
  Sadly, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)—who has left the Chamber—was unable to speak in the debate, although she intervened to point out that the United States had an ambassador for war crimes. I hope that she will be able to serve on the Committee because I think that she could make a contribution to the Bill's passage.
  The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) gave his usual support to the Government and then turned to attack Conservative Members—no surprises there. However, he raised the important issue of the scrutiny of treaties in this place and the Ponsonby rules I hope that he will have the opportunity to raise that issue in Committee if he is fortunate enough to be a member. He also said that, in his 45 years in the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is 35".] My goodness, a week is a long time in politics! He said that

  275
  this is the most important legislation that the House has considered in the 35 years in which he has been an hon. Member.
  I should like to pay a small tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. This evening's speech may have been his last contribution to this House on a substantial piece of business—although he may have other opportunities, as the Government have another year to run. He has always brought a serious and courteous tone to debates, which I, for one, have appreciated. When he finally leaves this place, he will be much missed on all sides.
  I offer my apologies to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) as I was not in the Chamber for the totality of his contribution. However, I heard a small part of it, and I share his frustration that it took so long to get the Bill to Second Reading. He displayed his great knowledge of the Canadian legislation and its passage through that country's House. He felt that the Bill was a profoundly important piece of legislation. He has sustained a great interest in these matters over a long time, and he will make a valuable contribution to our deliberations on the Bill.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) speaks from great experience. He drew on the example of the Belgrano to explore what might have happened to our Prime Minister of the time and to members of the armed services if the Bill, as drafted, had obtained at that time. He raised issues about nuclear weapons that need to be discussed, and asked the important question about who judges. He also touched on the role of the prosecutor. My right hon. and learned Friend reflected the feelings of all Conservative Members when he said that he did not want to pour cold water on the noble aims of the Bill, but he noted that detailed examination was necessary when such complex and serious legislation is involved.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) confirmed that 139 countries had signed up to the statute, but that only 29 have ratified it so far. She echoed the aim expressed by many hon. Members that Britain should be among the first 60 countries to ratify the ICC. She quoted Kofi Annan—quite rightly so—but in so doing stole my thunder, and I shall not repeat the observation in question. The attention that she gave to national Holocaust day will be appreciated in the Chamber, and by a wider audience as well.
  The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) raised some uniquely important matters that must be discussed in Committee. He talked about the unique problems that may face the accused, and about those people's rights—an element that has been sadly lacking in debates to date on the ICC. He raised the spectre of the political court and of the pressures for a conviction in high-profile cases. He also spoke about the quality of justice—or, indeed, of mercy—and I feel sure that it would be valuable to explore more issues along those lines.
  The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) has made speeches on this subject before. Indeed, I was in the Chamber when she secured her Adjournment debate on 27 October 1999. She wants to pay particular attention to the concept of residence introduced by a Minister in another place, which she believes is causing confusion. She also used powerful examples from Rwanda, on which she is a great and
  276
  acknowledged expert. She challenged our attempts to protect the armed forces, and I look forward to pursuing those arguments in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) made his usual cogent and well-argued contribution. His was a powerful speech, which relied on his great and extensive knowledge of the second world war. He wanted to know what would happen if the UK tried a member of the armed services in the UK, and he inquired about the consequences of the results of such a trial.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) went on about Colombia, and again raised the issue of the definition of the phrase "ordinarily resident" as applied to the UK. He admitted that the Bill contains serious flaws that must be corrected in Committee.
  Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) gave the House the benefit of knowledge gathered during a distinguished Army career. He spoke about the consequences of the Bill for the armed forces.
  Finally, I would like to restate the points that were made in good faith by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, on examination of the Bill. So far, we believe that there should be four amendments—the seven-year opt-out provided for under article 124; the discretion for the Secretary of State over the issuing of warrants from the ICC through an interpretive declaration; the revision of the legal test under clause 65 for what a military commander ought to have known; and an amendment to ensure that if the Bill becomes law and ratification takes place, the declarations from the Government must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
  Despite some of the more immature asides from Labour Members, I believe that we have made progress tonight. In anticipation of a responsive dialogue with the Government on our attempts to protect our armed forces and to show that we wish the Bill well, we will not vote against it on Second Reading. However, I give due warning that we are not rubber-stamping this process and that if the safeguards that we ask for are not put in place, we will be unable, sadly, to support the Bill on Third Reading.
  9.46 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): We will be able to look back on tonight as the night that we introduced a Bill proposing putting the full weight of the House of Commons behind the establishment of the International Criminal Court. That will be a giant step forward for universal human rights and the rule of international law. For the first time, there will be a truly international body to try individuals responsible for the worst crimes known to humankind.
  It is a night that we can be proud of, and we can be proud of the pivotal contribution of the United Kingdom legal team to the creation of the ICC in the first place. The statute is an international agreement that results from a protracted negotiation. It is in the nature of international agreements that we cannot get all that we want. Nevertheless, the Bill is in good shape and the International Criminal Court is shaping up.
  Our aim in Rome was, above all, to secure an effective court that enjoyed the maximum international support. That was achieved to an extent that exceeded our

  277
  expectations. Even better, support for the court has been maintained and has even grown since Rome. More than two thirds of the international community has signed the ICC statute and we are encouraging all countries to do so. We are pleased that the United States is a signatory and we hope that it will in time also ratify the statute. We will continue to encourage all those who have not signed to do so.
  I know that many right hon. and hon. Members will be disappointed at being unable to take part in the debate. I think that for the first time in my 14 years, we have had a reflective and thoughtful debate on both sides of the Chamber. We have had a good turnout, with Members queueing to contribute. It is a pity that we do not have more time, but tonight's proceedings have reflected the seriousness with which the House is taking the matter. This is an international step forward.
  Detailed questions have been asked and I will do my best to respond to them in the brief time available to me. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) referred to the relationship between the international criminal courts that the previous Government set up in Rwanda and Yugoslavia. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the provisions were embedded in domestic law. Two Orders in Council were passed under the previous Government in 1996 in accordance with the United Nations Act 1946.
  I do not have time to go through all the right hon. Gentleman's amendments in detail, but he mentioned clause 65. Command responsibility is a well-established principle of international law that reflects the hierarchical structure of disciplined forces, but the language of clause 65 is taken directly from the ICC statute. There is nothing new or difficult in the language, but to exclude it or adopt different language would mean that a criminal responsibility could be prosecuted by the ICC but not by our domestic courts. In other words, ironically, it would increase the possibility of our service personnel being brought before the ICC. It is important for the protection of the armed forces that the test for command responsibility, under the statute and the Bill, remains the same. I look forward to the detail of any amendment that may be tabled on this point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said that it was important to welcome the Bill warmly and to be enthusiastic about it. He mentioned retrospection, and I shall refer to that later. He said also that we should be building a culture of justice against a culture of impunity; that was a good summary of the Bill.
  I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). This may have been his last speech in the House and he said that the Bill was one of the most important that he had debated in his 35 years here. He always makes thoughtful and reflective speeches, with his legal expertise on these matters, and we thank him for his contribution. He mentioned that he introduced the Tokyo Convention Bill, which started these debates some years ago.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) brought a wide-ranging historical perspective to the debate and showed that the purpose of the court will be to fulfil the historic ambition of
  278
  United Nations of nearly 50 years ago. We are getting there. He mentioned residence, and I shall return to that point.
  The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) spoke of the noble objectives of the Bill, and that has been an important part of the debate. We must not lose sight of the primary objectives. We must try to get the details right, but keep the objectives in mind. We are continuing to deal with difficult questions and terrible decisions in the context of international law, but we must get this international agreement up and running.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) reminded us that we must learn from the Holocaust, and from events in Rwanda, Cambodia and elsewhere. She also injected a note of urgency. The purpose of our activity tonight, and of taking the Bill into Committee, is that we are seeking to be one of the first 60 signatories to help to shape the court and to be involved in the process of saying who the judges are and what its procedures are—but we must be at the table.
  Mr. Blunt: The Minister has just said that we want to be one of the first 60 signatories in order to have a say in who the judges are. Will he confirm that we will have no more say than any or the other initial signatories?
  Mr. Battle: If we are not one of the 60, we will not have a say at all. I sensed a worrying theme in the hon. Gentleman's speech and interventions; he was worried about foreign judges, rather than about getting the court up and running.
  The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) raised a serious question about the rights of the accused. We will return to the matter in Committee, but part 6 and clauses 55 and 67 provide safeguards for the accused.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who has participated in such debates before, used a helpful phrase—"international institution-building". We are doing the best we can in the circumstances. I will return to the questions of universal jurisdiction and discretion that she mentioned.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has campaigned to tackle human rights abuses for some years and I know that he sees the Bill as a step forward. It will give hope to people whose human rights are abused. Incidentally, we can both welcome the fact that the UN High Commissioner has applied to extend her term for a further year.
  The question of residence came up in several speeches, along with that of universal jurisdiction. We have a long-established practice of taking universal jurisdiction only as part of international law. The problem is that the statute does not require universal jurisdiction, so we do not think that we should go it alone and unilaterally say that we will do it all if the court will not do it. We could debate that in further detail, but the principle is that we would not stand in the way of extradition to another state, as provided for in the Bill, or of transfer to the ICC, but we cannot set ourselves up as a substitute court and go further than is proposed in the statute.
  The concept of residence has clear links to UK law, including the War Crimes Act 1991 and the Sex Offenders Act 1997. There is a term in our law that is not the same as "presence" in the Canadian law.

  279
  Conservative Members stress their concerns about the armed forces. There is a fundamental misunderstanding, because we do not believe that the Bill poses a threat to our armed forces, and it will have no impact on their existing rules of engagement. The ICC makes no changes to the fundamental laws of war under which our forces operate, and which I assume are part of their training.
  I remind the House that the former head of the British Army legal services, Major-General Tony Rogers, wrote:
  "When carrying out attacks on military objectives, we are already under a treaty obligation not to cause disproportionate incidental loss and damage to civilian populations. The Geneva Conventions have been put to the test recently. I am lot aware we had any difficulties complying with our treaty obligations during the Gulf War of 1991 or the Kosovo war of 1999."
  The fear that the Bill would expose our services is unjustified.
  The Bill is no threat to our armed forces and it will make a real difference to the lives of potential victims. If we are seriously concerned about the court's effectiveness, the best way forward is to pass robust legislation, get the statute ratified quickly and call on other states to do the same, giving the court our full backing.
  The former prosecutor for the international tribunals in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, Judge Richard Goldstone, said:
  "I have no doubt that the fears are without justification at all. Firstly the war crimes defined in the Rome Statute are really the most serious war crimes intentionally continued. In the second place … the ICC … will not have jurisdiction at all … over a British citizen if the British military and civil courts investigate in good faith any allegations made."
  Our own law will cover the situation.
  We have a real opportunity to lead the way in setting up an international framework that will deliver and hold to account those individuals worldwide who are responsible for the worst crimes against humanity. Hitherto, there has been nowhere to bring to justice the Idi Amins, Pol Pots and Saddam Husseins, and there has been nowhere for the survivors of crimes against humanity to seek redress. We owe it to the history of the House and our parliamentary democracy to contribute actively and positively to putting the court in place.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  International Criminal Court Bill [Lords] (Programme)
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Battle: I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]:

  International Criminal Court Bill [Lords] (Programme)

    Standing Committee
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
    2.The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.
    3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 3rd May.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
    5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
    6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

    Lords messages
    7. 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 messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.
    We consider that 3 May is an appropriate date for the completion of the Committee stage—as the motion sets out. Detailed arrangements for the Committee sittings will, of course, be for the Programming Sub-Committee to decide.
    The Bill has already undergone much public debate and scrutiny. We invited consultation and we received more than 45 submissions from legal experts, human rights experts and professional bodies, which helped in drawing up the Bill. The Bill has undergone scrutiny in the other place. The level of concern expressed there and during the passage of the Bill to date leads us to conclude that the date we have proposed gives a reasonable time for its consideration. More important, it will allow us to get on with the Bill so that we, too, can sign up to the statute. It is important that we are among the first 60 states to sign, so that we can be part of the formative process.
    I ask the House to accept the motion.
    10.1 pm
    Mrs. Gillan: The way in which the Minister has just moved the motion takes my breath away. He has decided that 3 May is the appropriate date and feels that the Bill has already undergone sufficient public debate and scrutiny.
    We are lucky that the Bill is even going into Committee. The Prime Minister's decision to postpone the general election has undoubtedly given us extra time in

    281
    this Session, for which I suppose we should be grateful. Only two weeks ago, it looked as though we would be unable to examine the Bill as it deserves—given the unresolved concerns that have already been expressed both in the Chamber and, earlier this year, in another place. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said in his opening remarks on Second Reading, the concerns of those whom the Bill will most affect—the armed services—should and must receive the full attention and scrutiny of the House.
    The Minister claims that the Bill received full scrutiny in the other place and that the fact that it underwent a consultation process, in which 45 submissions were made, is sufficient to justify this appalling timetable motion. Once again, an intellectually bankrupt programme motion is before the House; it effectively restricts the length of time during which elected Members can discuss an important measure.
    Even before the measure is out of the starting gate in this place, the Minister tries to set down the parameters that—in his view—give a reasonable time. In whose judgment is the time reasonable? Is it just that of the Minister? Is it that of his advisers? Is it that of the Government? Is it that of No. 10? Is it that of the Minister's Cabinet colleagues? Is it that of the Foreign Secretary, or indeed that of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), whose immature interventions during Second Reading added nothing to the scrutiny process?
    Mr. Forth: May I try to help my hon. Friend? She speculates that the date may have been determined by No. 10. I suggest that that is most unlikely as No. 10 is incapable of deciding any date relating to anything at any time.
    Mrs. Gillan: My right hon. Friend may say that, but I could not possibly comment—although we all know exactly what he means: No. 10 seems to be incapable of making a decision without consulting ex-Cabinet Ministers and various other people.
    The Minister is getting hot under the collar. No doubt he will get even hotter under the collar when he realises that he could have delivered the Bill by taking a much healthier and more mature approach to the scrutiny process. He could have dealt with it in the spirit in which we have tried to co-operate, without using the heavy hand of a timetabling motion at the eleventh hour of this Government.
    The Minister's argument relies on the consultation process, during which, he says, he received 45 submissions. I remind him that the original statement on the matter was made on 20 July 1998, but that it took until 25 August last year for a Bill to appear. All that time passed before this desperately required legislation, which has to be rushed through now so that Britain will be among the first 60 countries to participate, emerged. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the Minister is shouting, "Consultation, consultation, consultation." Where have I heard a word repeated three times before?
    Let me remind the Minister of a few facts about the consultation. The Bill was published on 25 August, and it was announced that the consultation period would last until 12 October. The House was in recess at the time,
    282
    so Members had a fine chance to be involved in the consultation. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary pointing out that the entire process was taking place during the recess, and he very generously extended it to 27 October. He wrote to me on 9 October about that, but obviously the Department was in recess because the letter did not arrive in my office until 17 October.
    The House returned on 23 October, and you, Mr. Speaker, will remember what we were doing on that day because it was a matter of great importance to yourself—we were electing the Speaker of the House. It is hard to imagine that Members would have had the opportunity thoroughly to consult and examine the Bill on the first day back, when they were electing the Speaker. In fact, the Foreign Secretary's generosity gave Members a full three days during which the House was sitting to make their submissions. When the Minister prays in aid the fact that the matter has already had sufficient public debate and scrutiny, he is trying to cheat the public of their debate and scrutiny by giving a false impression.
    Mr. Maclennan: In the light of the nice remarks that the hon. Lady made about me earlier, I am somewhat reluctant to intervene, but I have to say that, if she continues in this vein, she may give sustenance to the view that is widely held by the public—which in my view is erroneous—that when the House is in recess, MPs are not working. One might draw that conclusion from the fact that neither the hon. Lady nor her party chose to give evidence to the Government during the consultation. However, it was perfectly possible to do so, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) did.
    Mr. Speaker: That was a long intervention.
    Mrs. Gillan: It was a great pleasure to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I assure him that he can be as nasty to me as he likes, even though I made nice remarks about him. I do not think that he was being particularly nasty; it was a gentle savaging of the cotton-wool type.
    I would not want to give the impression that hon. Members do not work during the recess, but it is not outwith the bounds of possibility that certain hon. Members who work extremely hard and take their business in this place very seriously will take a few days off from time to time, and it is not outwith the bounds of reasonableness that they should do so during the recess. I feel that a Government who made such a song and dance about introducing legislation as long ago as 20 July 1998 could have managed a consultation process that fell mainly during the time when the House was sitting.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Lady's giving way on that point because she will remember that she and I debated the issue at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference during the recess in September, and I was on the winning side in saying that such legislation should be introduced. Have we been helped, yet again, by events? If it had not been for recent events, we would not have been able to debate the Bill on 3 May. There is an argument about incisiveness. Why should the Bill be rushed now that it seems we have time left to us that we did not have before?
    Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Indeed, I thoroughly enjoyed debating the merits

    283
    of the International Criminal Court in the forum of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference last summer. When other hon. Members were in recess, the hon. Gentleman and I were working on behalf of the United Kingdom.
    Frankly, as I said in my opening remarks, this is happening by luck, not by judgment. I have no doubt that the Government are trying to slip the Bill through the House, but the fact that the general election date has been delayed to 7 June gives us an opportunity. Why has the Minister chosen the arbitrary date of 3 May? What arrogance leads him to think that he can decide the date on which we shall finish the Bill's scrutiny? What does he know that the rest of us do not? What is he privy to that he is not sharing with the House?
    We must find out how the timetable fits in with the general election being called on 7 June, which we all know is the current intention—at least before something else blows the Prime Minister off course. The Bill is to leave the Standing Committee on Thursday 3 May. Monday 7 May is a bank holiday, so there will be no chance of business being conducted in the House, unless the Minister wants to change that convention. The Government think that we will be able to fit in the debate on Report on 8, 9 or 10 May—the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday—on a very tight timetable, in time to call the election on 14 May for 7 June.
    In fact, the arbitrary date—3 May—that the Minister, like Solomon, has proposed in his wisdom, is the exact date that fits a possible parliamentary timetable to try to slip the Bill through quickly before an election on 7 June. How convenient. How artificially constructed. The Government have callously arranged to get whatever legislation they want, irrespective of the will of the House. To see the callous objectivity that the Government bring to the scrutiny of legislation, we need only look at the date given for the consideration of the Adoption and Children Bill. Was the date given to that Bill 3 May? That Bill was expected to fall; the general election was expected to occur before it was considered, so an arbitrary date of 12 June was set.
    It is obvious that the Government are happy to allocate dates outside the timetable that they have set to Bills that they do not think essential and in reality want to block. We all know that they want to plan the political timetable to their own advantage. That can he seen clearly in this disgraceful timetable motion.
    How on earth can the Minister choose the date before we know how many amendments will be tabled? What arrogance makes him think that he can second-guess the will of Members? During the Bill's consideration in another place, more than 100 serious amendments were tabled, and they took many hours to debate, raising some of the most complex and unresolved issues. Those issues still stand unresolved today.
    The Minister should hang his head because despite the fact that, according to him, the Bill is supposedly perfect, after the enormously elaborate process of scrutiny to which he referred, the Government still had to amend it in the other place. That shows the irony of having an unreasonably short consultation process and then introducing a Bill that had to be amended in another place because the Government had not thought of everything. Who is to say whether more fundamental flaws in the Bill will or will not be identified? However, before we can see
    284
    the amendments, the time allowed for the Bill's passage will have been decided by a Minister who has only just taken on this brief. The hon. Gentleman is the third Minister to have handled this business since 1998. The fact that he is the third Minister to have tried to get to grips with it may explain why the Bill has not been introduced in a more timely fashion.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is developing a cogent case against the way in which the Government intend to proceed. Does she not agree that it is further evidence of the importance of changing the procedure whereby a Programming Sub-Committee meets in private and has its composition polluted by virtue of the presence of a Government Whip?
    Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend panders to my prejudices. My first Programming Sub-Committee, which met in secret, was a deeply unsatisfactory occasion. A powerful case has been made for re-examining the procedures that have been thrust on the House and for changing them, so that the will of the House and Members' representations are taken into consideration.
    The Bill has six parts, 84 clauses and 10 schedules. By its very nature, it involves serious constitutional issues. Its fundamental aims are not the source of acrimonious dispute within the House or between the parties, but it is a large Bill by any standards and serious concerns were aired on Second Reading, by Government as well as Conservative Members.
    Introducing a Bill such as this at the eleventh hour and imposing a timetable motion at this stage is quite inappropriate. The motion flies in the face of the assurances that the Foreign Secretary gave to the House. In a debate on the International Criminal Court, he said:
    "I deal finally with the question of ratification. This will not be a swift or fast-track process."
    It certainly has not been a swift or fast-track process because the Government themselves have delayed it. However, the right hon. Gentleman added:
    "We are now arranging to draw up the appropriate legislation, but that legislation will be complex. It is not legislation that I would dream of asking the House to pass in a one-day sitting, as happened with the landmines treaty, because I suspect that it will contain many clauses that will give lawyers many hours of fruitful debate as it passes through the House. Therefore, it is not something which the House should imagine will be rushed through".—[Official Report, 20 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 807.]
    What price that assurance today? We have a timetable motion that will give the Committee a maximum of 10 sittings before 3 May, the marvellous date that has been plucked out of the air to suit a political timetable and the convenience of the Government.
    I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the Bill should not be rushed through. As the right hon. Gentleman said, five weeks of difficult and intensive negotiations led up to the Bill. The Minister is chatting away and is so disengaged from the debate that it is unbelievable, but may I ask him whether any restrictions were imposed on those negotiations at the time? Were they curtailed by a programme motion? Of course not, because that would have been ridiculous, but yet again the House faces the indignity of a forced timetable from this rotten Government.

    285
    The erosion of the democratic process under this Government seems to be inevitable. In the House these days, we are asked to deem that we have scrutinised Bills that we have not scrutinised; we truncate the scrutiny by elected Members of legislation that can affect the lives and deaths of individuals; and we refuse to allow elected representatives to fulfil their obligations. All hon. Members are obliged to contribute and do their best to improve legislation. The principles behind the programme motion show the contempt in which the Government hold the parliamentary process and the Chamber. Once again, without an apology, we have a second-rate proposal from a second-rate Government. It will come as no surprise to the Government that we will vote against it.
    10.20 pm
    Mr. Eric Forth: Although the Bill may be lousy, it is substantial. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said, legislation that contains 84 clauses and 10 schedules should give us pause for thought. Without wanting to go into detail, a mere perusal draws my eye to important matters such as requests for arrest and surrender, bail and custody, entry, search and seizure, fingerprints or non-intimate samples, detention in the United Kingdom in pursuance of an ICC sentence, genocide and "mental element". There is more than enough material to require proper lengthy and detailed consideration, not least, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) explained at the outset, because the Opposition want to draw the Standing Committee's attention to substantial matters. We will want to persuade the Government that serious and proper amendments should be made before the Bill can receive our support.
    If the past is anything to go by, the Bill's size, the nature of its content, and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham said all make it clear that the Committee's consideration will take some time. I assume that the Committee of Selection will meet tomorrow and the Standing Committee will sit next Tuesday. As that will be one of those funny early bunk-off days, it will not be able to deliberate at length and will not sit again until 24 and 26 April and 1 and 3 May. That leads us into interesting and worrisome territory, because 3 May might be too distant.
    Let us turn the argument on its head. If the Government are serious about getting the Bill enacted, and given the Prime Minister's intention to hold the elections on 7 June—if we can believe anything he says—and hence the day when dissolution will have to take place, there is a distinct risk that it may not make progress. Frankly, that would not cause me a minute's loss of sleep.
    Mr. Maude: Many of the concerns that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) raise involve the connection between the timetable and the date of the general election. As the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is in the Chamber, would it not be simpler to ask him to confirm the date? We understand that he is pulling the strings from behind the scenes and he could clear the matter up for good.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a programme motion.
    Mr. Forth: What a pity, because that was getting interesting. I shall try to leave the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) out of it, unless he wants to intervene.
    The date of 3 May is important, not just because its otherwise historic importance slipped by while our vacillating Prime Minister tried to make up his mind. The main question that we must consider is not why the end date is 3 May and whether the Government have made the correct calculations, but whether they have put the Bill at risk by choosing that date. I hope that they have. Worse, they are caught in a dilemma between allowing the Committee reasonable time in which to consider the Bill properly and granting the measure a reasonable opportunity of succeeding.
    I believe that the Government have fallen between two stools. We will not get enough time to scrutinise and consider the Bill properly, nor will we give the measure the maximum opportunity of succeeding. That is typical of the Government, who do not understand the operation of the House. They do not care, they are not interested, and, therefore, they are in danger of getting matters tragically wrong yet again.
    We have witnessed a succession of cock-ups, misjudgments and Government mishandling, which mean that Bills fail or do not receive proper consideration. If they get pushed through in a peremptory fashion, the Government have to correct them later.
    Mr. Bercow: The need for urgency in legislation is greatly overstated and overrated. I speak as someone who is probably regarded as feeble, pathetic, hand-wringing, moisture-emitting and wet, because I believe that there is much merit in the Bill. There is no urgency about its passage that should prevent lengthy, civilised, detailed and comprehensive discourse on its contents for as long as necessary before deciding whether to pass ut.
    Mr. Forth: That intervention is helpful because it is made by a self-confessed enthusiast for the ghastly measure. It also puts matters in context.
    We have doubts about the Committee stage, but matters get materially worse on Report and Third Reading. This arrogant Government with their hobnailed boots have provided that
    "proceedings on consideration shall … be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day."
    That applies regardless of other business. More emergency measures may have been tabled by then. The Government have turned the emergency into the routine in a way that we could hardly have foreseen.
    Moreover, statements may be made. In your generosity, Mr. Speaker, you may grant a debate under Standing Order No. 24. The Government ignore such matters and confidently tell the House that, regardless of proceedings in Committee or intervening events, deliberations on Report and Third Reading will be completed by nine o'clock. That is outrageous for a Bill of this size, even given the truncated Committee stage for which the motion allows. Yet the Government employ that approach time and again. They are not interested in proper scrutiny; they

    287
    are relaxed about pushing through defective legislation, even on an important subject such as the Bill allegedly is to some people, and then trying to correct it later.
    The Minister and his colleagues like to strut around the international stage, attend ridiculous conferences and ludicrous get-togethers and gatherings, puff out their chests and feel important. I should have thought that they would want to tell other important international figures that they had got the measure right—but no. They are so casual about even their international contacts and junketings that they do not care whether the Bill is right.
    The measure will be shoved through an inadequate Committee stage, nodded through a ridiculous Report and Third Reading, and the Government assume that they will get it right. I am sorry, not for the Government, but for my country, because it is represented by such inadequates as those on the Labour Front Bench. They affect to strut around the international stage, and put us at risk of getting the measure completely wrong. That would be bad enough with a domestic matter, but with a global, galactic matter such as this, I would have thought that it was rather important to get things right.
    Mrs. Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, but I am trying to conclude my speech now.
    Mrs. Gillan: My right hon. Friend is making some very important points, but does he agree that one would expect the Government at least to take into account the views of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who is in his place now? On 11 December, in this Chamber, he said:
    "there must be proper scrutiny, as the Bill is highly technical and needs a certain legal expertise."—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 410.]
    Is that not an admission that even the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee believes that there must be proper scrutiny? Moreover, the Bill is so complex that I understand that the Minister will be joined in the Committee by one of the Law Officers, which goes to show that the right hon. Member for Swansea, East is right. What does my right hon. Friend think of that?
    Mr. Forth: Given the Minister's inadequacy, I am not surprised that he needs a crutch or prop, in the shape of one of his colleagues, to help him in the Committee. I certainly agree that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee is extremely influential, important and senior—
    Mr. Blunt: And respected.
    Mr. Forth: And respected—and we should listen to what he says.
    This matter now stands exposed for what it is. It is a travesty; it is nonsense. I hope that the House will throw the programme motion out so that we have the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill properly and do it justice.
    10.31 pm
    Mr. Donald Anderson: I have never been described as a crutch or a prop before—but in all humility, I have to admit that I agree with those wise words that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee uttered last December.
    288
    There is a certain easy familiarity about our debates on programme motions, and I sometimes feel rather as if I am watching one of those bad films and saying, "Isn't this where I came in?". The cast is almost invariably the same. Sometimes the arguments are good and sometimes they are bad. I suspect that tonight they are rather more flimsy than normal—although that does not stop the Opposition dipping into their pool of hyperbole and railing at the Government. Indeed, I believe that as his hyperbole rose to an ever higher pitch, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggested that the programme motion was not only a gross disservice, but a "galactic" disservice to the House.
    I shall not be unkind to the hon. Member for Chesham because we all like her, but she was trying to make bricks without straw. I was reminded of a friend who, very nervously, appeared before the Court of Appeal for the first time. After he had been speaking for a quarter of an hour or so, one of the judges said, "Mr. X, is that your best point?". My friend quivered, "My lord, it is my only point."
    Similarly, I thought that the hon. Member for Chesham had one good point, which was that the Government were at fault in delaying the publication of the Bill. There may have been good technical reasons for that, because of the pressure from other directions on the parliamentary draftsmen—but the Government were at fault because of the very long delay. We in the Foreign Affairs Committee pointed that out. Indeed, for some time we had been urging the Government to get on with it.
    The hon. Lady said, among other things, that two weeks ago it did not look as if the Bill would have the time that it deserved. Since then, however, things have changed. I do not know to what extent the change was influenced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), but now we have at least the possibility of having enough time, if we act reasonably. The hon. Lady admitted that we now had the opportunity to hold at least 10 sittings. I would have thought that adequate, especially as the Opposition will be able to select the key elements debated within that time, and in view of the fact not only that there has been considerable input from outside specialists during the consultation period—as great, probably, as that regarding any Bill of this nature—but that there has been a very learned legal trawl through the Bill in another place.
    Mrs. Gillan: I would just like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that I am the Member for Chesham and Amersham. The "and Amersham" is very important.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, even though there is a possibility of our having 10 sittings in Committee, there is no constitutional guarantee that any of those sittings will take place? During our deliberations on the International Development Bill, when no Chairman was available to chair the Committee, we lost some time from the scrutiny of that Bill. That time could not be put back into the process later. So even though it might appear that there will be 10 sittings, there might not be. That point was partly made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) when he spoke about emergency legislation, SO24s, or whatever, in the House possibly bringing to a halt the anticipated process. Will the right hon. Member for

    289
    Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) accept that there is no guarantee of 10 sittings taking place and that the programme motion is therefore bankrupt?
    Mr. Anderson: May I say first that I meant no disrespect to the good people of Amersham, and I hope that the hon. Lady will convey my personal regrets to them for failing to mention them?
    Of course there is no guarantee, as the right hon. Member for Chislehurst—
    Mr. Bercow: And Bromley.
    Mr. Anderson: I am sorry. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will convey my apologies to Bromley.
    Of course there is no guarantee of 10 sittings, but the Government would lay themselves open to criticism if they did not give adequate time for debate. I hope that some parliamentarians on the Government Benches would be equally ready to criticise them if they did not provide that time. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst pointed out that there could be a number of occasions on which that time might be truncated because of statements, and so on. However, this is a matter of good faith. Clearly the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has no faith at all in the Government, but I tend to have a little more than her.
    The key foreign policy point is that if we were not to meet the deadline of 3 May, the Bill would not pass during this Parliament.
    Mr. Forth: Good.
    Mr. Anderson: That, however, would cause considerable difficulty and would be against the interests of this country. The Bill would then have to be revived in the next Parliament, and might not become law thereafter until, perhaps, the end of this year. There would be considerable slippage, and all the advantages of the Bill's becoming law—in terms of providing a model and setting a precedent for other countries, of showing what we can do, and of being among the first 60 states to ratify the agreement—would be lost. That would do a great disservice to this country. I believe that we have sufficient time—Goldilocks-like: not too long, not too short—in the 10 sittings adequately to scrutinise the Bill and to ensure that this country honours its international obligations.
    10.38 pm
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: This is a serious debate on an extremely important Bill. The right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson)—I shall not forget the "East"—may have recognised that many of us on the Opposition Benches feel that this is yet another example of the Government's arrogance in wishing to steamroller through legislation without giving it proper scrutiny. That has become a hallmark of this Government, and every time they move a programme motion we shall speak against it, even though the journalists have gone to bed.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) was absolutely right to expose the Government's intention to shoe-horn the Bill through in time for the general election. Of course the right hon.
    290
    Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is here, but he is not here just to report back to the Prime Minister. He is also here to report back to Mr. Trevor Kavanagh, the man who really makes the decisions about when general elections are to be held.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham was absolutely right to point out that we have not had the opportunity properly to scrutinise the legislation today and my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Foreign Secretary, has already said that we shall table a number of amendments in Committee. The idea that they can be debated in 10 sittings and receive proper scrutiny in the House on Report was demolished by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who said that only four hours may be available to the House to consider amendments that may have been accepted in Committee. However, I have to say that the chances of amendments being accepted are remote, given the way that the Government treated the Bill in the other place.
    The Bill is extremely important and it has huge potential consequences for our armed forces. The first duty of the House is to ensure that the nation is properly defended. That means ensuring that our troops have the equipment that they need and proper conditions in which they can serve their country and perform the duties laid on them by this or any Government. This Government have been keen to deploy our troops, so the potential consequences for them when they go into battle are serious indeed.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please confine his remarks to the programme motion?
    Mr. Howarth: Thank you for reminding me of that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my point is that although there are serious issues at stake, even some Members who were in the Chamber—let alone those who saw how many hon. Members wanted to speak but left to fulfil other responsibilities after taking the view that they had no chance of getting in—did not have the opportunity to contribute.
    Many Members want to speak on the matter. They also want to know how the Bill will be dealt with in Committee and whether the Government will accept amendments tabled by the Opposition. If the Government are not prepared to accept amendments, we shall have not 10 sittings, but perhaps only four or four and a half hours in which to consider the Bill on Report. Certainly, five and a half hours will be available at the absolute maximum. That is a grave discourtesy to the House and a grave discourtesy to our armed forces, which will be much affected by the Bill.
    Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government consider their proposed timetable adequate because they envisage not no debate on amendments, but merely, in the style of the Foreign Secretary, their dismissal? Will not their approach be characterised, as was the Foreign Secretary's speech, by arrogance, presumption and disdain for any alternative point of view?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend's lexicon of adjectives with which to describe the Foreign Secretary is rather meagre. He could provide many more.

    291
    The debate is extremely important for another reason: the United States has not ratified the treaty. We have not had the opportunity to discourse at length on that matter. Some senior figures in the United States have described the International Criminal Court—
    It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
    The House proceeded to a Division.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
    The House having divided: Ayes 310, Noes 137.

    Division No. 173]

    [10.44 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clwyd, Ann

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Ainger, Nick

    Cohen, Harry

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Coleman, Iain

    Colman, Tony

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Connarty, Michael

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Ashton, Joe

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Corston, Jean

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cousins, Jim

    Austin, John

    Cox, Tom

    Bailey, Adrian

    Cranston, Ross

    Banks, Tony

    Crausby, David

    Barnes, Harry

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Barron, Kevin

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Battle, John

    Cummings, John

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Darvill, Keith

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Davidson, Ian

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Benton, Joe

    Dawson, Hilton

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Berry, Roger

    Dismore, Andrew

    Best, Harold

    Dobbin, Jim

    Blackman, Liz

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Blizzard, Bob

    Doran, Frank

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Dowd, Jim

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Drew, David

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Browne, Desmond

    Edwards, Huw

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Burgon, Colin

    Ennis, Jeff

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Etherington, Bill

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Fisher, Mark

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Flint, Caroline

    Cann, Jamie

    Flynn, Paul

    Caplin, Ivor

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Casale, Roger

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Caton, Martin

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Foulkes, George

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Chaytor, David

    Galloway, George

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Gapes, Mike

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clelland, David

    Goggins, Paul

    292

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McFall, John

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McNulty, Tony

    Grogan, John

    MacShane, Denis

    Hain, Peter

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McWalter, Tony

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McWilliam, John

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hanson, David

    Mallaber, Judy

    Healey, John

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Heppell, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Hesford, Stephen

    Maxton, John

    Hill, Keith

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hinchliffe, David

    Meale, Alan

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Merron, Gillian

    Hoey, Kate

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hope, Phil

    Miller, Andrew

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Moffatt, Laura

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Mountford, Kali

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Mudie, George

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Mullin, Chris

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Hurst, Alan

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Hutton, John

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Illsley, Eric

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Olner, Bill

    Jamieson, David

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jenkins, Brian

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Pearson, Ian

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Pike, Peter L

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Plaskitt, James

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Pond, Chris

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Pope, Greg

    Joyce, Eric

    Pound, Stephen

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Kemp, Fraser

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Khabra, Piara S

    Purchase, Ken

    Kidney, David

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Rammell, Bill

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Rapson, Syd

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Laxton, Bob

    Leslie, Christopher

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Levitt, Tom

    Rooney, Terry

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Roy, Frank

    Linton, Martin

    Ruane, Chris

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lock, David

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Love, Andrew

    Salter, Martin

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Sheerman, Barry

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Macdonald, Calum

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    293

    Skinner, Dennis

    Truswell, Paul

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Tynan, Bill

    Soley, Clive

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Spellar, John

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Wareing, Robert N

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Watts David

    Stevenson, George

    White, Brian

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Williams Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Stringer Graham

    Winnick, David

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Wood Mike

    Woodward, Shaun

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Woolas, Phil

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Worthington, Tony

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Timms, Stephen

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Touhig, Don

    Mr. Graham Allen and

    Trickett, Jon

    Mr. Clive Betts.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Fallon, Michael

    Allan, Richard

    Flight, Howard

    Amess, David

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Fraser, Christopher

    Bercow, John

    Gale, Roger

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Garnier, Edward

    Blunt, Crispin

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Boswell, Tim

    Gibb, Nick

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Gill, Christopher

    Brady, Graham

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Brazier, Julian

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Gray, James

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Green, Damian

    Burns, Simon

    Greenway, John

    Butterfill, John

    Grieve, Dominic

    Cash, William

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Hammond, Philip

    Hawkins, Nick

    Chope, Christopher

    Hayes, John

    Clappison, James

    Heald, Oliver

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Horam, John

    >Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Collins, Tim

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Cran, James

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Day, Stephen

    Key, Robert

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Duncan, Alan

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Leigh, Edward

    Evans, Nigel

    Letwin, Oliver

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    294

    Lidington, David

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Sanders, Adrian

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Loughton, Tim

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

    Luff, Peter

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Spring, Richard

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Streeter, Gary

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Swayne, Desmond

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Syms, Robert

    Madel, Sir David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Maples, John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Mates, Michael

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Townend, John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Trend, Michael

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Norman, Archie

    Viggers, Peter

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Walter, Robert

    Öpik, Lembit

    Waterson, Nigel

    Ottaway, Richard

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Page, Richard

    Whittingdale, John

    Paice, James

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Wilkinson, John

    Prior, David

    Willetts, David

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Willis, Phil

    Rendel, David

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Yeo, Tim

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Ruffley, David

    and

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Mr. Owen Paterson.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order N0. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
    That, for the purpose: of any Act resulting from the International Criminal Court Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

    (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the Act;

    (b) the payment out of such money or the Consolidated Fund of sums in respect of contributions or benefits in respect of judicial pensions arising in connection with the appointment of the holder of a United Kingdom judicial office as a judge of the International Criminal Court;

    (c) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

    Question agreed to.

    Christmas Day (Trading) Bill [Money]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    10.59 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.
    As drafted, the Christmas Day (Trading)—[Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly so that this debate, can commence?
    Mr. O'Brien: As drafted, the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill may have some small expenditure implications for the Treasury purse, and a money resolution is therefore required. The small amount of extra expenditure would be in respect of inspectors to enforce the prohibition on the opening of large shops on Christmas day.
    Only a handful of such shops have so far opened on Christmas day, and enforcement should be assisted by the fact that advance local publicity would almost certainly be required if large shops intended to open in future. Although the implications are relatively small, it is none the less appropriate to put this motion before the House.
    11 pm
    Mr. Eric Forth: At least the Minister has taken the trouble, on this occasion, to come to the House and give a brief explanation of the money resolution. For that, I suppose we should be grateful, but I am not sure that the Minister said enough to persuade me that the resolution should be approved—at least, not without some further thought.
    The Bill has far-reaching ramifications. It may be short, which is commendable in a private Member's Bill, but it has substantial implications. Clause 1 is entitled "Large shops not to open on Christmas Day", and that gives a fair idea of what the Bill is about. The schedule to the Bill gives some indication of the ramifications.
    I shall pass over what I believe is a grammatical error in the first line of the schedule, which states:
    "It shall be the duty on every local authority to enforce within their area".
    I should have thought that the phrase "its area" would have been more appropriate. Perhaps we should vote money for literacy lessons for parliamentary draftsmen and Home Office officials, so that the Bill could be got right. That would be a proper use for money flowing from the money resolution.
    I exonerate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) from any blame for that error, as I suspect that the Bill was drafted either by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers or by the Government, or a bit of both.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I do not always rise to the right hon. Gentleman's bait,
    296
    but I cannot let him get away with something on which he is totally wrong. The Bill was not drafted by USDAW or the Government.
    Mr. Forth: In that case, the hon. Lady must plead guilty to the grammatical error that I have pointed out, but I shall not hold that against her.
    The resolution would allow the effects of the responsibilities outlined in the schedule to be carried out. The schedule states, grammar notwithstanding, that local authorities are to be given an additional responsibility to enforce the provisions of clause 1(1) in their areas. It continues:
    "For the purposes of these duties under paragraph 1 … it shall be the duty of every local authority to appoint inspectors".
    It adds that those inspectors may already have been appointed as inspectors by the local authority. However, they may not have been so appointed, which means that additional inspectors might have to be appointed so that local authorities can properly discharge the duties laid on them by the Bill.
    Therefore, the Minister was not right to brush aside or minimise the Bill's financial impact. How many inspectors would be required adequately to police shops on Christmas day? People paid by the hour would be on double or triple time. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will know more about that sort of thing than I, and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich certainly knows a lot about it. Perhaps she will tell the House later in the debate whether inspectors would be paid triple time on Christmas day as they go around ensuring that all the large stores do not open in defiance of the Bill.
    Straight away we have the potential for considerable expenditure. I presume also that inspectors would be on expenses, so they would be paid triple time and expenses in order properly to discharge their duties. One can just imagine a veritable army of inspectors plodding around large stores on Christmas day to ensure that they were not opening in defiance of the Bill.
    That is bad enough. When we come to paragraph 3 of the schedule, which states:
    "Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 2 to the 1994 Act (powers of entry and obstruction of inspectors)",
    we realise that we are getting into much more serious territory. Here we have the possibility—the financial implications can only be guessed at, but that is what we are here to do—of inspectors seeking to enter the premises to see whether they are open. Presumably, premises would be quite easy to enter if they were open, and if they were not open, the inspectors would not have to enter them, so the provision may be otiose.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that the Chamber is not the place for doing work that is not to do with the debate.
    Mr. Forth: We are faced with a conundrum as to whether the powers of entry and obstruction would carry with them any financial implications. I am, I confess, somewhat confused as to whether that would be the case. I suspect that the inspectors, frequently mentioned in the schedule, would be the Bill's largest financial implication. However, we should take into account a contrary factor that may contribute to a minimising of the financial implications.

    297
    As right hon. and hon. Members will know, because they will have studied the Bill very closely, clause 1(3) provides that, if subsection (1) is contravened,
    "the occupier of the shop shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50,000."
    Were that to be the case, the Bill could be almost self-financing. The fines imposed on large stores opening in contravention of the Act—were the Bill to reach the statute book—might well pay for the peripatetic inspectors. We would be in the rather satisfactory position of the shops opening in defiance of the Act, being found out by the wandering inspectors and paying the fine, which would go to pay the triple time and expenses earned by the inspectors.
    The whole thing would have an elegant simplicity, and the self-financing aspect might well render the money resolution otiose. Perhaps we could talk ourselves into not passing the money resolution in the secure knowledge that the Bill would be self-financing. I do not know whether the Minister, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich or some of my colleagues find that an attractive idea. However, I think that these matters should be considered before we rush into deciding whether to vote for or against the motion.
    All in all, we should be grateful to the hon. Lady for giving us a chance to consider the Bill. She can be sure that we shall have a good old go at it on Report when it comes out of Committee—I envisage most of a day spent debating it then. However, we may want to give a little more thought as to whether the money resolution is as onerous as I first thought.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the right hon. Gentleman's objection to the Bill that he would prefer people to work on Christmas day when it does not fall on a Sunday?
    Mr. Forth: My preference is for people to work whenever they want to. I am very keen on people doing lots of work on lots of occasions. I am very much opposed to heavy-handed interventionist regulation, especially when it is driven by trade unions and especially when it would deny people the freedom to choose to work on any day of the year on which they wanted to do so. That is my view, and it remains unaltered.
    Mr. John Bercow: I fear that my right hon. Friend's prognosis is a triumph of optimism over reality. I challenge him to tell me whether he can enumerate, in the course of a 10-minute speech, the number of occasions on which a money resolution has proved to be self-financing. As the declaration of interests is of paramount importance in our proceedings, may I just say that I speak from some experience on the subject of working on Christmas day? For 20 years at least, I worked on Christmas day teaching my mother how to play tennis, which was an extremely burdensome way in which to make a living.
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend seems none the worse for the experience.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: You should see his mother.
    Mr. Forth: We shall leave my hon. Friend's mother out of it for the time being.
    298
    The money resolution has more to it than might at first have met the eye, and it illustrates the value of these debates. I pay tribute to the Minister because, all too often, his colleagues believe that these matters should just be quietly nodded through or do not require explanation. However, the Minister—typically of him—has taken the trouble to come to the House and set out his view briefly.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: My right hon. Friend has paid a generous tribute to the Minister. Perhaps I missed it, but has anyone explained to us how much the measure will cost?
    Mr. Forth: Perish the thought; my hon. Friend asks too much. We cannot expect Ministers to put figures on these matters. Money resolutions are essentially blank cheques; the Government say that they need some money, but they do not know how much. They ask us to sign a cheque, hoping that the grateful taxpayer is looking the other way, not noticing what is going on. Our job is to try to winkle out of Ministers how much is involved. We usually fail, which is why I hope that we shall vote against the motion tonight, if only on the basis that we do not believe in blank cheques.
    11.13 pm
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I served on the Committee that examined the Sunday Trading Act 1994. I remember at the time that the Shopping Hours Reform Council tried to argue with me that there ought to be some compromise on the issue. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that it should be up to people to decide for themselves when they can or cannot work.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the money resolution and that debate should be limited to that.
    Mr. Fabricant: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was just outlining the position. During our debates on the 1994 Act, I was in discussion with the John Lewis Partnership, which is owned by the 45,000 partners who work for the company. There was considerable debate as to whether stores should open on Sundays. The John Lewis Partnership's stores remained closed on Sundays, including its Waitrose supermarkets, whereas other stores, such as Tesco—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman once again—his contribution would be far more appropriate to a Second Reading debate than to a debate on a money resolution.
    Mr. Fabricant: I agree, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would argue that some of these points have direct relevance to the motion.
    I am surprised that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst did not mention clause 1(2)(b), which refers to
    "shops occupied by persons observing the Jewish religion".
    Those shops would be exempt, but how are inspectors to know—this is directly relevant to the cost of enforcing the Bill—whether the shopkeeper is of the Jewish religion? We discussed that at some length in Committee on the 1994 Act.

    299
    We are approaching the time of Pesach, the Jewish Passover. Should people be exempt—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is the third occasion on which I have had to remind the hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to the money resolution.
    Mr. Fabricant: Inspectors have to be paid for by the state. How are they to ascertain whether a shop is owned by people of the Jewish religion? It is no longer an easy point. The Jewish religion is not a race
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Let me assist my hon. Friend. He and I are both members of the Jewish religion. Does he not think that the mezuzah placed on the doorway of premises occupied by Jewish people might just give the inspectors a clue?
    Mr. Fabricant: I disagree. I do not want to be ruled out of order for a fourth time, but let me say that I do not have a mezuzah on any of my properties.
    Dr. Lewis: Shame.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am none the less of the Jewish religion. I believe that a cost will—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. These matters could well be debated in Committee rather than under this resolution.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am sure that they could be debated in Committee, but this matter relates directly to the money resolution. There is no question but that, if there is difficulty in ascertaining the ownership and the religion of the owners of a shop that may be open on Christmas day, let alone Pesach, Chanukah or any other Jewish holiday, a cost will arise. However, I will move on from that point, as I have explored it to the limit of your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    I take my right hon. Friend's point about schedule 3, on powers of entry: it does seem otiose. There is a very large John Lewis store in Bluewater. The employees there voted two or three years ago to open on a Sunday, which they are permitted to do under the 1994 Act. Had they voted differently, the store would have remained closed on a Sunday, which reinforces my right hon. Friend's point that it is up to the employees in many organisations. Indeed, it is up to the employees in all organisations not to be victimised if they—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are fully aware of the provisions of other pieces of legislation. Once again, will the hon. Gentleman please confine his remarks to the resolution?
    Mr. Fabricant: My point is that there are costs arising from inspectors' powers of entry. My right hon. Friend said that inspectors have to be paid for, and explored the matter at some length.
    Mr. Bercow: Is not the essence of our objection to the money resolution that we have a preference for specificity, whereas the Government insist, apparently, on
    300
    generality? The modern and rather vulgar term is "voting for a pig in a poke". Does my hon. Friend, who is of an historical turn of mind, agree that the words "riddle", "mystery" and "enigma" readily spring to mind?
    Mr. Fabricant: Indeed. My hon. Friend knows, because we have served together on several Committees, that I object to the blank cheque syndrome. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, the motion is a blank cheque. Yet again, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is asking the House to consider such matters—although we are delighted to see my constituency neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who introduced the resolution. However, if we were to ask the Under-Secretary what the costs of the resolution would be, I doubt that he could answer because, as my right hon. Friend has already pointed out, many such money motions are not costed.
    The main point of the Bill has direct relevance to the resolution. Paragraph 3 of the schedule refers to the inspectors' powers of entry. It is clear that no analysis has been made of the number of inspectors that may be required; of the wages that they might have to be paid; or of whether the inspectors might be on double, triple or even quadruple time. As my right hon. Friend pointed out—and as I was about to say before my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) intervened—if a store such as John Lewis at Bluewater has chosen to be open, I cannot see why there should be a power of entry. If a large department store is open, people can go in and see that for themselves, so why does the state have to pay—more to the point why does the taxpayer have to pay—for inspectors under the motion? I have to ask that question.
    I confess that I support the Bill itself; it is promoted by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for whom I have the greatest respect—as she knows. However, I must ask why the Bill needs a money resolution. The matter is disturbing, because when the Under-Secretary moved the resolution, he gave no reason for its introduction.
    Mr. Graham Brady: I fear that my hon. Friend may be missing the point. Even though the shop in question would clearly be open to the public as regards its trading area, surely the powers of entry under the Bill would apply to private areas—perhaps the offices or staff areas. It may be necessary to obtain access to those areas to ascertain whether the proprietors are of the Jewish faith.
    Mr. Fabricant: I have to disagree with my hon. Friend—this is a rare occasion. He will note that paragraph 3 of the schedule relates to schedule 2 of the Sunday Trading Act 1994, which refers specifically to whether the selling floor is open. That makes my point: if the selling floor is open, that is clear for everyone to see. We do not need inspectors; nor do we need to give them powers. That begs the question: why is motion No. 7 on the Order Paper? Why is a money resolution needed for the Bill?
    Mr. Brady: I readily admit my error and my hon. Friend's superior knowledge of the Bill, and I am grateful to him for making that point. He is asking whether it is necessary to have inspectors at all and, therefore, whether

    301
    the resolution is necessary. Has it occurred to him that given that the stores involved doubtless advertise the fact that they will be open on the day in question, that fact could be ascertained from the advertisements, without the need to retain inspectors on Christmas day?
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes a powerful, sensible point that directly relates to the cost of implementing this laudable Bill. An inspector need not be employed if it is apparent to all whether a shop is open. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst takes exception to my support for the Bill, and I can understand that. Nevertheless, I do not believe that inspectors are necessary to ensure that it is implemented.
    I come now to clause 2, which relates directly to the money resolution. It refers to the 1994 Act and the expressions "large shop", "retail customers" and "shop", which should have the meaning given to them by paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Act. I may be wrong, but I recall that a large shop is defined as 5,000 sq m.
    Mr. Bercow: Feet.
    Mr. Fabricant: I wondered whether it was feet. I recall that the original definition given by the Shopping Hours Reform Council was in feet, but sadly—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman surely knows that this is in no way related to the money resolution that we are discussing.
    Mr. Fabricant: The argument about whether the measurement is in feet or metres has nothing to do with the money resolution, as you rightly say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the exact size of a shop has every relevance. What if a shop were on the margin? Would an inspector be expected to go into John Lewis at Bluewater, if I may give that example again? May I say that I do not have to declare an interest—I have no involvement whatever with the John Lewis Partnership, other than having many friends who work for it. Are the inspectors meant to enter the store and measure the size of the trading floor? If they are—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The simple answer to that question is no. We are discussing the money resolution, which has nothing to do with the size of the store.
    Mr. John Redwood: Would my hon. Friend like to say that he fears that one of the big problems with the money resolution is that the figures that have been given are lamentably lacking and likely to be totally wrong? We have seen that so many times with the regulatory rubbish that the Government come out with. They tell us that it will not be very costly, and then a year or two later we discover that it is massively costly. Would my hon. Friend like to give the House his thoughts on that point?
    Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend makes a relevant, salient point, as always. What would be the cost of a team of inspectors going into the menswear department of John
    302
    Lewis at Bluewater and measuring the floor size? If the floor size were such that it was not defined as a large shop, the inspectors would be acting ultra vires. The Home Office could be prosecuted, the Minister could be dragged before the courts and there could be a judicial review. All those costs would come under the terms of the resolution.
    My point, which I want to make very clearly so that there is no misunderstanding, is that the definition of "large shop" is important to the cost covered by the money resolution. If there were any doubt, an inspector would have to determine whether the shop was large, in which case it would come within the ambit of the Bill, or whether it was small, as defined by the 1994 Act, in which case it would not. Someone will have to determine the size of the shop. In case of dispute, someone will have to measure the selling area, and that will cost money.
    I challenge the Minister to tell the House precisely how much the Bill will cost to implement. Let there be no doubt that a cost is always entailed when the Government introduce a Bill—or, indeed, when a private Member introduces a Bill with Government support. The money does not come from a bottomless bucket. The cost is not borne by the Government—it is borne by you, Madam Speaker; it is borne by I—
    Mr. Redwood: Me.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am sorry, I should have said that it is borne by me. I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for correcting me. The preposition is always followed by the accusative.
    Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Fabricant: I am summing up, but I shall give way.
    Mr. Bercow: Far be it from me to interrupt my hon. Friend's oration—or, more particularly, what might be described as his peroration—but does he agree that the lacuna in the money resolution is that it is as gloriously vague on the cost to the taxpayer, as is clause 3(1) on the likely cost to the retailer?
    Mr. Fabricant: There is more than one lacuna; there are several lacunae. That is the problem—"there's the rub." Yet again, the taxpayer has to cough up the cost of a Bill. Once again, when challenged to tell us the cost, the Minister is unable to do so. He is unable even to give us an order of magnitude. Does he think that the Bill will cost the taxpayer £10,000, £100,000, £1 million or £10 million a year, or will it cost more than that? The Minister benevolently smiles at me, but let Hansard and the people note that there is no indication of what the Bill will cost to implement.
    I believe that not just the John Lewis Partnership but all organisations must, in effect, have the co-operation of their staff to determine whether to open on Sundays—which is dealt with under the 1994 Act—or, if the Bill is enacted, whether a shop opens on Christmas day. Without the co-operation of the staff, shops, especially large ones, cannot open on those days. I have to question whether it is necessary to have inspectors, whether they need powers of entry, whether rules against obstruction should exist

    303
    and whether the inspectors will have to measure the size of shop floors to determine whether they fall within the ambit of the Bill.
    If the Minister were to assure the House that inspectors are not necessary, or that there would be a small number of them, it would have a direct impact on the resolution. Clearly, with few or no inspectors, there would not be a major consequence on the taxpayer. However, if the Minister envisages teams of inspectors marching around the country with their measuring tapes, paid on double, triple or quadruple time, determining whether shops are large under the terms of the 1994 Act, that would place an appropriately large cost on the taxpayer.
    As I was saying about five minutes ago in my peroration, Madam Deputy Speaker, we in the House should always remember that the Government do not stump up the money for such Bills and that the state does not stump up the money for them; it is you and me and, more importantly, our constituents whom we represent.
    11.34 pm
    Mr. Edward Leigh: I shall be brief. These debates serve a useful purpose—after all, Parliament was created to hold the Executive to account on money; that is what we are about. Often a worthy Bill—this is a worthy Bill—goes through because there is no great opposition to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is."] There is some opposition to the Bill, because my hon. Friends make that clear, even though the fashionable view may be that it is distasteful to trade on Christmas day.
    Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Leigh: I will, but I was just getting into my stride.
    Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend aware that when there was a vote on the Bill, 37 out of 659 Members of Parliament voted for it?
    Mr. Leigh: I was happy to assist my right hon. Friend in testing the will of the House. On money resolutions, on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, it is important that people outside know that the House has properly debated the issues and that a considerable number of Members have bothered to turn up to consider and vote for the Bills. However small or worthy a Bill, it is right that we should have a propel debate on its money resolution and hold the Executive to account. That is why we are here.
    What worries me is that a convention has grown up in recent years—I do not blame this Government entirely—that private Members' Bills that entail the expenditure of public moneys can be introduced in the. House. In the long term, large sums of public moneys may be involved. Previously, it was generally understood that the Executive—and not private Members—would introduce Bills that entailed the expenditure of public moneys. That is why we have our procedures for private Members' Bills. Now, year after year and month after month, private Members bring Bills to the House and the Executive have to step in to provide money for those Bills. I am not sure that that is the right way to proceed. If the Executive get involved, it is incumbent on them to provide a full explanation of what they are doing.
    304
    The resolution is framed in the usual format, but no information is given. We are completely in the dark as to what moneys will be expended on promoting the Bill. I do not blame the Government, because such motions have gone through Parliament in this form for many years, but we might have expected the Minister to explain the cost of the measure. That is not difficult. The Bill involves trading on one day—Christmas day occurs once a year—so we should have a fair idea of which stores are involved. Although the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) about the size of the stores caused some merriment, it was perfectly serious. It is not impossible for the Government to work out roughly and in broad terms what the Bill might cost. Is that an unreasonable question for Parliament to ask?
    Will the Bill cost a few thousand pounds because it involves a few inspectors? Perhaps it will not be necessary for any inspectors to be on the road on Christmas day because, once the Bill comes into force, no large stores might want to take on the Government. Therefore, the costs might be absolutely minimal. Would it not have been easier for the Minister, in a few brief opening remarks, to have made that clear to the House?
    The Minister could have said that it would be an easy Bill to administer and that he did not expect any extra expense to be incurred by local government or central Government, so the cost of the measure would be minimal. However, he provided no details at all. Alternatively, he might have said that the cost might be £100,000, £500,000 or £1 million—it would have been nice for Parliament to have been told.
    Mr. Bercow: I wish to challenge my hon. Friend about the money resolution. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I regard the Bill as a miserable measure, despite the magnificence of its mother, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Will my hon. Friend help me to evaluate the money resolution by saying whether he thinks that the proceeds of fines levied under clause 1(3) will be ring-fenced to offset pound for pound and penny for penny the costs incurred elsewhere to the Exchequer?
    Mr. Leigh: No, of course they will not. It would have been nice had the Government made that clear. I should be amazed if the proceeds were ring-fenced. Presumably, fines incurred on Sunday or Christmas day traders will go into the general Exchequer pot and be lost. Again, there is a lack of oversight. It is no good Ministers saying that the Bill is small and affects only one day so it is not important, because it is the principle that is at stake. Parliament has a right to demand further and better particulars.
    Mr. David Davis: Will my hon. Friend comment on the socialist heresy advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who suggested that if the money from fines is ring-fenced—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member. I am sure that it is an oversight not to face the Chair.
    Mr. Davis: I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was shocked by the suggestion about ring-fencing

    305
    the fine money to finance the proposal. That would create a self-funding regulatory agency, of which we would disapprove, and would remove from Parliament the right of approval of such financial burdens.
    Mr. Leigh: The gradual enlargement of the principle of ring fencing is regrettable. Many people in local government are alarmed—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the motion, which is about additional costs to be incurred because of the Bill. It is not about ring fencing.
    Mr. Leigh: I take your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker. There will clearly be additional costs. All we want is to be given more information in this short debate.
    The tenor of some remarks was that we are only talking about Christmas day. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) made an interesting contribution from the perspective of a Jewish Member of Parliament. The Minister is a good Catholic Member of Parliament and views with great distaste people trading on Christmas day, but we live in a multicultural society and people might demand similar legislation for days that are as holy to their faiths. The costs could escalate. Where would it all end?
    The House needs to be aware that we are not just talking about one day in the year and a limited cost. Pressure will undoubtedly be put on the House for other equally important holy days in the Muslim and Jewish faiths to get similar treatment. Why should Christians alone have the great privilege that if stores open on Christmas day, they must be closed down and the inspectors' costs sent to Parliament?
    Mr. Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that any money that might be expended on enforcing the Bill—and the Minister needs to clarify how much will be spent—would be better used to provide more hospital operations over Christmas for people who are in agony and cannot wait any longer, rather than wasting it on inspectors in case an illicit Father Christmas is still trading a day after everyone else has stopped?
    Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. However, the strict guillotine procedure that is always imposed on us means that time is running out. In the remaining minute or so, perhaps the Minister will explain how much the measure will cost. That is all we want to know.
    It being three quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(b) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills).
    Question agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With permission, I shall put together motions 8 to 10.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    That the draft Relevant Authorities (General Principles) 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. 79) on School Standards, Support of Educational Budgets and Costs of Transitional Funding (HC 355), which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.
    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
    That the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 27th March, be approved.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the draft Social Security (Breach of Community Order) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Division deferred till Wednesday 4 April, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
    ADJOURNMENT (EASTER),
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
    That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 10th April, do adjourn till Monday 23rd April.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    Question agreed to.

    Motorway Service Stations
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    11.45 pm
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving you cause earlier to reprimand me for bringing work into the Chamber. Like the lame man who lay beside the pool at Bethesda and was anxious to reach the pool when the waters were disturbed, I was afraid that I might miss my Adjournment debate because I was not sure whether the preceding debates would take their full allotted time. Given the lateness of the hour, I was anxious not to miss the opportunity.
    I want to put on record my gratitude to Mr. Speaker for calling the debate. I have tried on several occasions to obtain a debate on motorway service stations. The subject would have made a good Westminster Hall debate because several hon. Members have such service stations in their constituencies and others have experience of them. We could have held a wider debate on the subject.
    A propos of that, I want to refer briefly to two contributions that I have received. First, the Royal Automobile Club Foundation pointed out that an Office of Fair Trading report on motorway service areas, published in December 2000, suggested that they provide poor value for money, and poor food and refreshments. I am sure that several hon. Members might have something to say about that.
    Secondly, during last year's Easter holidays, the Automobile Association carried out an interesting survey of European motorway service stations. The United Kingdom's position is not good. Of the 10 UK service stations inspected, five were rated as acceptable, three as poor and two as very poor. Overall, UK service stations were rated as below average in Europe.
    In that context, I want to consider a decision that relates to my constituency and directly affects that of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr Taylor), who is present tonight. He has campaigned hard with me to oppose the decision to allow the construction of a motorway service station in the Meriden gap. It is an interim decision, and until it is final, I assure the Government that we shall fight it tooth and nail.
    For hon. Members who are present and not familiar with the location, and anyone who may read Hansard tomorrow morning, the Meriden gap is a narrow strip of green belt between Coventry and Birmingham. It is five miles wide at the point that we area discussing. In my maiden speech, I spoke about the need to protect the Meriden gap. Less than four years later, we are fighting hard to resist a development that my hon. Friend and I and our local authority implacably oppose. Solihull metropolitan borough council refused to grant planning permission for it as well as for two other developments in the same area. All my constituents oppose it; my postbag is flooded with protest mail from them.
    I ask the Minister to extend an invitation on behalf of my constituents to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to examine the site. However, I stress that he should pick the right time of day. There is no point in travelling to the bridge over the M42 near junction 6 at an off-peak time. He should
    308
    come with me in the rush hour to see the gridlocked traffic. There is nose-to-tail traffic in both directions. The Secretary of State should therefore reconsider the decision.
    There are a variety of reasons for the severe congestion on that stretch of the M42. I am sure that hon. Members who have to use it are familiar with them. The service station is located south of junction 6, which carries all the traffic to Birmingham international airport and Birmingham international railway station. It is the junction with the A45 that serves Birmingham city centre and Coventry. Exhibitions at the National Exhibition Centre, for which the road is the exit, are seasonal causes of intense congestion. When the spring or autumn fair is on, that queue can stretch right back to junction 3 of the M42. Any hon. Member who uses the M6, which is notorious for its congestion, will know that any delay or heavy traffic on that road backs up to junctions 7 and 6 of the M42. We are talking about a highly congested stretch of motorway.
    Hon. Members may also recall that not so many years ago, that location was the site of a terrible motorway pile-up, which is still alive in the memories of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend. None the less, the Government have chosen to justify their choice of location with reference to road safety.
    The motorway service area policy statement says that the Government wish to concentrate on the completion of a network of motorway service areas at 30-mile intervals. Apparently,
    "where there is a gap of greater than 30 miles between MSAs, it is necessary to give greater weight to the needs of motorists".
    The Highway Code recommends that motorists stop to rest after two hours, so there is an inconsistency between the policy of having intervals of 30 miles—roughly half an hour—for motorists to take a break, and the two-hour interval recommended in the Highway Code.
    It is also difficult to square the fact that motorists' interests are paramount with the Prime Minister's most recent assertions about his party's environmental credentials. He said that we need to put business, technology and environmental protection together. In this instance, however, environmental protection has been sacrificed in the interests of the motorist.
    There are a number of contradictions in the decision made on the motorway service area application. The interim report says:
    "The Secretary of State agrees that each of the proposed schemes"
    originally there were three—
    "would cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt",
    and that he also agrees that motorway service area developments on the proposed sites
    "would have an urbanising effect".
    There is a clear acknowledgement that the development would be detrimental to that section of green belt. There is a local site of special scientific interest, and also a problem with the water table. Indeed, a variety of environmental concerns are associated with choosing that site.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: My hon. Friend is making a thorough job of cataloguing the misery and anger of our constituents. Will she take account of one

    309
    other environmental factor? The fact that such an area will be lit all through the night means that some of our constituents will never again see the night sky from their homes. What a price is that to pay?
    Mrs. Spelman: A very high price; light pollution is one of the hazards of the modern age. At our crossroads in the midlands we are prone to suffer that sort of erosion of our environment. My hon. Friend's constituents who live at Catherine-de-Barnes, the hamlet closest to the development, are very anxious about that aspect. There is no question but that there will be environmental harm; the decision is based on the idea that the benefits to the motorist outweigh that harm.
    The Government considered some mitigating measures, but they involved providing auxiliary lanes for the motorway, and those, too, have an environmental impact. I am sure that all motorists are familiar with what happens to the traffic when, after a three-lane motorway has been widened to four lanes in one place, it goes back down to three lanes, as would happen to the M42: immediately, there is congestion.
    The development has been proposed at a time when the widening of the motorway is under serious consideration as part of the west midlands multimodal traffic scheme, which has not yet been decided on. It therefore seems to me that any question of mitigating measures involving the widening of the motorway should wait for that regional decision to be made.
    In the statement, the Secretary of State referred to the important question of setting precedents. He said:
    "The Meriden gap is 10 km wide at this point and as the proposal is for an on-line facility"—
    I am not quite sure what that means, but perhaps the Minister will enlighten us—
    "which would be situated in relatively open countryside, it would clearly be perceived as a motorway related development and would not set a precedent for further development."
    My response to that is, "Do not believe it." The fact that the Secretary of State is "minded" to grant planning permission for a motorway service area that might include provision for a lodge—a Travelodge with 66 lettable bedrooms—will unleash a deluge of applications for hotels in the green belt. Such developments have hitherto been strongly resisted at this point in the Meriden gap, and a number of developers who have had their planning applications in the green belt turned down are looking eagerly at this aspect of the decision.
    The decision is being justified because it is thought
    "unreasonable to deny motorists the opportunity to stop and rest".
    I hate to disappoint the Secretary of State, but that hotel, if built in the Meriden gap, will be filled by people attending the NEC. A weary motorist might roll up at the service station in the hope of finding a bed for the night, but he would be most likely to find it fully booked by people attending an event at the NEC. Therefore, I do not think that that argument stands up at all.
    Another important point is the footprint. The Secretary of State agreed with the inspector that
    "as part of a Motorway Service Station, the lodge is inappropriate development in the Green Belt."
    310
    He also said:
    "A lodge would add to the footprint of the built development and have some impact on the openness of the Green Belt."
    The size of the footprint is very controversial in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull.
    It is significant that, in July 1998, the Under-Secretary, Lord Whitty, made a statement about motorway service areas having a footprint of 5,000 sq ft as a limit, but it was unclear whether that should be taken as applying to the main amenity building or the MSA site as a whole. That has created a loophole for development, which has been exploited in the case of this decision. There is a warning in this case for other hon. Members who may be faced with a similar situation.
    At the Catherine-de-Barnes site, the permitted area for a fuel sales building is 360 sq m—I am sorry to switch from imperial to metric measures—but that is in addition to 465 sq m of retail space. The 465 sq m of retail space marries up with the Under-Secretary's statement about 5,000 sq ft. However, unless I am much mistaken, there has been a terrible error here. In the case of Catherine-de-Barnes, the 465 sq m has been conceded, but, in addition to that, there will be an extra 360 sq m for a fuel sales building. Together, that makes 825 sq m, or 8,800 sq ft. That would seem to fly in the face of the limit that the Under-Secretary described, and we seek clarification on that important point.
    I can anticipate what the Minister will say. He will say that the previous Government are to blame. They are not. Until 1992, the Department of Transport—as it then was—was responsible for promoting new motorway service areas. Its policy was to provide them at intervals of half an hour's driving time, or of about 30 miles, although when one is driving at 70 mph those figures have to be approximate. The important point is that the previous Government used discretion. A written answer on 24 November 1994 cited a letter from Lawrie Hayes to Sir David Mitchell, in which he stated that
    "we recognise that there are stretches of motorway where either demand is unlikely ever to support MSAs … or where planning constraints will dictate a lesser frequency … we are prepared to be flexible."—[Official Report, 24 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 262W.]
    That is on the record. For the record:
    "The Conservative Party has a policy of not building on the Green Belt at all and our Environment spokesmen have said they would call this decision in to look at it again. We need similar action, not just warm words from this Government."
    In a debate in another place in 1992, the then Government spokesman said:
    "Any proposal for a motorway service area will be subject to planning permission."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 November 1992; Vol. 540, c. 918.]
    That is an important point. Planning permission was refused by the local authority—Solihull metropolitan borough council—and democratically elected local councillors who sit closest to the decision and know the environment best of all, but the Secretary of State has chosen to override that decision, ignore public opinion and back the developer—small wonder that my constituents doubt the Government's commitment to listening to the people.
    I have another important point to raise with the Minister, which has been brought to my attention by the Council for the Protection of Rural England, whose representatives—

    311
    local people living in the constituencies that will be affected by the change—played an important part in the public inquiry. They say that the inspector's report gives the impression that the Highways Agency was fully represented and section 10 contains eight pages on "The case for the Highways Agency", but what happened was unsatisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull and I attended the inquiry, so I can vouch for that.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: We also gave evidence.
    Mrs. Spelman: Indeed. The inspector allowed the Highways Agency to get away with submitting written statements rather than offering a witness who could have been cross-examined. The inspector's report relied heavily on the Highways Agency's views on motorway operational matters, but it gave no evidence that was open to cross-examination on need, the operation of the motorway system, signing or the M42 widening, which is needed to enable the Catherine-de-Barnes site to be developed.
    Unless I am much mistaken, that was the first occasion on which the Nicholson principle was not obeyed. Under that principle, it should be possible for cross-examination on the main evidence to be conducted. That is an important point, because the opinion of the Highways Agency is crucial to the interim nature of the decision. As I understand it, its finality will hinge on whether the Highways Agency is satisfied about its agreement to widening the motorway at that point. Its non-appearance for cross-examination fundamentally undermines the value of the inquiry and its findings.
    I strongly urge the Government to think again. The site that they have chosen for a motorway service area stands at the narrowest point of the Meriden gap. In the same segment of land, we find Birmingham international airport and the NEC—both public amenities of wider regional, national and international significance. What is needed is clear strategic planning for that vulnerable strip of land. It has suffered for too long from piecemeal planning decisions, such as those that collectively led to the erosion of the Meriden gap.
    The projections for the expansion of air travel are bound to lead to pressure to expand such an amenity, yet the service station site would lie at the foot of any runway extension and it would be uncomfortably close to the flight path. That element was not discussed in any great detail at the inquiry, so I simply ask the Minister, is it wise to allow the development to be built in such proximity to the flight path?
    To keep pace with international demand for exhibition sites, the NEC had to expand. Although I hated to see green belt consumed in such a way, I recognised that our NEC needed to remain competitive. However, that aspect has to be considered hand in hand with what happens to the transport network at that point in the midlands motorway crossroads.
    My constituency contains pockets of deprivation with huge unemployment, but the motorway service station would be yet another employment opportunity plonked down in the countryside with no public transport available, so local residents would get all the hassle, but none of the benefit. Those are strategic issues and I appeal to the Government to stop and think to try, like an eagle, to fly above the Meriden gap and look down at the airport, the NEC, the four-track widening of the west coast main
    312
    line and the building of the Birmingham northern relief road; and to stop and, in strategic terms, think about whether it is really the right site. The development would stick out like a sore thumb in the green Arden pasture land, next to a gridlocked motorway. It would be a white elephant.
    The dome stands as a monument to misplanning; let us not make the same mistake a second time. If the Government want to prove that they listen, if they want to claim their green credentials and if they want to demonstrate that they have strategic planning capability, let them please think again.
    12.5 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I begin in the usual way, by congratulating the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on securing the debate and giving the House an opportunity to discuss current proposals for a motorway service area on the M42 in her constituency. I also listened with great interest to what was said by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). In the limited time available, I shall try to deal with as many of the innumerable points that have been made as possible.
    It may help if I first explain the Government's policy on the spacing of motorway service areas, as it is against that background that decisions on individual proposals are made. The most recent such advice took the form of a statement issued by my noble Friend Lord Whitty in July 1998. This is a subject on which Ministers in successive Administrations have given advice at intervals over the years, which has inevitably caused periodic changes of emphasis; but perhaps the most noticeable feature has been the consistency of the underlying approach.
    Motorway service areas exist to fulfil a road safety function by offering motorists an opportunity to stop and rest. If they are to meet that need, they must be provided at regular intervals. Of course, it might be argued from the motorist's point of view that the more motorway service areas there are, the better: if they were available every five miles, a driver who wanted to take a break would never be more than about five minutes' drive from a motorway service area where he could do just that. Motorway service areas are large developments, however. They have to be, because to fulfil their road safety function they must be large enough to cater for all the motorists who want to visit them. As motorways run mostly through the countryside rather than towns, most service areas will of necessity be in rural areas. Motorway service area spacing policy is, therefore, about achieving a balance. On the one hand, we must provide adequate opportunities for drivers to stop and rest; on the other, we recognise the need to protect the countryside from excessive development.
    The consistent view across all Governments has been that that balance could best be achieved by placing service areas at intervals of about 30 miles. On the assumption of normal motorway speeds, that meant that drivers had the chance to stop roughly every half hour. It also meant that the need for large developments in the countryside was reduced to the point at which such developments were genuinely exceptional cases. In other words, they might—I emphasise the word "might"—properly be regarded as exceptions to the presumption against development in the green belt.

    313
    It has been suggested that my noble Friend's statement went further than earlier statements of Government views on motorway service areas spacing, and that it made inevitable the approval of at least one of the M42 proposals. If anything, the reverse is true. In fact, the statement emphasised that having a motorway service area every 30 miles was by no means an absolute requirement. It certainly stressed that the Government's prime concern would be completion of a network of 30-mile service areas where that had not already been achieved; but it also said, in so many words, that that did not amount to a presumption in favour of proposals that would contribute to completion of the 30-mile network. They would continue to be subject to the normal operation of the land use planning system. It is that system that allows for the merits of a particular proposal to be tested against other considerations, including those that the hon. Lady has raised.
    Mrs. Spelman: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Hill: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not. I have little time, and much to say. If there is an opportunity later, however, I shall certainly yield to her.
    It is worth recording that one of the reasons for my noble Friend's statement was that the previous advice had encouraged the idea that 30-mile motorway service areas should be supplemented by in-fill sites at intervals of about 15 miles. My noble Friend was concerned that that approach had not achieved its avowed aim of increasing competition and choice. He therefore emphasised the Government's wish to concentrate on completing the 30-mile network. Far from encouraging additional motorway service area development, the statement moved towards an emphasis on providing them less frequently, but at locations where the need was especially acute.
    The fact is that there are some significant gaps in the provision of motorway services on that part of the network, which a site in the Solihull area would fill. Examples cited in the decision letter included the gap of 49 miles between the existing services at Warwick and Hilton Park, and the gap of 68 miles between Warwick and the proposed services at junction 4 of the M54 near Telford.
    I stress again that the existence of those gaps in the 30-mile motorway service area network did not mean that approval to one or other of the M42 proposals was a foregone conclusion. Both the inspector and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions weighed that consideration against all the competing arguments, including the need to avoid development in the green belt in the Meriden gap, but they concluded that the needs of motorists were sufficient to overcome those and other objections. They did so only after very careful consideration of all the issues. I hope that the hon. Lady will understand if I explain that I cannot now seek to overturn that decision on the basis solely of the matters that we have been able to consider in the short time available to us tonight.
    I hope that the hon. Lady will not think that I am unsympathetic to her concerns. I recognise the anxieties of
    314
    her constituents. I particularly sympathise with the view that, if an area of open countryside and, more particularly, green belt is to be sacrificed in the interests of road safety, the scale of development should be the minimum that can sensibly be achieved.
    I know that, with that in mind, the hon. Lady has been particularly concerned that a motorway service area at Catherine-de-Barnes might incorporate significant shopping and leisure facilities, which will quickly transform it from somewhere for motorists to take a necessary break into an out-of-town retail or leisure development in its own right. I share her concerns. That is why successive Governments have pursued a policy of preventing motorway service areas from becoming destinations in their own right.
    It is reasonable enough that a motorway service area should incorporate a shop, and all, without exception, do so. Whether every single item that such shops offer is absolutely necessary in the course of a journey is perhaps a moot point, but little would be gained by having an army of Government inspectors policing the list of items on offer. Even if we were to do so, there would always be someone for whom a motorway service area was the most convenient place to buy a pint of milk at 3 am. Because we can never be absolutely sure that a service area will never be a destination, at least for a few people, we back the policy with a requirement that no more than 5,000 sq ft at any motorway service area should be devoted to retail uses, and no more than 1,000 sq ft to leisure use.
    As I have said, the aim of the policy is to ensure that motorway service areas do not mushroom into vast out-of-town retail or leisure parks, contrary to wider Government planning and land use policies. I know that the hon. Lady has been concerned that the specific limits that have been placed on retail and leisure use at Catherine-de-Barnes are higher than those that I have quoted because they take no account of retail space within the fuel area. It is true that Lord Whitty's policy statement was not specific on that point. We will therefore want to consider the need for more detailed guidance on that in preparing a circular on motorway service area policy, which we expect to issue later this year.
    It is very unlikely however, that the amount of space given over to a sales area within the petrol filling station will ever make an appreciable difference to the total land take of a motorway service area, so although it is an issue that we will clearly need to consider further, I do not believe that it is so crucial in this case that it obliges us to revisit the decision that has already been taken.
    The hon. Lady will be well aware that the decision letter that the Secretary of State issued on 6 March was an interim one. Permission for the Catherine-de-Barnes proposal was conditional on my right hon. Friend's being satisfied about the nature and effect of the associated highway works that would be required on the M42.
    The works themselves are likely to be substantial. They will need to be, in order to address the safety issues that would arise from the increased weaving movements in the vicinity of the proposed service area. The Secretary of State has therefore indicated that he will take a final decision on the planning applications in the light of the outcome of continuing discussions between the developer

    315
    and the Highways Agency on the feasibility of additional lanes between the service area and junction 6 of the M42, as identified at the public inquiry.
    The hon. Lady has raised a number of other issues. I will peruse Hansard and write to her on those matters. I am grateful to her for giving us the opportunity to debate what are important issues. I understand that the decision to give the go-ahead to the motorway service area at Catherine-de-Barnes, even if it is subject to further consideration of the implications of the associated highway works, is not the one for which she and many of
    316
    her constituents had been hoping. However, I hope that I have been able to give her some reassurances; not least, I hope I have reassured her that Government policy on motorway service area spacing does take very seriously the need to balance the advantages to motorists of regular services against the need to avoid—
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at fifteen minutes past Twelve midnight.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Local Government Finance
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Touhig.]
9.30 am
Mr. Keith Darvill: It is a privilege to open this important debate on modernising local government finance and on the Green Paper on the subject that was published on 19 September. The Green Paper sought views on the Government's aims and proposals for modernising local government finance and invited responses by 8 December. More than 16,000 responses were received, which must be a record—I myself responded in detail. I look forward to seeing the White Paper later this year. While hon. Members had that opportunity to respond to the Green Paper, it is also useful for Green and White Papers to be debated in the House whenever possible. It is by such listening and debate that hon. Members can formulate ideas and opinions. Perhaps naively, one is also ever hopeful of persuading Ministers that general and specific proposals have merit and will be adopted as policy.
In addition to the broad point of principle about the opportunity to debate important issues such as this one, I was struck by the number of hon. Members who wanted to participate in the revenue support grant debates earlier this year but were unable to do so. It was disappointing that the Opposition insisted on separate debates for the special grant report and the rate support grant, leaving limited time to explore individual constituency grievances. Despite considerable latitude by the Deputy Speaker, the House had inadequate opportunity to debate this year's revenue support grant.
That small but important issue is relevant to this morning's debate. Hon. Members believe that the existing system is defective and will no doubt use this and other forums for debate to argue for changes based on experiences from their own local authority and perhaps their own experiences of local government. I hope that they will not only dwell on the defects but comment on the alternatives, particularly those set out in the Green Paper.
In his foreword to the Green Paper, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said:
"Our local government finance system is complex. Few people make the effort to understand it. Fewer still succeed."
I am not an expert on that system and, indeed, have not fully understood it, but I am one of those few people who have made an effort to do so. I am convinced of the need for reform. Change should not be delayed beyond the timetable required to consult, decide and legislate because there is an overriding feeling that the existing system is unfair, has created many anomalies and is in need of urgent reform.
2WH
Unison, the union to which 1.3 million public service workers—including 850,000 in local government—belong, sent me a copy of its response to the Green Paper. That response, with which I very much agree, stated:
"We believe that the system of local government finance is long overdue for reform. We welcome the general approach which the Government has adopted in relation to the issue. For too long local government has suffered from the effects of cuts in funding coupled with restraints on freedom of action. The effects of persistent neglect can be seen in declining local services and underinvestment in staffing and infrastructure. Tackling these problems will require imagination and initiative together with the resources to really make a difference."
Local authorities play different roles and provide a diverse range of public services. A substantial proportion of local authority activity effectively involves the delivery of Government-determined services, on which there is little variation between each local authority. As the Green Paper states, local government implements key national policies at local level. I expect that few right hon. and hon. Members disagree with the aims of reform: to fund all authorities adequately; to promote continuous improvement; to provide a reasonable degree of predictability and stability; to provide balanced funding for local government's delivery of national priorities and targets, with real financial freedom and responsibility; to be fair; to clarify accountability for financial decisions because, if council tax increases are excessive or services are underfunded, people should know whom to hold to account; to be intelligible and transparent; to make partnership working easier; and to encourage consultation, particularly with local taxpayers.
Some progress has been made on a number of fronts. I welcome the increased level of funding; the inbuilding of certainty with three-year spending rounds; the moratorium on changes to the grant-distribution formulae; the replacement of compulsory competitive tendering with best value and of crude and universal capping with new reserve powers; and pilot schemes for local public service agreements.
Despite those improvements, there is still much to do. As the Green Paper admits, the grant system and capital finance systems are especially complex and opaque. As I have said, the case for reform is overwhelming. Despite what the Green Paper says, the current system, which has been in place for the past decade or so, does not fulfil its single, explicit objective: to ensure that council tax bills for properties in the same council tax band are the same everywhere in England. They could be if every authority budgeted to spend in line with its standard spending assessment. Nor do I agree with the general assertion that the system has been able to cope with substantial change in the structures and responsibilities of local authorities. Paragraph 3.2 of the Green Paper sets out four weaknesses that have become apparent.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to the next passage of his speech, to which I am listening intently, and while he is talking about comparisons between council tax rates in different authorities, does he accept the proposition that the proper comparison is between band D levels?
Mr. Darvill: I would not say that that is the proper comparison, but it is certainly one that is widely used.

3WH
First, the current system has lacked certainty. Only since the 1998 comprehensive spending review has that problem been addressed. In the past, there was uncertainty from year to year about the level of grant to expect, which hindered planning and modernisation of services. Stability and predictability are important changes for the better. Secondly, the current system gives authorities the same amount of grant regardless of what they are doing to modernise services. Thirdly, the grant system has relied too much on the mechanical use of the statistical analysis of spending. Fourthly, it does not apply any fine tuning to take account of circumstances in individual authorities. I would add a fifth weakness to those set out in the Green Paper: no account seems to be taken of the adverse historical circumstances that applied in some local authorities when the new system was introduced.
My complaints about and criticisms of the existing system are based firmly on my experience of finances in the London borough of Havering, not only in the past four years, but since the reforms were introduced by the previous Administration after the disastrous poll tax debacle more than 10 years ago. I speak from personal experience, not only as a politician, but as a governor for two local schools, an activist in the communities association in my local area, the backroom boy in the Labour party during those years and chair of the infamous local government committee in Havering.
How does the present system impact on boroughs such as Havering? First, the level of Government grant that Havering receives is one of the lowest in London. When compared with those of its neighbouring boroughs, the level of grant per head of population is significantly lower. That may sound like special pleading, which I accept to a certain extent in being an advocate for my local area. More importantly for this debate, that illustrates some of the weaknesses in the system.
For 2000–01, Havering received £578 grant per head of population, whereas Redbridge, its neighbour, received £741 grant per head—20 per cent. more. Barking and Dagenham, another neighbouring borough, received £896 per head—55 per cent. more—and Newham received £1,237, which was 114 per cent. more. I will continue to refer to those boroughs. Although deprivation levels are rightly taken into account, the structure of the standard spending assessment calculation does not reflect the pockets of deprivation in boroughs such as Havering, nor does it reflect the actual cost in, for example, the unit cost per pupil in the education SSA.
The basic structure of the SSA calculations is the number of clients multiplied by unit costs multiplied by area cost adjustment. The unit cost includes a national standard amount and a supplementary amount to reflect the assumed effects of deprivation, and sparsity or density, and the area cost adjustment reflects the higher cost of employing people and property in the area. The indicators in the formula determine the supplementary amounts that are detrimental to Havering. Although some data used in the education, social services and environmental, protective and cultural services—EPCS—service blocks are updated annually, such as the number of income support
4WH
claimants, other data are based on the previous census, which was conducted 10 years ago, and have become considerably out of date.
To illustrate the detrimental effects of the formula, I refer to Havering's SSA for secondary education. The flat-rate unit is £2,306 for each pupil. The supplementary amount for deprivation is £309 for Havering, £448 for Redbridge, £549 for Barking and Dagenham, and £842 for Newham. The area cost adjustment is £283 for Havering, £298 for Redbridge, £309 for Barking and Dagenham, and £341 for Newham. The unit cost per pupil in Havering is £2,898. It is £3,052 in Redbridge, £3,164 in Barking and Dagenham, and £3,489 in Newham. The total secondary schools SSA is based on the number of pupils in the borough, which is 14,649.
I am sorry to repeat the statistics, but they illustrate an important point. If the SSA were based on the Barking and Dagenham unit cost, the total amount received from the Government would be £46.3 million. It would be £51.1 million for Newham, and £44.7 million for Redbridge. Havering receives only £42.4 million, which is £3.8 million below the Barking and Dagenham figure, £8.6 million less than Newham, and £2.2 million less than Redbridge. I appreciate that there are higher levels of deprivation in those areas, but the gap is too wide.
One can argue that it costs the same to educate a secondary school pupil in Havering as it does in neighbouring boroughs, in terms of the cost of teaching staff, staff-to-pupil ratios and school running costs. With those figures, Havering could attract £8.7 million extra in Government support on that part of the SSA alone. That is only one aspect of the formula. I could go on, because similar effects are illustrated by the EPCS service block and concessionary fares system.
The SSA formula has not reflected Havering's need to spend on local services, especially social services. Compared with outer-London boroughs in general, Havering continues to have one of the lowest SSAs per head of the population. Compared with its neighbours, the disparity is marked; Havering's SSA per head of population is on average 23 per cent. less. Although the borough recognises that the percentage increases in SSA for 2001–02 are good—double the rate of inflation—they will be applied against a low base and do not reflect true spending needs. In that respect, it is not as good a settlement as it looks.
Since 1995–96, Havering's budget requirements have consistently exceeded the SSA, even after accounting for drawing down from reserves—in 2000–01, spending was 4.5 per cent. above SSA. That inequity must be resolved. The continued underfunding has had a detrimental effect on the council's infrastructure. A prime example is highways maintenance spending. About 58 per cent. of the borough's street lighting columns are more than 15 years old, and in excess of 2,500 have significant deterioration. Spending on highways maintenance averaged 17 per cent. below the SSA in recent years. I was interested to look at the performance indicators. Whereas in the past, Havering's maintenance of street lights was average, it has now declined, which reflects the lack of investment in that important area.
The imposition of the ceiling for data changes appears to be unfair to councils like Havering. It already provides services for pupils in schools, for the elderly

5WH
and other services for the general population and it pays higher input costs to employ skilled staff as reflected in the new earnings survey. Further more, as in other London boroughs there are recruitment and retention problems in key local government professions. The effect of the ceiling should be taken into account within the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme. It should also be taken into account in the passporting rules for the education standard spending assessment. Passporting the SSA increase in full will increase the loss to the council through the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme, yet Havering has the highest level of delegation in the country. Nearly 90 per cent. of devolved funding goes to local schools.
External support for Havering is one of the lowest in the outer London boroughs. In the past five years, it has averaged 71 per cent. while the outer-London average is 75 per cent. The gap is widening from 3 per cent. in 1996–97 to 4 per cent. in this year's provisional settlement. That means that in addition to having one of the lowest SSAs in London, which restricts the council's spending, Havering residents are expected to pay a higher proportion of costs towards local services. Currently, the council tax is well above average at £959 this year.
The borough loses out in other areas. Havering pays its levy to the East London Waste Authority based on band D equivalence. Funding through the SSA formula is based on population and deprivation indicators. The basis of the costs to the constituent boroughs is not represented in the SSA formula. If the levy were based on tonnage of waste generated, it would more closely reflect the funding stream and would save Havering nearly £875,000 per year. Another example is the mismatch between the funding and costs to the council in concessionary fares. The SSA formula, which distributes grants to fund that service, takes into account the way those services are paid for, but as the SSA formula includes deprivation indicators, our neighbouring authorities receive significantly more Government support to fund those services.
Havering also loses out in the London borough grants scheme. The total cost is allocated on a population basis, but grants made by the units to voluntary organisations whose work includes Havering represent approximately 10 per cent. of the amount that the council contributes. That is partly due to the fact that any grants allocated by the unit require match funding. The council has no scope to match-fund to attract those resources to improve services in the borough. I have gone though the difficulties that a borough like Havering has in some detail, but other boroughs throughout the country have similar problems. They have led to significant increases in the council tax. There was a 43 per cent. increase in council taxes from 1996 to 2001 There is a 12.4 per cent. increase for 2001–02. Increases above the national average are likely for the remainder of the comprehensive spending review period.
What does the future hold? The Green Paper sets out a number of ways of trying to achieve a better regime. A number of them require careful analysis. I am in favour of the safety valve suggestion. The Government recognise that any formula-based system is bound to have limitations and that those limitations could be resolved by allowing authorities to apply for further funding via a safety valve mechanism. That would allow
6WH
the Government, presumably as a top-up to the revenue support grant, to pay additional non-ring-fenced grants to councils that appear to be underfunded.
I agree with that approach, subject to there being clear criteria that local councils can understand when applying for the funding. Comparisons of external support to the class of authority are a good starting point. The criteria should be consistent, holistic and not open to different interpretations. For example, unit costs can vary simply by the allocation, while best value performance indicators need to be applied consistently across authorities and years. The system should be neither administratively cumbersome nor costly. The Government should consider using other sources of information, such as inspection results.
Mr. David Kidney: My hon. Friend has shown a wonderful grasp of the details of Havering. He mentioned other sources of data. Is he aware of what the Office for National Statistics is doing? The decennial census is about to begin, the average earnings index is changing, and there is a new project to capture ward-based statistics. Does my hon. Friend agree that such new data might be helpful?
Mr. Darvill: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The problems that can result from using old data are one of my main themes today. The current system perpetuates existing problems but, as my hon. Friend suggests, current technology could help to ensure that grants take account of updated information.
The use of ministerial discretion in safety valves could give rise to concern unless the discretion is tied into a clear, published and transparent framework. In other words, the safety valve system could work quickly, but the framework must be open to avoid difficulties with the allocation of grants at central level.
The Government have changed their emphasis recently on public service agreements. I look forward to hearing the Minister comment on the setting up of pilots, and clarify the criteria for public service agreements. The Green Paper also touches on the business rate, which the Government are considering. In principle, the more the business rate can be defined and made accountable to the local area, the more effective it will be.
I apologise for concentrating on my local authority's position, but I wanted to highlight the severe difficulties that have resulted from the existing system. The borough has never been a profligate or high-spending council. It has made strenuous efforts to modernise and embrace change, yet finds itself in a difficult position. It has suffered from a lack of investment in the past, almost entirely due to previous Conservative Administrations. I am sorry to make a party-political point, but it is relevant to explaining the historical position.
In the lead-up to the 1990s, the borough was a low-spending, low-investment authority. Following subsequent changes in the 90s, several services—particularly children's and other social services—needed improvement. Improvements often resulted from inspections, but funding adjustments were not made following the implementation of recommendations, resulting in spending above the standard spending assessment.

7WH
The previous Conservative Government, with their disastrous poll tax fiasco and creation of the present system, exacerbated the problem. Low settlement figures in the few years before 1997 were another factor. From a low base, the borough has never been able to recover and has sometimes had to reduce its reserves. That effectively lowers income because, as reserves reduce, so does the interest from investments. Despite higher investment by the present Government, the borough remains in a difficult position.
As a result of its continuing problems, the borough has made its own representations. With all-party support in the borough, a campaign for "Justice for Havering" has been established. We must halt the decline before the position worsens. It has been calculated that there have been cuts of approximately £19 million in the past 10 years. Admittedly, some of them were the result of planned spending expansions, but in many ways such expansions were justified investment in several essential services.
The financial system impedes the planning and modernisation of services. It hinders delivery of the Government's programme, creates low morale among staff and council members and leads to public incredulity because council taxes are high when public services have been cut. Local government finance needs urgent review—that will be complex—and I am aware that the Government are starting to give the matter priority, which I appreciate. If the planned reforms take longer than expected, the Government should introduce the safety-valve concept as an interim measure. That would be a possibility for boroughs such as Havering, which has specific difficulties.
It is important that our public services are maintained. Delivery is important not only for the local authority's services, but for initiatives in which local authorities have an important role, such as reducing crime and increasing educational standards. With that, I conclude my remarks and look forward to the Minister's reply.
9.56 am
Mr. David Kidney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) on securing this important debate and on his thoroughly reasonable and constructive presentation. Yes, he made special pleas for the London borough of Havering; however, his grasp of the underlying circumstances in that borough shows that he has made a genuine effort to understand the complexities of local government finance.
I begin my discussion of some of the criticisms of the present system and why reform is necessary by referring to my hon. Friend's fifth criticism about the formula for funding local government from Government funds. That regressive formula goes back to a period in 1990 and seals in the pattern of spending that was then current. It means that the whole system is trapped in a time warp and that local authorities can do nothing to change their situations.
My special pleading is for the local authority of Staffordshire. In the league table of funding for shire counties, Staffordshire is always at No. 34 of 35. Unlike
8WH
those in a football league table, the authority cannot raise its position by improving its performance. That is absolutely contrary to my idea of a modern system of local government finance.
Another criticism of the present system is the introduction into the formula of factors that are not objectively justified. The most obvious one is the area cost adjustment, which my hon. Friend mentioned. A couple of years ago, I asked the House of Commons Library for some details on how Staffordshire has been affected by not being eligible for the area cost adjustment, which is drawn in a ring around south-east England. I was given an indication of how Staffordshire has suffered. In 1999–2000, the standard spending assessment for Staffordshire county council would have been about £28.6 million—or 5.4 per cent.—higher, if area cost adjustment figures equal to the arithmetic mean for those counties with an area cost adjustment factor of more than one had been applied. Staffordshire was £28.6 million gorse off in that one year alone, simply because of exclusion from a formula for dishing out money. Staffordshire was denied that considerable chunk of spending.
Additional educational need is another element in Staffordshire—that need is thought to lack credibility. Parents of schoolchildren in Staffordshire often make comparisons with other parts of the country—not so much the London boroughs to which my hon. Friend referred, such as Hackney or Havering, but Hertfordshire in south-east England, which many people would say is similar to Staffordshire. Funding in Hertfordshire is between £200 and £300 higher per pupil than in Staffordshire, although the education service is the same.
Mr. Darvill: Does my hon. Friend agree that although those comparisons appear to be reasonable, they tend to undermine the system of local government finance in the eyes of the electorate?
Mr. Kidney: The Green Paper discusses the ability of politicians to explain and justify a system, which many people find incomprehensible, to the public. It is difficult to justify the formula because of its regressive nature.
I should also mention the plight of social services in Staffordshire. As the standard spending assessment is so low, support from central Government is also low. This year, the director of social services reckons that he is £17 million light on the funds that he needs to provide the same level of service as the rest of the country. From a politician's point of view, an excellent indication of that shortfall is that county council elections are due in Staffordshire on 7 June this year, but local politicians have decided to increase spending by 5 per cent. That is almost entirely because of the pressures on the social services budget, especially from older residents who want more support in their homes or to go into residential homes.
That spending increase is a measure of the desperation. Even in an election year, there is no question of not introducing an increase, although it will be unpopular with residents. As the 5 per cent. increase in spending outstrips central Government support by a considerable amount, the excess is loaded on the quarter of the council's income that comes from council tax,

9WH
which converts to an 8.9 per cent increase in council tax bills, which has made residents angry. It is difficult to explain to them why the local authority bears such a disproportionate amount of that cost.
The Green Paper was welcomed in Staffordshire because it rejected a continuation of the status quo. In that regard, the Government have taken an important stride forward compared with previous Governments. My hon. Friend did not touch this matter, so I ought to make it clear that the Green Paper offered two different ways forward. On the one hand, it suggested a simplification of the existing formula for distributing central Government grants. On the other, it offered a system whereby local authorities would submit their plans for future spending and central Government would decide how to allocate funding in accordance with the quality of those plans.
Most responses that the Government have received do not favour the plan-based system because of the uncertainty at the bidding stage and concern about the additional bureaucracy caused by administering the plans. There is a further worry that that system would centralise control in the hands of the Government of the day, which would not allow local authority independence. Most people support a simplification of the formula. On 5 March, the Government published a summary of the responses received to the Green Paper, and if one reads through them it easy to see that a majority of respondents felt that a simplified formula was fairer, easier to explain and easier to understand.
I welcome the suggestion on education in the Green Paper, which proposes a simplified formula with a minimum per pupil entitlement throughout the country. The parents, teachers, school governors and politicians of Staffordshire would be delighted to see that in place. Of course, there are reasons why some parts of the country need more money—for example, inner-London boroughs. The Green Paper therefore discusses additional payments for objectively ascertainable levels of deprivation and the costs of recruitment and retention. I have already mentioned the role that the Office for National Statistics could play in providing ward-based data that would justify those objective decisions.
I welcome the discussion in the Green Paper of funding floors and ceilings to limit the gains and losses of the winners and losers and to improve stability from one year to the next. On balance, I would probably support safety valves, as did my hon. Friend, but I am worried about discretion for the Government of the day. I support the response that one local authority made to the Green Paper that any funding for safety valves should be additional funding from central Government and not achieved by top-slicing other authorities' funding.
My final and probably most important comment on the Green Paper concerns the anticipated levelling up of funding rather than taking money from existing winners and redistributing it to losers. That is important to ensure that the future settlement is acceptable throughout the country.
I have read the responses to the Green Paper, which include support for a simplified formula. That support is not unanimous and some authorities oppose it, but it is fair to surmise that opposition comes from those who
10WH
are gaining from the present unfair formula and do not want to risk losing their gains. There is strong support for a system of funding floors. Of the 229 local authorities and other organisations that responded, 89 per cent. favoured a funding floor, 9 per cent. were neutral and only 2 per cent. opposed a funding floor. That response was different from the response to a system of funding ceilings—my hon. Friend was nervous bout that—which was supported by 56 per cent. of those who responded, with 26 per cent. being neutral and 19 per cent. opposed. Again, those who opposed it were those who feared that they would lose out.
My knowledge of funding campaigns goes back to the 1990s, when the seven worst funded shire counties formed themselves into a group. It called itself the E7 group and when another authority later joined, it became the E8 group. However, it had little clout or influence because it was a small group of losers and no one took any notice of it. If it threatened an authority that was a winner, it received no support, which was understandable. The group made a strategic decision during the present Parliament and disbanded. It obtained wider support from local government associations and formed a group of the 40 worst funded authorities in the country. It included all sorts of authorities—unitaries, metropolitans and so on. I was flattered that it chose the university of Staffordshire in Stafford in my constituency for its inaugural meeting in recognition of what I had said and done in Parliament.
I attended the inaugural meeting, at which it was agreed to set up a fair funding campaign group, called F40 for convenience and brevity. I said that I would write to Members of Parliament with constituencies covering those 40 authorities to ask if they were interested in supporting the group in the House. Approximately 200 Members of Parliament from all parties replied saying that they would support the campaign. We then held several meetings, which were very well attended bearing in mind our numerous commitments elsewhere, and were able to send out a firm and consistent message, especially to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
I like to think that the message that we delivered so clearly and consistently influenced the rationale of the Green Paper. We were pleased with its contents and I am proud that 14,402 supporters of the F40 campaign wrote individual letters in response to the Green Paper. They came from parents, teachers and schools as far afield as Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Leicestershire, North Yorkshire, Northumberland, Nottinghamshire, Shropshire, Somerset, Staffordshire, Suffolk, Warwickshire, Wiltshire, Worcestershire, Bury, Dudley, North Tyneside, Solihull, Stockport, Trafford, Tameside, Wakefield, Wigan, Bath and north-east Somerset, East Riding of Yorkshire, north Somerset, Poole, Rutland, Swindon, Warrington, west Berkshire, Wokingham and York. That is a pretty impressive spread. A total of 14,402 people wrote in support of a resolution, which, with your leave, Mr. Amess, I should like to read into the record of our deliberations, because the respondents deserve that recognition. It says:

11WH
"The f40 Group welcomes Government recognition of the need to remove unjustifiable inequalities in the system for funding education. The next three months give an opportunity for authorities, governors, teachers and parents to influence future plans.
The Group is now keen to work with DfEE and DETR in the positive spirit of levelling up the worst funded areas. However, we are greatly concerned that the Government appears to contemplate that the existing injustices will be continued for another three years.
We strongly urge the Government to act now to provide additional funding for levelling up from April 2001. This will provide a temporary solution under the existing discredited system while the new long-term proposals are being developed.
The f40 Group is of the opinion that the proposed three year freeze to the SSA formula is unacceptable."
That is a positive and powerful message to the Government. The April 2001 financial settlement, which is now up and running, does not include extra money specifically for areas such as Staffordshire. However—it is fair to give the Government these limited accolades—the local government formula for 2001–02 included funding floors and ceilings as an experiment. The Government were partly driven to do that by data changes in the average earnings index, which would have been embarrassing for them. Nevertheless, the fact that, even in advance of the White Paper and new legislation, they are operating floors and ceilings demonstrates a welcome commitment on their part to the matters discussed in the Green Paper.
In the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced even greater flat-rate payments to every school in the country—up to £63,000 to a large primary school and £115,000 to a large secondary school. It is welcome, on the basis that equality is equity, that every school in the country receives the same sum of money regardless of its location.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, I urge that the White Paper should not long be delayed and that legislation to make the necessary changes in accordance with it should be a priority for the next Parliament. We do not want new groupings of winners and losers fighting each other across party political boundaries about cash. To prevent that, it is important for the Government to stand by their commitment to level up funding to those authorities that are at present the losers.
I look forward to listening to other hon. Members' contributions to the debate.
10.13 am
Mr. David Drew: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) on his lucid explanation of the subject and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who has led the F40 group magnificently both in this place and outside. We have made our point and eagerly await the Government's response.
There is always a temptation to think that anyone who takes an interest in local government finance is mad, bad or merely sad. However, its importance cannot be underestimated, given the impact that it has on our lives as Members of Parliament through the various ways in which our local councils operate. I shall
12WH
lay my cards on the table from the outset. I come not to praise the current system, but to bury it. It is unfair, opaque, and fails in its key task of providing the right level of services in the appropriate way. Radical reform is necessary, and I welcome the Government's Green Paper. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, I look forward to a White Paper soon after the election to ensure that we drive the change through and achieve radical reform.
We can dissect the problems of local government finance in many ways, but I will concentrate on three areas that clearly demonstrate where it has gone wrong. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford mentioned cost adjustment, which is the Tories' payola and nothing less titan a way of bribing certain local authorities to continue with what has happened in the past. If one wants to annoy any head teacher or councillor in an area that is tangential to an area in which cost adjustment applies, or in one of the metropolitan boroughs, one must only mention cost adjustment and a blue touch paper is lit; the issue causes incredible anger and dispute and something must be done about it.
Secondly, for all the complications and differences in local government finance, the same services are effectively being provided nationwide. There may be some cost differences across the country, but they are often exaggerated. If we are providing common services, they should be funded in common ways. A need for commonality of funding exists and we should either be levelling up to a mean, or jointly accepting that a common system can be achieved, barring the exceptions that I shall mention.
The third area may have been brought to Ministers' attention by the sheer idiocy of what is happening. Like my hon. Friends, I shall use the experiences of my local authority to highlight the anomalies in the system. Our fire and rescue service in Gloucestershire has done what it should have done —reduced the number of emergency calls by checking calls and ensuring that people are not abusing the emergency services, as well as the number of retirements—so it has achieved a wonderful 1.4 per cent. increase in our standard spending assessment. After some nifty lobbying on my part, I managed to reduce that to a 1.3 per cent. increase. Ministers were apoplectic when they were asked why that had happened. That anomaly, and other anomalies that every hon. Member can think of, bring home the reason why we must change the system.
Why have we failed to change the system in the past? We all agree on the need for reform, but not necessarily on a mutual goal. There has been conflict between the metropolitan boroughs and counties, among the various layers of local government and between those in an area of cost adjustment that have something to defend and those outside the area who are trying to get in, or who are saying that the system is unfair and should be changed. We sometimes underestimate the impact of the different layers of local government. It pleased me that the Green Paper mentioned parish and town councils. As a town councillor, I was happy to see that the first level of government—which should not be regarded as the lowest level—was mentioned because it has a role to play in reforming the system.

13WH
However, what brings home the need to engineer that reform is the state of the major services—education and social services. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford mentioned that the Chancellor had channelled funding into schools in a different way, and we have certainly seen the advantages of having a common system. However, many problems exist in the social services of most authorities and they are related to funding and unfairness in the system, which we must do something about. To a certain extent, those problems could be dealt with outside the area of funding and its need to be linked with health, housing and other issues. However, that strategy will not be sufficient on its own and we must see what the funding arrangements are to ensure that services are receiving funding, particularly those for older people and children. One anomaly in the system that needs to be addressed is the radically different way in which children's services are funded in different parts of the country.
I shall deal with a few other matters in passing. The formula is far too complicated and as a result no one understands the nuances of the resulting change. Importantly, that situation militates against local initiatives and improvements. I have confidence in local government, albeit in perhaps a different form. Those of us with three-tier authorities are desperate to move to a two-tier system that bolsters town and parish councils and recognises that unitary authorities can deliver services with clarity. However, that is an argument for another day. It is galling to discover that the funding arrangements do not take account of particular problems. In the past six months, my county has been hit by two crises: flooding, which caused enormous problems, and foot and mouth disease. There must be a degree of finesse, in that funding must form part of the way in which we deal with those problems. Unfortunately, there is no way to do that at the moment.
What can we do? The Government must face up to the need for radical reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred to the F40 group. Its highly creditable campaign, which the Government have regarded positively, has introduced many ideas, but we must push the rationale for reform. That is only one service and we must remember that we are reforming across the board, but its arguments for raising lower-funded authorities to an arithmetic mean and establishing common, service-based funding deserve close attention. Such initiatives could be linked to changes in the council tax regime. Re-banding, for example, should play a part in the changes in local government finance that we are discussing. We need to lower the banding for some residents in band A. Those of us who campaigned for fairness for dwellers in park homes will regard that as an important issue. Moreover, we should ensure greater fairness as regards those in band H—I am not having a go at them as individuals—who are not paying the proper amount towards local government funding.
Establishing floors and ceilings is a move in the right direction. I am confident that the Government now know how to do so, but they must grasp the nettle of reform and ensure that the various services are able to continue by providing appropriate funding.
Another reason why reform has failed is the London effect. Given that the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, who secured this Adjournment debate, is in the London borough of Havering, he is
14WH
doubtless able to argue far more fiercely than I could for the need to recognise London's impact. I accept entirely that London is a special case, although we may not choose to describe it as such. We must recognise that the poorer London boroughs must not be disadvantaged by the new system. Indeed, if there is to be proper reform, some dampening might be necessary for a time to ensure that certain authorities are not unduly hammered. Some parts of the country will doubtless express a degree of schadenfreude, saying that it is about time that the south-east got its come-uppance. However, we should not argue that case too fiercely, because that is not the way to achieve an acceptable level of reform. We must recognise that there will be cost implications in the interim, until we move to a funding system that is fairer and more transparent.
We recognise that the task will not be easy and that many other elements in the Green Paper are also worthy of note. It is a strength of the document that it is thin: it is straightforward and not over-complicated. Pages 12 and 13 set out the SSA system clearly and comprehensively and have enabled me to come nearer to understanding it than ever before. I wish that the hideously complicated system were that simple in reality.
We must also examine such topics as the fairer use of capital investment and links to business rate changes. I would like the funding stream to be localised so that businesses can put money directly into their local communities. Such a link between a business and the local community is a symbolic, but important, gesture.
I hope that the Government recognise the need for urgent reform, and will get on and make the progress that some of us wanted earlier. The case is now proven, and all that remains is delivery.
10.26 am
Mr. Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) on securing the debate. "Justice for Sutton" has a nice ring, and something might be germinating there. We had the first phase of the "Justice for Sutton" campaign when I took an all-party group of local councillors to see the relevant Minister to express concern that, on the present grant, the London borough of Sutton cannot deliver the education or community services that residents want.
I welcome the opportunity to debate local government finance. Perhaps it is not the most media-grabbing issue, but it is of great concern to local residents, whom it seriously affects. As the hon. Member for Upminster pointed out, one could make this a much more controversial debate about public-private partnership for London Underground. The appropriate Minister is here, and such partnership is a means of funding local government services. Does the Minister advise local authorities to pursue public-private partnership arrangements for the long-term financing of council services?
We could make the debate different again by extracting the "local" and the "finance" to end up with "Modernising government". Today's debate could have touched briefly on the need for a fixed term for a Parliament. We must discuss that in this Chamber at some point.

15WH
The Liberal Democrats broadly support the aims of the reforms in the Green Paper, "Modernising Local Government Finance". Local authorities need a strong democratic mandate from voters and the support and involvement of a wide range of local stakeholders, as well as clear, forward vision and firm leadership. We agree with the hon. Members who have said that local authorities can achieve nothing without money. We must get financing right and fund all local authorities adequately.
Local authorities should have a greater say in what constitutes adequate funding. The standard spending assessment is unloved and based on projections that are up to 10 years old. If local authorities had a greater involvement in the funding process, some of the authorities in the south-east to which hon. Members have referred could have the necessary resources to tackle their serious problems, such as attracting teachers and social workers.
We support the continuous improvement in service quality. We support predictability and stability. Local authorities cannot plan ahead with confidence if they are subject to large or unexpected variations in grant, or take on additional responsibilities, perhaps at short notice, without the adequate level of funding required to deliver them. We support the need for local authorities to have real financial freedom and responsibility, but do the Government?
The Government's Green Paper states that local authorities need clear forward vision and firm leadership, but when local authorities provide firm leadership, they are slapped down by central Government. I shall cite my borough as an example, for which, like other hon. Members, I apologise—it is the borough that I know best. The London borough of Sutton carried out a consultation a few years ago asking local people what local government structure they wanted. My authority expressed its preferred option; it showed leadership, in other words. It had thought about the issue and suggested proposals. However, the local authority was sent off with its tail between its legs and told to rerun the consultation because of having expressed a preference—so much for allowing local authorities to demonstrate leadership. It is hard to believe that the Government are committed to giving local authorities real financial freedom and responsibility. We should allow local authorities to make their own decisions and their own mistakes, for which they may subsequently pay via the ballot box.
The Green Paper refers to the need to be fair to those who need and pay for local authority services and to ensure that people are fully protected. I hope that the Minister will explain what that means and from whom local residents need to be protected. Is it a code word for what used to be called loony left councils? Accountability for financial decisions needs to be clear. If council tax increases are excessive, or services underfunded, people need to know why. It should be clear to people whether council tax increases are a result of something that the local authority has done, or of central Government cutting the grant, or whether they are due to central Government passing on responsibilities to the local authority without giving it the necessary funding to allow services to be delivered.
16WH
The Minister will have seen chart A in the Green Paper, which shows a 4 per cent. increase in revenue support grant in the year 2000–01. Will he confirm what the increase would be if it were weighted in favour of additional responsibilities that local authorities have had to take on? What sum will the real new money be that local authorities will receive? The process of Government finance should be intelligible and transparent to stakeholders. No one could disagree with that. At present, few people understand the way in which local government is financed or realise the impact that the level of grant from central Government has on services.
The Green Paper refers to partnership working, which is again something that we support. We also support consultation, although referendums have to be handled carefully. Local authorities embarking on referendums need to be careful about the promises that they make and how binding they will be. When committing themselves to a council tax increase of a certain percentage, they need to be careful to take into account outside factors, such as the Ken Livingstone factor on precepts, and the impact that that could have on services.
The Green Paper refers to people being held to account if services are not being delivered or are inadequate. That is all well and good, but it is not easy to hold people to account in a first-past-the-post electoral system. My local authority has a massive Liberal Democrat majority, which I hope will continue for years to come, but under the present system, there is relatively little scope for people to achieve a change in local government. It is difficult to hold people to account under that system.
I accept that some progress has been made. It was right to move to a three-year spending round to give local authorities some stability so that they could see what was coming over the horizon in budget terms. However, there have been some unwelcome developments, such as the increase in the use of ring-fenced grants, or grants being given to specific bodies. Does the Minister think that central Government giving grants to schools results in greater clarity in financial decision making or responsibility? Does that help people to understand what is happening with local government finance?
The Green Paper contains much more that is welcome. Liberal Democrats aim to restore local government independence, which can be achieved in part by modernising local government finance. Will the Minister consider local income tax as a means of making accountability much clearer? How can that be achieved other than by shifting the balance of how local tax is raised, from a central Government grant to local people paying for local services and seeing that clearly in local income tax bills? Before anyone starts distributing leaflets saying that council tax will be increased threefold, taxpayers would be compensated by equivalent reductions in national income tax.
Mr. Phil Woolas: Would a local income tax be raised from the residents of the borough or district, or from the employees working

17WH
within that geographical boundary? How would the hon. Gentleman ensure a fair distribution of resources, given the higher incomes in the south-east?
Mr. Brake: There would need to be a mechanism for redistributing the moneys raised, so that deprived areas could be compensated, or given additional grant. That is why we are talking about, say, 80 per cent. of the money required to be raised locally and 20 per cent. raised centrally, with which we could achieve the sort of redistribution to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That would be achieved over a transitional period, so there would not be a heavy impact in year one.
The Government favour trials. We have had some interesting trials on voting procedure, with postal votes and allowing voting to take place in supermarkets, for example. Will the Minister consider allowing local authorities to use different methods of taxing businesses, for example? Many local authorities suffer, as mine does, from businesses or property owners who leave retail premises in prime high street locations empty year after year, waiting for I know not what. In a prime location in Wallington, the premises of what used to be a pizzeria have been empty for about 10 years. Can local authorities be given the flexibility to target empty retail premises and get them back into use, rather than leaving them vacant for many years?
I hope that the Minister will give local authorities financial freedom and responsibility and that he will respond positively to my radical proposals.
10.41 am
Mr. Nigel Waterson: It is a great pleasure to be in this Chamber under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) on securing this important debate. It would be unfair to describe those who are assembled here as "anoraks". We are not sad people—at least, not in this context. The hon. Gentleman raised some important matters and gave us the opportunity to probe the Government, in the estimable shape of the Minister, about their intentions. The Govt have published the Green Paper, taken consultations and had time to mull things over.
One of the problems about a Government coming to the end of their natural life is the tendency of Ministers to kick things into what is known in Whitehall as the long grass—the grass has never been longer or more widely spread than under this Government. The fly in the ointment is the postponement of the election to 7 June or whenever, because that means some things that are now in the long grass—hunting and so on—will have to be extracted from it.
On the more arcane issue of local government finance, we are entitled to know, in the dying days of this Government, whether Ministers will produce a White Paper on the subject. The last date for responses to the Green Paper was 8 December and it is high time that Ministers gave us their definitive views on the subject.
A problem with postponing local elections to June, or whenever, is that some fragile budgets have been put in place by regimes that expect to be booted out. My county, East Sussex, is a prime example. The Lib-Lab pact has made a complete mess of the budget and has left
18WH
behind—or is hoping to leave behind—a fragile budget replete with booby traps for the incoming Conservative administration. It will be interesting to see how the Lib-Lab pact manages to soldier on, trying to operate the budget for the early part of the new financial year.
The comments made by the hon. Member for Upminster were thoughtful, although it was unfair to blame the Opposition for the lack of time available to debate the rate support grant, which is a matter for Government business managers. However, he was right to mention some of the defects in the current system. He touched on the Government's centralising agenda. Under this Government, local government finance is a major weapon for imposing a tighter grip from central Government on local democracy.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned best value, which has got completely out of control and which will need radical review under the next Conservative Government. He also talked about capping. With the effrontery that only politicians can manage, he denied that he would go into the subject of special pleading, of which he then gave us a lengthy example as it affects Havering. He was not alone in doing so—he thought that the settlement was not as good as it looked and talked about underfunding. He also mentioned large increases in council tax in his area.
The most useful parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech were his comments on floors and ceilings. A complaint about the Government's attitude to local government finance is that they claim to be in a period of stability, as they persist in calling it, with a freeze on standard spending assessment methodology. There are problems with that so-called freeze. At the start of the period, the Government made the conscious decision to shift resources away from shire areas and London—to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds—and the three-year period of stability cemented in those unfairnesses for a significant period.
The Government are also bumping up against the problem of area cost adjustment. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said, opinions differ on that subject, depending which part of the country an hon. Member represents. A Government faced with new data informing the calculation of area cost adjustment are in a predicament. Do they allow the new figures to be put into effect—that may cause even more steam to come out of the ears of the hon. Member for Stafford and his friends in the F40 group—or do they tinker with the system? In that respect, the hon. Member for Upminster put his finger on a major problem. Havering is one of a group of councils, which includes Newham, that have suffered a 0.2 per cent. loss in grant because of the introduction of floors and ceilings. The hon. Member for Stafford said again that it is a matter of top-slicing the money and redistributing it; it is not new money for people who are being given extra help, but money that is being taken away from all local councils, especially those on the list that includes Havering, which is losing even more grant because of the new ceiling arrangements.
In the middle of a so-called freeze of methodology, when the Government are supposed to be sitting in a darkened room taking account of representations on the Green Paper and taking serious decisions about the future of local government finance, they are merely tinkering with the system at the edges. They are just

19WH
dipping their toe in the water; if it works this year and the Government think that they can get away with it, it is a wonderful opportunity for Ministers to make politically informed decisions about distributing grant around the country.
It was fascinating to hear the hon. Member for Upminster touch on that issue when he sounded a warning bell about ministerial discretion. There are two schools of thought on the Government Benches: first, that they do not want plan-based funding, and secondly, that they want a simplified formula. The only problem is that one authority's simplified formula is another's gross unfairness. The Minister will warn us about the search for undue simplicity in the formulas, but there is a consensus on the Labour Benches that plan-based funding is not the answer. In large measure, that is because of their suspicion and, if they are suspicious, what are the rest of us to say of ministerial power and the centralising power of Government over local authorities? It we are not careful it will be yet another mechanism that the Government will put in place to control the agenda of local authorities.
If there is not to be a simplified formula-based system, there is growing support on the Labour Benches for ministerial discretion, or interference, and we all know what that means. Already, specific grants under this Government have risen dramatically; they have gone up even in this year by more than 18 per cent. as a proportion of total grant. The growth in competition for particular pots of money is often time wasting and expensive for local authorities, especially those who do not succeed and now there is to be a system of floors and ceilings, which will allow Ministers to interfere, subject to representations from their hon. Friends—
Mr. Darvill: I have been listening closely to the hon. Gentleman. Am I to gather from what he said that he would be opposed to a safety-valve mechanism, or does he think that one could be introduced, provided that there were the right safeguards and criteria?
Mr. Waterson: With respect, that begs the question what system there will be at the end of the process. It is true that for a Government bent on centralising in local government there are major attractions in safety valves and other mechanisms based on ministerial discretion.
We heard a great deal about simplified formulas, especially from the hon. Member for Stafford, who speaks with some knowledge about such matters, and from the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) was sensible not to dwell on Liberal Democrat policies of increased income tax, local income tax and regional tax and support for the Government's imposition of extra burdens on the motorist.
The important aspect of all this complexity, and the interesting and arcane discussions to which it leads, is the effect that it has on real people. Despite the Government's projections, this year there will be a further average increase of 6.4 per cent. in council tax—that is three times the rate of inflation. In Staffordshire, it is more than 8 per cent.; in East Sussex, it is close to 10 per cent. That is wholly unacceptable to ordinary people, especially pensioners, who, in effect, are having to pay a new stealth tax.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) on his success in securing the debate. He was one of several Members of Parliament who responded directly with their views on the options for reform outlined in the Green Paper, "Modernising Local Government Finance". I have read his response, which was thoughtful, as was his speech today.
We heard interesting and serious contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and from the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). Several hon. Members referred to the unique and compelling reasons why their local authorities should receive a somewhat better deal out of local government finance arrangements, and I should like to have been able to respond to those individual concerns. However, in view of the limited time remaining to me, I propose to confine my remarks to the Green Paper, which has been the underlying theme and connecting link of the debate.
First, on revenue grant distribution, the key point to emphasise is that we have not yet made final decisions about whether we will extend the formula freeze for another year or base the new revenue grant system on a formula or plan-based approach. In the meantime, officials are working with local government on the detail of our proposals for reform. New formulas are being developed only on a purely contingency basis. I shall return to that matter later.
Perhaps the most consistent message in the responses to the Green Paper was that local government needs more stability and predictability in funding levels. That enables authorities to concentrate on medium and long-term planning for improved service delivery rather than on annual fire-fighting and demotivating rounds of cuts when grant figures are announced. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster said, we have made progress in that respect. We have sought to provide as much stability and predictability as we could, through three-year plans for total grants and the continued freeze on SSA formulas. This year, we have gone further by introducing floors and ceilings to grant changes. That was much welcome I by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford.
However, we have promised more than predictability and stability. We all agree that a fairer grant distribution system is needed, but fairness does not mean just "fairness for my authority". Given the complexity of the formulas, it is inevitable that every authority feels hard done by in some respect. Every authority can give compelling reasons why it should get more, and it is the unenviable job of central Government to try to balance all those views and to deliver a fair outcome for all areas throughout the country.
Our present grant system attracts a lot of criticism. It has not made it easy for authorities to improve their services and it is extremely difficult for people to understand. Small wonder, therefore, that authorities doubt whether it is fair. However, our review of the distribution system has been making good progress. We are not rushing ahead with hasty solutions, as some would urge, but taking a long, hard look at our shared

21WH
objectives for the system and the best way in which to deliver them. We are building consensus through working alongside and listening to local government and other stakeholders, but much work remains to be done and we are eager to press ahead.
We are well aware of the F40 campaign, which has been active at grassroots level among local authorities and in the House, and is so ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. I thank him for his kind words on the work done through direct grant to schools and through floors and ceilings. He will be pleased to hear that we have made an early start to joint working with local government and wider stakeholders on education funding.
A group has been set up to work on the funding of schools and local education authorities. Its overall aim is to oversee the production of a full proposal for a new funding system and a timetable for its implementation. The group's membership has been drawn from central Government and local government unions, and also includes representatives of teaching and non-teaching staff, schools, governors' organisations and the churches. It is working on a contingency basis and no decisions have been taken about changes for 2002–03.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster mentioned the safety-valve grant. The proposal on that was well received by Green Paper respondents. We are now discussing the detailed operation of the scheme with the Local Government Association, and considering the issues that my hon. Friend raised. The grant must be targeted at only a small number of authorities, but my hon. Friend has r lade a cogent case for his borough, Havering.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster also mentioned the local public service agreements that we are piloting. They are a new and potentially valuable tool for improving local services, involving closer co-operation between central Government and local government. They allow councils to sign up to challenging targets and to deliver on key national and local priorities in return for agreed freedoms, flexibilities and financial incentives. They allow us to examine ways in which the finance system can encourage exceptional performance. The pilot exercise is now being concluded.
22WH
Some 14 agreements have been signed with authorities around the country and the remaining six should be signed shortly. We will extend the local PSAs to other upper-tier authorities in England on a voluntary basis.
I have concentrated on the distribution of revenue grant, which arouses strong feelings because of the sums involved. The debate, however, is on modernising the whole local government finance system and I will briefly cover other matters raised in the Green Paper.
We are introducing more flexibility to capital finance by the single capital pot—a cross-service allocation mechanism for giving central Government capital support to local authorities. That will be introduced next year, but we are going still further. Green Paper respondents overwhelmingly endorsed our proposals to abolish the complex system of local authority capital controls and replace it with the "prudential system" described in the Green Paper.
Two weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced to the House our decision to implement the changes. Local government has long sought such capital reforms and they are widely welcomed. Under the new system, authorities will be free to invest in their communities without needing permission from central Government each time. Safeguards in the system will ensure that authorities do not run up unsustainable debts, but the increased flexibility will enable them to deliver better value for money, including through partnership working. The necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as there is parliamentary time.
In the past four years, the Government have increased grant to local authorities by £8.7 billion. That real-terms increase of 13.6 per cent. contrasts with the previous four years, when there was a real cut in grant of 6.9 per cent. In our first four years in office, we have concentrated on the biggest problems: inadequate funding for local government and lack of certainty about future funding. The Green Paper and forthcoming White Paper represent the next phase of our agenda to modernise local government. That includes the reform of grant distribution, capital finance and local taxation systems, and we will continue to work in partnership with local government and local stakeholders to achieve our aims.

Nursing and Residential Homes
10.59 am
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate standards of care in nursing and residential homes, although Parliament has spent some time discussing the topic in recent years.
In the past 10 years or so, two constituents of mine—one is over 60 and the other is well under 60—have always begun conversations with me by saying, "What are you doing about the old people?" and this debate is about exactly that.
I am pleased to have secured today's debate and was prompted to do so by a series of events that began in December last year, when some colleagues and I visited Guy's hospital, residential homes and old people's homes as part of a Christmas visit programme. I have made such visits in all but one year since becoming the Member of Parliament for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Indeed, I inherited from my predecessor, the late Bob Mellish, the tradition that the local MP spends Christmas day at work, and I am very happy to do so. Such visits seem to be much appreciated by those one sees.
This year, Denise Capstick—a colleague who is a state registered nurse and a local councillor in the ward in which I live—and I visited several old people's homes, some of which cater for old people in general, and others for the particularly old or frail, or for those with mental illness. We were troubled by the lack of stimulation, personal attention and care that certain elderly residents in my constituency were apparently receiving. It seemed that minimal interest was taken in them, and that in some cases only mealtime and toileting needs were attended to. They were left staring at a loud television in overheated accommodation—and this was Christmas day—with little else in the way of activities. So troubled was my colleague that she resolved to pay further unannounced visits.
Since then, a particular incident has significantly raised the local profile of the issue. In February, constituents whom 1 already knew approached me and others about the apparent lack of care for, and potential violence and assault on, Walter Cook, a 70-year-old resident of a nursing home in my constituency. The assault on Walter Cook, which took place at the relatively new Tower Bridge care centre, gave publicity to his case, and led to on-going police investigations and to Mr. Cook's removal to other local accommodation.
Concerns arising from our Christmas and subsequent visits, and from the complaint made by the Pitts family—Mr. Cook's family—raised the general profile of the issue. Denise Capstick and her opposite number, Vicky Naish—deputy leader of Southwark council and the person with responsibility, under the cabinet system, for health and social care—resolved to work together to ensure that their concerns were adequately addressed. I should point out that there is no party political division in respect of this matter, which has become one of general concern. There has been the greatest collaboration between Vicky Naish, Denise Capstick and other councillors.
24WH
As a result, one local paper—Southwark News—to its credit ran the story about Mr. Cook. Publicly and privately, I suggested to the council that an independent inquiry or a review of the standards of care in the borough's residential nursing homes would be a good idea. As a result of that correspondence, I wrote to the deputy leader of tile council and she replied positively and helpfully. She accepted my invitation to attend a public meeting in the Beormund centre in Bermondsey about two and half weeks ago and came with the director of social services and other local authority officers. Also in attendance were the chief executive of Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority—Martin Roberts—and his staff and other councillors, including Denise Capstick who had been with me in the first place. A significant number of people at the meeting had—or had hail in the past—relatives in local residential care and nursing homes. The meeting, which I chaired, was not easy. It was full of angst and difficulty as people recounted stories about discovering that the care and attention offered in homes was not up to the standards that they had expected. I should add that the stories were about events of the past two or three years and so did not necessarily reflect the current situation. However, several unsettling and troubling stories were told and they have prompted me to ask questions and raise issues about the existing situation, before the full impact of the Care Standards Act 2000 takes effect.
I want to mention two other pieces of background information. First, I am conscious that Parliament has paid considerable attention to the matter and I pay tribute to the previous Administration who started the work and to the Government who have continued the work to ensure that we have a better regulatory system for dealing with nursing and care homes. The 2000 Act—I do not pretend to be an expert on it—is, by and large, a good and satisfactory piece of legislation that promises well. A regulatory inspection regime will be in place from next April—in fact, it began as a shadow regime three days ago.
We are looking forward to something that promises a better system of regulation, but as we all know, it takes time to get such systems up and running. I initiated this debate in order to ask Ministers and other hon. Members what we can do between now and next year to ensure that best practice is not delayed while we wait for the new regime to be introduced next April, and for its necessarily later implementation across the country. The process is bound to take a while and it may develop like the Ofsted regime. Not all Ofsted inspections occurred in the first months of the new system and, if we follow the Ofsted principle, there may be some years, certainly some months, before people can carry out the inspections ordered under the Act.
Mr. Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman talked about the new regulatory regime, but will he also talk about resources? Does he recognise that, without the appropriate resources available from local authorities, those who operate homes—whether they are local authority or privately owned—will struggle to meet regulations that are handed to them from this place?
Mr. Hughes: I absolutely accept that point, which was the second issue that I wanted to flag up.

25WH
There were two local concerns in December, January and February. One was connected with the private Southwark Park nursing home in Southwark Park road, Bermondsey, which is near where I live, and the other related to Tower Bridge care centre, which is run by Southern Cross Healthcare and has been open for two or three years. I received a letter from the chairman and chief executive of Southern Cross Healthcare, Mr. Moreton, which raised the issue to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I shall quote from the letter because it concerns a proper issue, which also arose in a local authority context. Mr. Moreton stated:
"You will remember that you attended the formal opening of the above home in October 1998 … As you are no doubt aware, over the last two years since the home opened, various factors have contributed to the deterioration of business conditions for the care home sector, and it is extremely worrying that, still, local authorities are not increasing fees to the necessary rate of inflation we are experiencing due to such things as the minimum wage, working time directive, minimum standards etc.
I am extremely concerned that we are not likely to achieve the very necessary local authority fee increases that we require this year to meet these exceptional costs. While I applaud many of these initiatives, given that employment conditions are substantially improved, the reality is that without the necessary fee increases we will face some difficult decisions.
In the case of Southwark, they are paying way behind the going rate for fees and I just hope our representations to them will be heard as we need to pay the right rates to get the right staff, otherwise care starts to deteriorate and that we will not allow. We have had an offer for Tower Bridge for another use and although this is not the way I want to go we are giving it serious consideration. This situation is clearly ridiculous given the need for the beds in the area.
Our current request is for a 6 per cent. increase, which is not at all unreasonable given the exponential growth in costs we will realise this year."
The letter ended with a plea for help, which is one reason why I am here today. It was a plea no only on behalf of that particular nursing home, which was also where the alleged assault happened, but on be half of the whole sector.
At the meeting held in March, there was intensive debate about another nursing home called D'Eynsford House, Camberwell, which is a nursing and residential home run by Age Concern, Southwark, situated in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). As far as I am aware, the council currently proposes to withdraw placements and funding because it cannot afford to pay for the home. Eileen McNally, who is the director of Age Concern, Southwark, attended the meeting. She said that costs are higher than the local authority pay, but that those costs are necessary to provide decent care. Residents' family representatives are fighting an intensive battle to ensure that the home stays open because it is a good home where there is great satisfaction with the levels of service. They do not want their relatives to be moved away to other places, but they understand that decent care must be paid for.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has prompted me to ask a question that arises out of that case. We have started the new financial year and money has been allocated to local authorities, but in Southwark there are relatively high costs because of land values. Furthermore, there are few nursing and residential homes in the local authority, private or voluntary sectors, which has always been a
26WH
problem. What guarantee is there that Southwark council—and others in a similar position—can find the money to guarantee the necessary staffing levels, pay and decent conditions to provide the care wanted by residents and their families?
Local authorities must battle with voluntary sector and private sector providers if they cannot afford to pay what is being asked for placements. They may threaten to place people elsewhere, but where is not apparent to me because I do not know where other beds are available. What can we do in such circumstances?
The second problem relates to what we can do to ensure that between now and implementation of the 2000 Act we can go above the minimum standards of the 1984 legislation. I accept the premise that the 1984 legislation is out of date and does not provide a sufficient base because the threshold is too low. However, that is the present threshold and a local authority or health authority, depending on whether the home is residential or nursing, inspects twice a year. If there is any reason for concern as a result of regular or on-the-spot inspections or in response to complaints, they will return. They then have a blunt choice. They may be able to close a home immediately, but only in the most draconian circumstances—I am aware of the necessary criteria for that—or they must serve notice, after which there is a long drawn-out appeal process.
During our debate a few weeks ago, it was clear that there was sometimes considerable dissatisfaction with the level of care, but if the health authority and local authority cannot find sufficient criteria to enable them to serve an immediate closure notice, they can only start on the long, expensive and ineffectual route for dealing with generally low standards of care.
Dr. Peter Brand: Does my hon. Friend accept that local authorities are sometimes loth to act because they cannot manage without the care that the home may be providing? That applies particularly to nursing homes, because there is a grievous shortage in some parts of the country and that may cloud the judgment of how immediate the action should be.
Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend's expertise in the matter is greater than mine because of his professional experience on the Isle of Wight. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) also takes a great interest in the subject, but, sadly, cannot be here today.
There is a conflict of interest in that local authorities must protect their budgets and they want their money to go as far as possible. If they withdraw a contract, they may be unable to place people elsewhere locally. In constituencies such as mine there are very few beds and a great demand for care to be provided locally. That is the case in every community because people prefer their relatives to be cared for in areas that are easily accessible and, if they have no private transport, they need to be able to reach them on foot or by public transport at a small cost. They do not want to have to go out of London or to the south coast where, traditionally, there are more residential nursing homes.
Mr. Hammond: Just to develop the argument, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the key to a sustainable

27WH
increase in quality is to increase supply and not simply to regulate from above? If supply outstrips demand, quality will be forced up as suppliers compete.
Mr. Hughes: That general market economy argument is controversial. If supply is greater than demand, that does not always mean better quality. Logically, that should deal with some of the problems mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Brand) and local authorities should then have a choice, but a proper regulatory regime is necessary. Adequacy of supply is important, but we do not have adequacy of qualified and competent people to work in existing homes.
Privately run care homes—or even those in the voluntary sector—need to keep their costs down, so they may employ the least qualified staff because they are cheaper, and offer the poorest quality of care. I have done some work and have examined the legislation, but I am still unclear about the requirements, so should be grateful for a specific answer from the Minister today.
I discovered in a meeting that it is sufficient to have only one qualified nurse responsible for 24 residents in one of those nursing homes. I understood from that meeting that, although the nurse on duty had to have assistance, there was no requirement for any of the assisting staff to have qualifications. I accept that Southwark, like other local authorities, has specifications for the provision of nursing care homes, setting out matters to do with staffing and so on. However, can families be certain now—without waiting for the new regime to kick in—that every member of the full-time, part-time and agency staff working in a care home has no relevant criminal conviction or a previous employment record, rendering them unsuitable or undesirable for work in that environment? What guarantee is there that the staff have sufficient qualifications to do the job properly? Several issues that have been gathering over the years strike me as troubling, such as the issue of general qualifications and capability.
It has been pointed out to me that there have been advertisements for German students to work in a care home as a holiday job, for example. Often residents and retired workers who have tried whistleblowing have let us know that care workers have been found asleep when they should have been awake, that they look after themselves before the residents and do not pay attention to what is going on. I have been told that some residents have found it almost impossible to understand what care workers are saying, as their level of English is so poor. I appreciate that there may be a racism issue underlying that complaint, but whether someone comes from Finland or Zaire, a resident's care is not helped by not being able to understand what is being said. Therefore, we must consider the important issue of basic literacy, numeracy and intelligibility in carrying out care functions.
How can the public get quick, effective, authoritative checking and inspection of homes and achieve resolution of issues of concern? When the community health council in Southwark has had matters brought to its attention, the general secretary has gone to check and look round homes, often amid considerable
28WH
antagonism. An extraordinary story was told by the deputy leader of the council when she and my colleague, Councillor Capstick went to Southwark Park home. They went in without being checked and wandered round. When a fire alarm sounded, the only people who moved were the staff. The person on duty appeared to believe that the two councillors were agency staff and started issuing them with instructions, even though they had never been seen before. That sort of thing causes considerable concern.
I do not pretend that looking after old people is easy. It is tough and I know that I could not do the job well. Some old people can be extremely demanding. I have done my stint as a hospital porter and looked after old people as part of a holiday jobs when I was a student. I know how difficult it is. The objectives of the Care Standards Act 2000 must be achieved. The quality standards are urgently needed. I have heard too many complaints over the years about the standard of care in geriatric wards of good hospitals like Guy's and St. Thomas's. I have been in too many residential and nursing homes, some very expensive ones, where there is no stimulation and very little personal care. People are got up, put in a chair in front of a television, given their food and sometimes assisted with the toilet, although they may have to wait a long time for that. Even though geriatricians say how important it is, residents never enjoy the stimulus of being with young people or animals or of going out in the fresh air.
Having cared for relatives who have become senile and suffered badly from the aging process, I know the frustration that families feel when their elderly relative grows old with no dignity. I had an aunt in an old people's home who was surrounded by people who did not know what day of the week it was and who were talking nonsense. It was sad and depressing and I remember thinking, that I would far rather that she was taken out for a ride every day in her wheelchair with the risk that she might not live as long, because at least she would have been having a good time. If she had a bit of a bumpy ride and a caught a cold while out in the fresh air, it might be far better than sitting cocooned indoors all day in that sterile atmosphere.
There is no difference of aspiration between hon. Members. The debate is not meant to be critical of either Labour or Conservative Governments. We all strive after the same thing, but my concern is what we can offer now until the higher standards to which we aspire are legally required. For some people it is already too late and others need a response urgently. We are going to have an inquiry in Southwark. The local authority will have a scrutiny panel. The local council and the health authority have accepted my request for an independent inspection and an independent inquiry. I hope that that will be carried out soon by someone who does not have a vested interest in the finances. I hope that it will raise the standards. I should be grateful if we could know what the minimum standards are now and what we can do if we find homes where there are so few qualified staff. What can we do to ensure that there are enough good places in nursing and residential homes, which we will need as we have more and more older people?
11.28 am
Mr. Russell Brown: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey

29WH
(Mr. Hughes). I was somewhat anxious when I thought about this because there are significant differences between social care provision north and south of the border. My local authority of Dumfries and Galloway was the first in Scotland to externalise all its homes. I want to comment on that and to describe some of the difficulties that it has created.
I was elected as a local councillor in 1986. Social work costs in my area were then the lowest per head in the whole of Scotland. Some people might say that that is because it was a well-off area but, on further reflection, it is because we were not spending enough on the family, child care or the elderly. I remember an inquiry into a residential home called Moorheads in Dumfries. One of my colleagues had a traumatic time listening to relatives talk about the regime—I can put it in no better terms—that operated in that home.
Standards in residential homes are important. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the way we treat our elderly people is a reflection of our society. Whether the elderly are frail or still active, the manner in which we treat them affects their day-to-day well-being. It is right to judge society in terms of the provision it makes for elderly people. Each and every one of us in the Chamber should take an interest because we all look forward to growing old gracefully and with dignity until we reach our final days.
The relationship between public and private sector residential homes has been strong in my constituency. Arguments arose from time to time, hut everyone knew that they were trying to provide a service. In the early 1990s, we discovered that some local authority residential homes needed significant capital investment of about £5 million. That might seem a small amount, but it was significant in Dumfries and Galloway. The bottom line was that the council could not afford it, so it had to discover other ways—rebuild, for example—of improving the homes. At the end of the day, the answer amounted to externalisation, which some people call privatisation—selling off or giving away. Whatever phrase people use, the result is that Dumfries and Galloway no longer has any residential homes. They are now all in the hands of other organisations.
The decision to externalise was not taken lightly. Coopers and Lybrand was brought in to carry out a study and it later reported to the council. All that activity was going on in the background. The people who really matter can be placed in three categories—residents, residents' families and staff. All three work closely together, and no one of those categories should be placed above the others. People with an elderly relative in care want to be sure that when they are at home during the evening, their relative is being properly looked after.
I distinctly remember visiting a residential home in my home town in early 1996 and being grabbed by staff to explain the council's proposals to families who were also visiting. In the end, the decision was that two companies would take over the 11 residential homes. A local company called Burnfoot nursing homes took over two homes near its base—one in Lockerbie and the other in my home town of Annan. As it was closest at hand, it was appropriate for the company to do that. Another firm, called Community Integrated Care, took over the other nine homes. The package that was pulled together by the local authority meant that, in effect, all
30WH
the homes would be guaranteed payment for the beds, irrespective of whether they were occupied. Early in the financial year 1998–99, we discovered that the private sector was anxious about not getting referrals. Clearly, people were not being given the choice to which they were legally entitled and the council, through social services, was channelling people towards the homes that it had externalised. We discovered 12 months down the road that one of the homes would not receive its annual pay rise, despite the fact that the council had handed the money to the company. We later discovered that there were serious problems; anxious staff had been promised the world, but the new employer was not prepared to go ahead with the terms of the agreement.
Eventually, the company decided to buy out people's terms and conditions, and we found that people were seeing between 30 and 50 per cent. of their normal earnings being slashed. That is astounding. When we examine the standard of care, we can see that employees' hearts and souls must be in their work. I am not convinced that people's hearts and souls will be in those jobs for much longer.
Mr. David Drew: That is not only a problem in my hon. Friend's locality. A similar situation arose in Gloucestershire some years ago. As a result, there was on-going distrust of the local authority because the smaller homes feel discriminated against in getting placements. That must be overcome quickly if we are to have the full diet of provision in each area.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. Our experience is showing a bleaker picture than we would want.
Mr. Hammond: I just wish to complete the picture, because I have similar experiences in Surrey. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there was a differential in the fees being paid in those externalised homes compared with other independent homes in the locality? The market is distorted not only by the local authority's desire to keep the places filled, but often—certainly in Surrey—by the fact that the local authority has agreed to pay higher fees to those externalised homes.
Mr. Brown: The answer is yes. Those distortions exist and have caused severe problems.
The initial study that was conducted by Coopers and Lybrand clearly overestimated the number of beds needed in our locality. That has already led to the closure of one home and could lead to the closure of another one or two. The impact of that would not be great but the other company, CIC, is implementing more savage cuts. Some of the staff are taking a case, through their trade unions, to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Three members of staff came to see me recently and one of them said that her earnings had been cut from £16,000 to £8,000 a year. She continues to work constant night shifts and is wondering whether she should stay in the care sector.
As has been said, it is important to provide proper care in a regime based on good standards. What I and other hon. Members have seen does not convince me that such provision exists in all areas. It is tragic that the poor provision reflects on those who provide excellent care in other parts of the country. In my area,

31WH
privatisation has been seen as a quick fix—a way of having some excellent buildings built and others upgraded—but it has not been the answer to providing care in residential and nursing homes. It has been a bad move and staff in the caring sector are beginning to feel the rough end of it. They have had a raw deal. I appreciate that the Minister cannot speak about terms and conditions, but they are vital in regulating how people carry out their day-to-day work, which is then reflected in the care and service that we provide for our elderly people.
11.42 am
Mr. Roger Gale: Before injecting my usual note of discord, I start by agreeing with the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) and with the Minister. I have had the fortuitous opportunity of listening to him speak on the subject for many hours. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is right to say that one could not put a cigarette paper between the objectives of all hon. Members on both sides of the House on the care of the elderly. We all want our elderly constituents to end their days in dignity and comfort and with a high standard of care.
When I was first elected in 1983, I represented a constituency with a large number of residential and nursing homes, many of which I visited very quickly after the election. I was appalled at the standards that I found. They stank of urine, the control over drugs was minimal, the so-called care staff had little or no training—they did not know how to make a bed, how to change an inco pad or how to lift the clients in their care, leading to back strain for the staff and bed sores for the elderly people. All in all, it was a very depressing picture and the standard of care was well below par.
With others, I began a campaign to change that situation. The Registered Homes Act 1984 went a long way towards improving conditions—even if it did not make us friends. I was assailed by many proprietors of what became revoltingly but appositely named granny farms, who felt that they were being forced into investing vast sums of money. However, the net result was that partition walls made of hardboard and chipboard, which were fire hazards, were taken down and standards of decoration, furnishing, cleanliness, general hygiene and nutrition improved. Most importantly of all, the self-respect of the people working in the homes rose dramatically. My local technical college—Thanet tech, as it then was—introduced a course to teach young people working in the homes, who tended to be between 18 and 22, how to carry out basic tasks. It does not take long to teach that, but it makes a great difference to the standard of care. We quickly found that, apart from anything else, the elderly people liked having bright young people around them who took a pride in their work, and the atmosphere changed dramatically.
The fees being paid increased. Some bad homes went out of business, but the good homes—those that invested—made more money. It is probably fair to say that, by the back end of the 1980s or the early 1990s, a reasonable balance had been struck in most cases
32WH
between a fair return on investment and a fair price for a fair standard of care. It was the standard of care that was important—not the quality of form-filling, bean-counting or political correctness, but the manner in which people were looked after. They are generally elderly, but not exclusively; sadly, there are some younger people with premature senile dementia.
I do not pretend any more than any colleague in the House that I was entirely happy with everything. There were still bad homes, which were being winkled out by the inspection regimes and people such as us visiting them unannounced. I doubt whether any hon. Member who has residential or nursing homes in his or her constituency does not visit quite a few of them over Christmas, if at no other time.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made a point about the need for stimulation and an interest in the environment. At the time, that need was being met, because people had time to care. They would go round everyone regularly and ask them whether they wanted a cup of tea, whether their inco pad needed changing and whether they were all right. They had time to talk, help with crossword puzzles and do all the other little things that make the difference between real caring and "looking after" in its loosest sense.
Since that time, however, we have fallen into a downward spiral. It is fair to blame home owners only in part if at all, in many cases—because if we want
such care, it must be funded. It is all very well to say that we have a lot of homes, but there is a free and good market. The commissioning local authority and county council can go into the marketplace, drive down prices and get the best deal possible. For the council tax payer, that may, superficially, be a good thing. However, if we are to have the staffing levels and trained care staff that we need and if nursing homes are to have the nurses that they need and at the levels that the law requires, they must be paid for.
I am certain that most medium-sized residential and nursing homes, particularly the nursing homes in my constituency, make their profit on the last three beds. All the rest of the money that goes into the home is spent on running costs. We are no longer talking about a licence to print money and the bad old granny-farming days, but talking about marginal businesses. If those homes are denied their last three beds or clients, who make the difference between being viable and not viable, there can be only one outcome. Looking the Minister straight in the eye, I must tell him that the standard of care falls, because people start to cut corners on food, cleanliness and staff.
If, as in Kent, the local authority is then competing with London boroughs—which appear to us to have riches beyond the dreams of avarice when it comes to dumping their problems on someone else—we cannot win. The homes closer to London become stuffed full of those whom the London boroughs neither wish nor care to provide for. They are quite prepared to write out a cheque with someone else's money, but we are left picking up the pieces. We cannot and will not go on doing that. Indeed residential and nursing home proprietors are not continuing to do that. They are burdened by bureaucracy, red tape and continual inspection—not of the care given to the elderly ladies and gentlemen, but of the form filling and whether there

33WH
is another half a metre of floor space for someone who will never be able to get out of bed to use it. That is why those people are giving up and going out of business. During the past nine months or so, Kent has lost hundreds of residential and nursing home beds. The result was that, through the winter crisis, the hospitals were jammed full of people who should not have been in a hospital at all, but who had nowhere else to go.
So-called care in the community—in theory, a good idea—in practice, has turned into neglect in the community. Care assistants who would like to be able to care have half a dozen clients to visit first thing in the morning. They rush around, allowing about 20 minutes for each. They need to travel by Tardis—there is little time to get from one to another—get the old girl out of bed at half-past 6 or 7 o'clock, potty her, stick her in a chair, give her a boiled egg and say, Bye-bye, dear, no time for conversation." Somebody else comes in at lunchtime and throws something into the microwave oven saying, "There you are, dear, there is your lunch, and at half-past 4 you go back to bed." The fact that one might not want to go to bed until 9.30 or 10 o'clock at night is neither here nor there. There is no choice but what is imposed by a system that is out of control.
The moment that such people become ill, they are faced with practice nurses and general practitioners who do not have the time, energy or inclination, in many cases, to look after them. Where do they go? They go straight into a hospital, where they clog up the beds that are needed for patients who need elective surgery. They used to go into good, caring, well-funded residential and nursing homes, but that no longer happens. It is a great sadness that, having gone so far forward—we now have a real prize within our grasp, notwithstanding the fact that we have an ageing population and more people who require care—we now deny choice and do not allow even those with a little money of their own to go into home B rather than home A. They are prepared to pay a top-up from their limited resources, but must pay all or nothing. When their money has dwindled to a level such that they can no longer pay, they go where the local authority tells them to go.
I have heard the Minister speak long and often about the subject, and I believe that he cares. He must impress upon his friends in the Treasury that money is required. Counties cannot take on more and more responsibility and statutory duties from Government: for trading standards; for inspection of this, that and the other; for dog wardens, traffic wardens, wardens for whatever and more parking schemes introduced by legislation. Counties cannot do all those things and, in the case of Kent, continue to pick up the b for the fringe requirements that are not paid for by Government of all the asylum seekers who come into the county, and still be expected to have the money that is needed to provide care for the elderly.
East Kent has an inadequate supply of nursing care for the elderly and mentally infirm My constituents have nowhere to go, other than a mental hospital—the very situation from which we tried to move away—because the homes have closed. They have closed because it now costs £500 a week to care for such a client, but the going rate is about £3110 to £320 a week. In the middle of the winter crisis, the Government gave Kent £850,000. They said, "Here is more money, buy some care." The first problem was that the care was no
34WH
longer available because the homes had closed. Secondly, what happens when the short-term money runs out?
I listened very carefully—I had the opportunity to do so—to the debate on the Care Standards Act 2000. I believe that there is much good in that, which hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber would wish to support. However, to echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and others, it will fail unless it is backed up by real, hard cash. If it fails, we shall be failing to ensure that our elderly constituents are provided with the care to which I, the Minister, and every other hon. Member aspires.
11.55 am
Dr. Peter Brand: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on initiating the debate.
The contributions of the hon. Members for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) and for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) made it clear that market forces have not worked and are unlikely to work, because in most cases the user of the service is not the commissioner of the service. I recognise that there is a move towards allowing more choice, but ultimately people tend to go where there is a space. In the early days, there was massive over-provision. When the tourism industry became less successful in seaside towns, people turned to granny farming, as the hon. Member for North Thanet said. Over-provision does nothing for standards. Matters started to improve only when standards were introduced through inspection and registration regimes. I am glad that some of the homes that I used to visit have closed, because their standards were appalling.
One cannot rely on market forces and not regulate. Regulation is important, and the Care Standards Act 2000 will make a big contribution to that—not only in terms of bricks and mortar, but through training and the way in which employees are valued as a result of the minimum wage. It is right that such measures were, and will continue to be, introduced. However, not every residential or nursing home can continue to subsidise its local authority placements through cross-subsidy from self-funders or top-up fees from relatives, which will be allowed in the near future. The essential point that the Government must recognise is that it is no good taking the view that local authority fees are similar around the country and are therefore right. My local authority justifies its fee levels by saying that they are comparable with those of all other local authorities in similar circumstances. I have had representations from at least six parts of the country in which that argument has been used. There appears to be a conspiracy among local authorities to keep fees down.
Market forces are beginning to work in a negative way. People are moving out of care home provision. Even a respectable organisation like Methodist Homes is shutting its care home on the Isle of Wight because it cannot be bothered to upgrade it. That is extremely worrying.
Mr. Hammond: I am not here to speak on behalf of Methodist Homes, but it is a little harsh to say that it could not be bothered to upgrade the home. I believe

35WH
that its position is that it cannot go on indefinitely subsidising local authority underpayments from its own charitable funds.
Dr. Brand: That is a charitable interpretation of what it is doing. It is sitting on a prime site of potential residential value, and will make money at the expense of its residents on the Isle of Wight.
Mr. Hammond: It is a charity.
Dr. Brand: It is a charity that should feel an obligation to people who have been in its homes for many years, and should offer some degree of stability.
We need care homes and nursing homes. The national health service depends on them and the care of people depends on them. I welcomed the Government's establishment of the royal commission on long-term care, which recognised the continuum between acute and chronic and long-term care. However, I am disappointed that they did not accept the commission's recommendation that personal care—the care that people need owing to their disability or infirmity—should become the responsibility of the NHS. In reality, we have created not care in the community, but a way to enable the national health service and the public sector to shuffle off responsibility by pushing people into the private care sector. Like the hon. Member for Dumfries, I went through the same, extremely difficult process of externalising a group of homes.
If the royal commission's recommendations had been accepted, there would have been greater expert input into residential and nursing homes. Occupational therapists, specialist nurses and community psychiatric nurses would have been much more proactive in the residential part of community care. There would have been many more community geriatricians, particularly psycho-geriatricians. When expertise is brought into such settings, a lot can be done. The use of community pharmacists has to some extent revolutionised older, often confused people's over-dependency on drug regimes. Drugs increased their confusion, so they had to be drugged further to render them confused and quiet rather than confused and disturbed.
The Care Standards Act 2000 will take us a great deal further forward, but without proper funding from the centre, there will be care standards for non-existing provision. That would be tragic. Not everyone can be maintained in their home, although such efforts are indeed welcome. However, not everyone needs to be in a district general hospital or a reconstituted long-term ward. It is right to allow people to remain in their locality in sensitively run residential provision, and the private sector has demonstrated that, with adequate funding, it can provide a service.
It is very worrying that home closures in my island constituency are threatening people with rehousing not only in a different community or village, but away from their own island, on which they may have lived for 70 or 80 years. I hope that the Government will take urgent action and review available residential and nursing home provision. The Minister cannot simply say that the problem affects only 7 per cent. of the population; he must consider the pain felt in different parts of the country and take steps accordingly.
12.3 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: I, too, should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on securing this debate. He expressed the principal worry that something needs to be done immediately—before implementation of the provisions in the Care Standards Act 2000—to ensure higher standards. My concern, which other hon. Members have already articulated, is that it is questionable whether the 2000 Act and the minimum standards that it will introduce will prove deliverable, given t he financial constraints on the sector and local authorities.
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and to others for their contributions, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who must have found it painful to mask his evident knowledge of, eloquence on and passion for this subject during the many hours in which he has chaired relevant Committees. He put his finger on the key issue when he talked about quality of care—it is indeed a question of measuring not size of rooms or numbers of staff, but the quality of care. Although I entirely agree that there is not a millimetre between the positions of the different parties and individuals in our ultimate aspiration to offer dignity and proper comfort to elderly people in their declining years, there are some differences about how to tackle the issues involved.
One of the important differences is the distinction between measuring inputs and outcomes. If we have a criticism of the Government's approach with the Care Standards Act 2000—and the national minimum standards set with in it—it is that it is too prescriptive and too focused on measuring inputs. The Government have too much of a check-the-box mentality, ignoring at their peril the quality of care being delivered, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet emphasised so strongly.
The Minister wrote to me recently in response to a letter that I sent regarding a nursing home in Essex that was under threat of closure. The letter said:
"homes which provide good quality care should have nothing to fear from the introduction of national standards."
There is a narrow definition of what constitutes good quality care. It is evident to me, to people in the sector and to my hon. Friends that homes that provide perfectly good quality care will fail to meet the mechanistic, bureaucratic tests laid down in the national minimum standards regulations. I question the use of a regulatory approach to drive up care standards. None of us disputes that regulations are required to ensure proper minimum standards and the safety and well-being of people living in residential care homes, but the Government seem to believe that we can legislate for everything, including good-quality care. While we need minimum standards to pick out rotten apples and protect people in residential care, it is essential to foster choice and diversity to ensure good standards of care.
Good standards of care are not only about measuring objective things; they are about empowering people. We must remember that residents in homes are people, not numbers or statistics. They will have different needs and wants, some of which may seem strange to those of us from a different generation, but which must be respected none the less. An essential prerequisite of achieving that

37WH
choice and diversity and ensuring that quality provision can be purchased by responsible local authority purchasers is to secure the supply base and the volume of supply. Unless we can ensure that there is such a supply base, we shall run into the trap identified by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) that local authorities will be faced with the dilemma of what to do with a provider who cuts corners and does not comply with the minimum standards regulations. Such local authorities will be placed in an impossible position. They must provide care for the people who need it, but the crisis in which the industry finds it self means that in many parts of the country—although not Dumfries, apparently—there is a significant under supply, which dominates the balance of power between purchasers and providers.
I want to highlight the fact that some of the minimum standards that are laid down under the Care Standards Act 2000 address the matters that need to be considered in a set of minimum standard regulations, and others effectively constrain choice in that they define for people what their choice should be. I put it to the Minister that in practice a prescriptive set of national minimum standards is stifling, not fostering, choice. We believe that that will not enhance the overall quality of care.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting his speech because I know that he, like me, does not have much time left. Have I rightly interpreted his remarks as meaning that he is now opposing the national minimum standards that we have published? Does the Conservative party not support those standards?
Mr. Hammond: Some of the national minimum standards address issues that are genuinely the preserve of a regulatory regime. We believe that genuine and sustainable quality will be fostered by the promotion of diversity and choice. We have had this debate many times, and the Minister knows my views. To the extent that the national minimum standards me limiting choice and diversity of supply, and certainly to the extent that they are reducing the amount of supply available, they will do nothing to enhance standards
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet for making the obvious but important observation that quality costs. The Government have not recognised that the regime to whit h they aspire has a huge price tag attached to it. In Committee, I repeatedly asked the Minister whether the Government recognised that they must pay for the substantial increase in costs that both independent and local authority homes will face in delivering the quality agenda. No one disagrees with the quality agenda, but it is living in a cloud-cuckoo world to imagine that one can impose it without dealing with the cost issue. Cost pressures have become more acute since we debated the Care Standards Act 2000. The increase in the national minimum wage, which has not had a significant impact on London and the south-east, has had a huge impact outside that area on an industry that incurs 70 per cent. of its costs in wages and salaries.
Most local authorities have increased their fees to independent sector providers in line with the preserved rights fee level increase, which will be 1.8 per cent. from
38WH
this April. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Social Security interestingly indicated in a written answer that the Government intend to increase preserved rights benefits by a further 1.9 per cent. as soon as possible this year, which would give a total increase of 3.7 per cent. I welcome that, and so will the industry. However, can the Minister tell us how he intends to ensure that local authorities, which have traditionally taken their lead in setting the following year's budgets from the preserved rights settlement announced by the Department of Social Security in the autumn, are encouraged and enabled to follow that lead when they have already set this year's budgets? Most of those budgets do not leave any slack to provide further uplifts in payments to home operators.
The Minister will, of course, quote overall levels of Government support for social services and the level of funding to social services in general. The figures that he will quote are, of course, correct. However, he will acknowledge that there are other pressures on those funds. Even within the social services area, huge increases in the cost of children's services are squeezing available resources for care of the elderly.
I should like to quote to the Minister from a letter sent recently from the leader of Kent county council to the Secretary of State, in which he outlined two additional costs that all local authority social services departments will be facing as a result of legislative changes. The letter states:
"an increase to the capital limits would result in a loss of income, as people with capital between £16,000 and £18,500 would no longer be expected to pay the full costs of their care, but would be part subsidised by us. For that reason … a prudent sum of £1 million was budgeted. In the event, the fact that capital limits for the purposes of assessing income support have not been increased in tandem means that the loss of income is far greater. In effect, this represents £4-£6 per week for every client with capital of between £10k and £16k; and more significantly, £170-£180 per week for every client with capital between £16k and £18.5k."
The total cost for Kent will be about £2.5 million, compared with the £1 million originally budgeted. That is just an example of the pressure from all sides that the sector faces. Will the Minister deal with that point? He will have had a chance to consider it because he has seen the letter from the leader of Kent county council.
There is a crisis in the care sector. Some 15,000 beds were lost in the year to April 2000 and we estimate a loss of up to 40,000 beds in the current year. The impact on the national health service is serious, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned, with delayed discharges from hospitals and, perversely, the reopening of the Nightingale format geriatric wards in NHS hospitals to take the patients who cannot be discharged. Those wards offer the kind of conditions that the Government are committed to stamping out, to which end they introduced the Care Standards Act 2000.
Time does not permit me to rehearse in detail all the aspects of the national minimum standards that are causing huge concern to the industry, but the Minister knows what they are. They include physical standards, room sizes and sharing ratios. Although those are not necessarily bad things, they are unrealistic given the inability, or unwillingness, to fund the changes and capital investment required. If rigorously enforced, they will lead to a contraction of the sector and to a reduction in its diversity. Independent family-run homes will

39WH
close, especially those located in listed country properties that cannot be converted easily to meet the standards, and Posthouse-style, corporately owned care homes will take over their role.
Perhaps that is the Government's agenda. Perhaps they find it easier to deal with a handful of big corporations than a large number of independent providers. However, that appears to me to be destructive of choice and diversity and it will not lead to the improvements in care standards and quality to which we all aspire.
I shall give figures from two local authorities that summarise the problem. The cost of delivering care in Coventry's local authority residential care homes is £470 a week. It offers independent sector care providers £121 a week. The London borough of Hackney spends £851 a week on its own homes. It offers independent care providers £284 a week. To anyone with an O-level in economics, it is obvious that the outcome will be a rapid and continuous contraction of the sector, and an inadequacy of supply that will make it impossible for anybody—local authorities or national care standards commissioners—to enforce the quality standards that the Government, and all of us, want.
If the Government cannot address the supply problem, the 244 specific standards required for registration under the national minimum standards will be the straws that break the camel's back in many parts of the independent care home sector.
12.19 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate all hon. Members who have contributed to what has been a well-informed debate. A lot of common sense has been spoken, but I shall refer specifically to what was said by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) because many of his figures were wrong and his arguments were less than persuasive.
In essence, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised three related issues. He referred to the need for adequate funding and asked whether the funding available to Southwark council would be sufficient this year. He also referred to his concern about existing registration and regulation arrangements, particularly during the interim period between now and April next year when the National Care Standards Commission comes into operation. He then asked some important questions about training arrangements.
I agree with much of what was said during the debate about quality through registration and inspection being an important part of the overall equation, but we must not lose sight of the fact that about 80 per cent. of those who work in social care have no recognised qualifications. Given the importance of the care sector, the essential infrastructure of our wider care system is unacceptable and we must improve the training and qualifications of the social care work force.
Funding is central to everything that has been said during the debate. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge rightly anticipated, as he usually does,
40WH
that I would read out a long list of statistics about spending on social services. In fact, I shall not do that today because the figures are on the public record and he and other hon. Members are aware that by 2003–04 the money available for social services spending will increase from just under £10 billion to just under £12 billion. That is a substantial increase. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who spoke well on the subject, particularly when requesting more money, will anticipate what I am about to say. We are making substantial additional resources available. I can tell them, for example, the amount of extra spending that is available for Kern this year. The arguments about additional resources to fund not only national minimum standards but the wider range of services commissioned by local authorities would stack up a lot better if they would say that they would match the resources that we are making available over the next three years.
Mr. Hammond rose
Mr. Hutton: I shall not give way just yet.
I have repeatedly asked the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend to say that they would match the resources that we are making available for social services during the next three years and they have conspicuously failed to do so. However, they say that they would match our spending rises on education, which is also a local government financial responsibility.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister quoted a significant rise in Department of Health spending on social services to £12 billion and I am pleased to repeat the assurance that my right hon. Friends the Members for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) have given that we are committed to matching in full the total Department of Health budget, including social services spending within that budget.
Mr. Hutton: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman knows, because I have said before, that of the £12 billion only about £2 billion is Department of Health spending. The other £10 billion is local government spending. We are making that resource available to local government to spend on social services. He and his hon. Friends have conspicuously failed to say that they will match that level of commitment.
Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hutton: No. I will not. I gave the hon. Gentleman a chance to make his point, but he did not do it terribly well.
To be fair to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend, I accept that more spending is required on social services, but we are doing that in an unprecedented way. To compare like with like, let us examine the record of spending on social services during the previous Parliament because that will provide a reasonable indication of the Conservatives likely commitment if they return to office. During the previous Parliament, spending on social services rose by 0.1 per cent. in real terms. That is the reality. We are providing additional resources as quickly as the country can afford and that is a result of the state of public finances and the

41WH
improved state of the economy. Those resources are coming on line. If we compare like with like, social security resources are experiencing unprecedented growth and that is the reality. If the hon. Member for North Thanet is saying that he wants more than that to be made available, he should have that discussion with his Front-Bench spokesmen.
Mr. Gale: My concern is that the increase in cost is not directly related to care. Many of the burdens of cost are directly related to bureaucracy, which has nothing to do with care. Costs are ratcheting up in a way that, I suspect, they would not under a Conservative Government.
Mr. Hutton: I guess that that is something we will never know because there will not be a Conservative Government to put that theory to the test. I am as concerned as the hon. Gentleman to minimise bureaucracy, and what can loosely be described as red tape. I am not in favour of a red tape system of regulation for the care home sector and that is why we have worked closely with care home providers to produce national minimum standards. Contrary to what he says, such standards have been widely welcomed by the care home sector. They represent a substantial step forward, particularly in the difficult area of fiscal standards. We have tried to compromise to reach a sensible set of working standards that will improve the quality of care, which we all want, without imposing unworkable burdens. That is why the original proposal of 10 sq m as the minimum useful floor space has been reduced to 9.3 sq m where there is compensating space elsewhere in the care home; that is a sensible compromise. We are not trying to drive anyone out of business; we want to support diversity and choice of provision across the sector.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey's point about spending was well made. I share his concern that there must be adequate resources available to local authorities. As I am sure he knows, there will be a 6 per cent. cash increase in resources available to Southwark social services—a sufficient resource envelope that is available to the local council to address some of his concerns. I am aware of the concerns that he raised about the two care homes. I will make sure that my officials maintain close contact with Southwark council to ensure that his concerns, and those of his constituents, are properly addressed as work progresses.
The training issue is also important. The hon. Gentleman might want to examine the national minimum standards—I see that he h as that information with him. He will see that standard No. 28 addresses how we might improve the training qualifications of staff in care homes. We have said tit t from 2005, 50 per cent. of care staff, excluding registered nurses, should have a proper professional qualification—initially a national vocational qualification at level 2. That will be a substantial improvement. I accept that there will be resource implications attached to that, which is why we have begun funding the national training strategy about which the Training Organisation for Personal Social
42WH
Services published information last year. That will be a three-year programme of investment and we will examine ways of proceeding with such investment. We must start somewhere, and we would obviously not have chosen to start from our current position where we find that there are not enough properly trained care staff. I think that the hon. Gentleman's description of care standards in Southwark is pretty accurate, and could apply to other parts of the country. We must start from this position, but we are making improvements.
Wider concerns have been raised by many hon. Members relating to the general efficacy and efficiency of the existing registration and inspection arrangements. We changed the law because we are not satisfied that the present arrangements are sufficiently independent or robust. The hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge and for Isle of Wight described the dilemma of local authorities finding themselves in the catch-22 position of being inspector and regulators, while also being commissioners and providers of care. Those are difficult roles to discharge simultaneously, which is why we have removed the inspecting-registration function from health and local authorities and given it to the new National Care Standards Commission.
Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hutton: With respect, I will not give way because I have only a short time left.
We have removed the Hobson's choice that faced local authorities and allowed them to concentrate on what they should be concerned with: the commissioning process. In some cases, local authorities are still directly providing services, which is a local choice.
Dr. Brand rose
Mr. Hutton: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I will not give way.
Through the Care Standards Act 2000 we want to remove the difficult dilemma that local authorities face, and put in place robust independent inspection arrangements. The difficulty raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will be addressed by what is to happen in April next year. He knows the answer to his question about what will happen between now and then. It is currently the responsibility of both local and health authorities to apply their local standards and to inspect homes against set criteria. From next April, that function will transfer to the National Care Standards Commission and a new set of national minimum standards, that have been set centrally in the Department of Health after consultation, will form the benchmark against which care homes will be inspected. We have consistently told local authorities that in the next 12 months or so as we move from the current arrangements to the new system, no one must take their eye off the ball. Change is difficult—
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Pensions (Expatriates)
12.30 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: I welcome the debate and the opportunity to raise an issue of great concern to many British-born people who now live in Commonwealth countries. I have an interest in that I chair the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the subject has come to the attention of our executive committee. At a recent meeting of the British-Canadian parliamentary group, the Canadian high commissioner raised the issue with hon. Members and expressed his concerns. I recently had a long discussion with the Australian high commissioner on this subject.
In May last year, I asked a parliamentary question and I have with me today the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Social Security. The issue is clear cut. When United Kingdom citizens retire to certain Commonwealth countries they find that their state retirement pension is frozen at the rate it was when they left the UK. That happens in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. A system is in place in many other Commonwealth countries to enable British expatriates who receive their state retirement pension to benefit from any increases that may be made by the United Kingdom Government.
This is not a new issue. It has prevailed for many years. Early-day motions have been signed by many right hon. and hon. Members from all parties. A great number of questions have been asked on the matter. The problem is therefore very well known. It greatly angers retired people from the UK who now live in Commonwealth countries and who receive no uprating in the state retirement pension. N o matter how long they may have worked in the UK or how many contributions they have made towards the cost of their state pension, no increases are paid.
There are organisations that represent United Kingdom pensioners in many Commonwealth countries. The Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners feels angry and badly let down by successive UK Governments and says:
"By ending this shameful pension discrimination the British Government would display the integrity its citizens expect, enable pensioners to afford the personal care and standard of living required in their retirement years, help return some degree of pride to the lives of pensioners and bring Britain in line with all other developed countries."
That clearly spells out the views of a major pensioners group in Canada. I am certain that it also reflects the views of pensioner groups in any Commonwealth country where United Kingdom state pension increases do not apply.
All hon. Members will know about an organisation that works with retired people in the United Kingdom—the highly regarded Age Concern, which is currently campaigning to secure dignity and security for elderly people in the United Kingdom. People from the United Kingdom now living in Commonwealth countries where the state pension is never increased want precisely the same commitment. They want dignity and security in their retirement and they are absolutely right to expect it.
44WH
This month sees pension increases of £5 per week for a single person, £8 for a married couple and a £200 winter fuel allowance. The decision to implement those increases was taken by the Government. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will have played a major role in securing those measures, which are a step in the right direction and have been warmly welcomed on all sides of the House. Hon. Members contemplating doing away with them quickly changed their minds when they realised how popular they were with retired people in the United Kingdom.
It is easy to understand the deep concern of retired people in receipt of a state pension from the United Kingdom that will not be increased because they live in a particular Commonwealth country. How unfair and unjust that policy must seem. Under the present system, those people will never receive a pension rise simply because they have retired to a specific Commonwealth country. Had they Haired to a different Commonwealth country, they would have received any and all pension increases introduced since they left the United Kingdom. For example, elderly people who have retired to Canada fail to receive pension increases, but those who have retired to the country next door—the United States—receive those increases.
About 138,000 pensioners from the United Kingdom currently live in Canada. In 1972 the United Kingdom proposed a new agreement with the Canadian Government under which pension increases could take place. The Canadian and UK Governments held discussions, so will the Minister tell us what went wrong with them? In a written answer to my question on 16 May last year—at column 120W in Hansard—I was told by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that 470,000 UK retired people living overseas did not receive any pension increase because their pensions were frozen when they left the UK.
The other Commonwealth country that is badly affected is Australia, where 215,000 UK pensioners now live. The Minister will be fully aware of the changes that were made last month by the Australian Government. Can he tell us what the effect of those changes will be on retired British citizens who are living in Australia or who may go to live there in future? I understand that there have been discussions with the Australian Government and the Department of Social Security. Will the Minister tell us about those discussions? Will the position of UK citizens living in Australia now or in the future be protected? There are 215,000 retired UK people living in Australia, so we can understand their interest and concern about the issue.
So far, I have spoken about Canada and Australia, but other Commonwealth countries have no uprating of pensions for retired people from the UK. Those countries are South Africa and New Zealand. We are not talking about large numbers of retired people from the UK compared with the figures for Canada and Australia, but numbers should not be the key factor. Retired people from the UK who contributed to their state retirement pensions have gone to live in Commonwealth countries and then found that their state pension had been frozen, so that they do not receive any increases made in the UK. I can well understand such people complaining about how unfair the system is, and my hon. Friend the Minister must recognise that it is hard to defend.

45WH
Let us examine the countries in which UK citizens will receive UK increases in their state retirement pension. I have already mentioned the pleasure expressed by pensioners here at the increases of £5 and £8 that will apply from later this month. How popular those increases will be in places such as Bermuda, Cyprus, Jersey, Malta, Jamaica and Barbados; all are Commonwealth countries where state pensions are uprated when increases happen in the UK.
UK citizens who have gone to live in countries such as the United States, the Philippines Turkey, Israel, or Switzerland—not one of them a Commonwealth country—will, in time, have any UK pension increase paid to them. How does the Minister think that UK citizens feel if they live in a country where there will be no uprating? I know that I would feel very bitter. The problem has continued under successive Governments who did not take the right decision. Hon. Members from all parties support the proposed changes because, like me, they believe that the existing system is unfair. If Members of Parliament had a free vote on the issue there would be massive support for changes to the present system, and no one, not even my hon. Friend the Minister, could say, "Oh, it could not be done." I accept that cost is a major issue, but it should not be used repeatedly as the reason for doing nothing and simply saying, "Oh, we know of the concerns in countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, but we can't change the system b cause of the cost involved." Governments can implement change and discuss with other Governments how new policies can be introduced. What discussions are the Government having with the Governments of the countries to which I referred?
As I said, I know from my role as chair of the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association that the high commissioners of Canada and Australia and many other people will follow the debate closely, especially the Minister's reply. Cost should not be the only concern; there is also the issue of fairness, and the present system is most unfair.
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on securing the debate on such an important subject. He made his case very powerfully. As he said, the matter has been discussed by the UK branch of he Commonwealth Parliamentary Association; I know of the association's value as a point of contact between parliamentarians in this and other Commonwealth countries as I was a member of the CPA executive before I was given my present job by the Prime Minister.
My hon. Friend may be surprised that I am replying to the debate; I was asked to do so by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is in Committee considering the Social Security Fraud Bill.
As my hon. Friend knows, the issue has been discussed for many years. He has tabled several parliamentary questions on the matter and it was the subject of a short debate in January in the House of Lords. I am aware of the strength of feeling of many British pensioners overseas who have raised the issue over the years.
46WH
Pensioners overseas have paid national insurance contributions; however, the money that an individual pays to the national insurance fund is not earmarked for that person and never has been. The national insurance system works on a pay-as-you-go basis and has done so ever since it was established. Contributions paid into the scheme in the past were paid out long ago to people who were entitled to pensions and benefits at that time.
The contribution rate paid in the past took account of the range of benefits payable at the time which, of course, did not generally include the uprating of pensions in all foreign countries. If the scheme had uprated pensions in all countries, the cost would have been higher and would not have been covered by the contributions.
Paying contributions has never given an automatic entitlement to benefits. The national insurance scheme is different from a commercial insurance scheme in which premiums are linked to expected benefits. Although national insurance contributions provide a foundation for calculating personal future benefit entitlement, the contributions do not actually pay for those benefits.
The agreement between the individual and the state is that the payment of contributions gives entitlement to a package of benefits subject to certain conditions. One condition is that retirement pension upratings are generally not payable abroad. That comes from the 1955 legislation, which provided for pensions to be paid abroad, but not for uprating.
The rate of national insurance contributions has never included an element for the indexation of pensions payable abroad, because the social security scheme is designed primarily for those living in the United Kingdom, and any uprating in the pension is designed to meet the cost of living here. Overseas pensions are annually uprated only if the pensioner lives in the European Economic Area or if we have a reciprocal agreement with another country that specifically provides for upratings. Over time, we have concluded agreements that allow for annual upratings with more than 30 countries. Bilateral social security agreements can be the means of providing for the uprating of UK pensions, but their function is mainly to provide co-ordination between social security schemes, so that workers moving between the UK and another country obtain a degree of cover for contributory benefits from one country to another. The costs of making such agreements are an important factor, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting will recognise.
UK pensions are payable anywhere in the world. We pay about 900,000 pensioners in more than 200 countries, but only about half of them receive annual cost of living increases. Elsewhere, retired people continue to receive their pensions at the rate that was payable when they left this country. Those who left the UK when they were younger receive a pension payable at the rate in force when they claim their state retirement pension.
My hon. Friend compared the situation in America with that in Canada and asked why different arrangements operate in respect of our retired pensioners in those countries. There is a historical explanation. In 1969, the UK made a social security agreement with the USA, which provided for future increases in UK state pensions and widows benefits to be

47WH
received by UK pensioners living in the USA and for the USA to pay its retirement pension to American citizens living in the UK. It also pays upratings to those pensioners living in the UK.
Between 1969 and 1972, discussions about a reciprocal agreement took place between officials from the then Department of Health and Social Security and the Canadian authorities—on the DHSS's initiative. The UK proposed a comprehensive agreement with Canada and tried to persuade it to export its old-age security pension under such an agreement, but the Canadian Government were unable to agree. It seems that Canadian legislation precluded the inclusion of its old-age security pension in reciprocal agreements.
In 1977, Canadian legislation was amended to allow the making of reciprocal agreements involving the export of the Canadian old-age security pension, and Canada indicated its willingness to resume negotiations. At that time, however, UK Ministers decided that insufficient resources were available for increasing the rates of UK pension payable in Canada. There are, therefore, reasons why differences occur in social security agreements, for instance, the different histories of negotiations on an agreement with the USA and with Canada. More than 90 per cent. of those pensioners who do not receive upratings live in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. Although we have social security agreements with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, they do not provide for upratings.
My hon. Friend asked about the effects on UK citizens of Australia's decision unilaterally to revoke its social security agreement with us. The agreement helped people who went from this country to live in Australia to satisfy the 10-year residence test for the Australian retirement pension, which is called an age pension. An age pension is means-tested, so a person receives it only if his or her income is below a certain level. It is not like our basic state pension, which is a universal pension. Therefore, the amount of age pension that a Briton retiring in Australia receives depends on his or her financial circumstances. As a result of Australia's termination of the agreement, people who go to Australia after the end of the agreement will, because of its 10-year residence rule, have to wait 10 years before they can get any Australian pension. The Australian Government have estimated that in the first year around 850 people living in Australia will be affected by the termination of the agreement. Those who benefited from it before its termination will continue to do so. However, people who leave Australia to live in the UK
48WH
before reaching pension age cannot get Australia's age pension because, unlike our pension, it is based on a residence requirement.
The British Government are protecting people in the UK who lived in Australia when the agreement was in force by continuing to allow residence in Australia to count towards a basic pension. To unfreeze pensions entirely in all four Commonwealth countries would cost about £310 million in 2001–02, an increase of more than 20 per cent. on current expenditure on overseas pensions. To pay future cost of living increases in those countries alone would cost around £30 million in the current year, rising each year until all pensioners in those countries were paid the full UK rates and eventually reaching a similar cost of more than £300 million a year. The principal difficulty in extending the payment of pension uprating abroad is the cost of doing so. This year the Government will spend about £1,410 million on payments to pensioners living abroad and if, from this month, all pensioners living abroad were paid at the same level as pensioners in this country, the figure would rise to around £1,740 million, an increase of more than 20 per cent. or around £330 million.
There are huge demands on the UK social security budget and there are many unmet needs. The Government have to make choices about priorities. Our priority is to spend any available resources on pensioners in this country, concentrating on the poorest. We have made a start, but there is still much to do to relieve pensioner poverty. It is sometimes argued that the cost of pensions uprating should be offset by the saving to public services here, in particular the national health service, which pensioners overseas do not use. However, we do not know what calls such pensioners might make on the national health service; many of them went abroad long before reaching retirement age and so for many years did not contribute towards health service costs. To pay them uprated pensions would still constitute a major cost.
As I said earlier, the issue of pension uprating has periodically been bought to the Government's attention, as it was brought to the previous Government's—as my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting acknowledged. However, successive Governments have followed the same policy since the regulations were introduced in 1955. I understand and have sympathy with the arguments in favour of a change in policy, but we cannot disregard the huge cost involved. Therefore, I cannot hold out any prospect of adding to social security expenditure by increasing our spending on pensions overseas. As I said, our priority must remain to spending available resources on pensioners in this country, particularly the poorest.

Magistrates Courts (Devon)
12.59 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I have not spoken in a debate in this Chamber since it ceased to be a hemicycle; the new layout is slightly more appropriate and lends itself more to debate.
I have crossed swords with the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), on this subject a number of times. I first raised the closure of magistrates courts in Devon on 1 January 1989. I try to be logical and reasonable in my approach, as I may then stand a chance of persuading people to listen to my views, and perhaps to act upon them. Therefore, I have tried to be logical and reasonable in my arguments for keeping open seven magistrates courts in Devon, which the Government have now condemned to extinction.
I start by asking the Parliamentary Secretary why—and when—the Government turned away from their declared policy of strengthening local justice. In a recently published pamphlet, the Lord Chancellor stated:
"To achieve all our ambitions will not be an easy or simple process but this Government is committed to making a real difference in the quality and the range of services that can be delivered for the civil justice system."
Does the Lord Chancr honestly believe that closing magistrates courts in Devon and other parts of the country will achieve that aim? In Wales, in Wessex, and in the midlands people are shouting that it is not right or fair that magistrates courts, which exist for citizens' benefit, should be closed in this manner.
Is it logical to ask people to travel 32 miles from Axminster to Exeter, for example, for their case to be heard? It is like asking people from Reading to travel to Ealing; I use that example because, as the Minister knows, I once represented Reading in the House. Would not the hon. Lady think it mad if people living in Ealing had to travel to Reading to attend a court hearing? It is exactly the same distance as from Axminster to Exeter. If the Government suggested that people in Ealing, or any other part of London, should travel such a distance, they would say that the Government were mad. Why is it mad in London but not in Devon?
Mr. Richard Livsey: I congratulate the right hon. Member on securing the debate. I agree with what he says, although Ealing and Reading have public transport. In my constituency in mid-Wales, we ask whether people should travel from Llandrindod Wells to New Town, which is 30-odd miles and from Ystradgynlais to Brecon, which is another 30 miles, making a 60-mile round trip. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that what is proposed is completely unreasonable because people cannot get to court by 10 am.
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman has moved on to the next piece of logic. Is it logical to ask people who live outside Axminster to get to court at 10 am or 10.30 am? They have to go the night before, or they cannot get to court on time. The Minister said in her letter to me that courts would be understanding about the timing. I
50WH
have an illustration of that. The judge told one lady, "We will hear your case at 2.30 pm." She said, "That is very kind of you, your honour, but I hope that it will be over by five to 3, because I have to catch the 3 o'clock bus or I can't get home." Is that logical or reasonable? Does it make sense in terms of local justice, which the Minister claims that she wishes to further?
I turn to the availability of justices of the peace. One of the foundations of local justice has been not only that it could be heard within the area in which crimes—often petty crimes—are dealt with, but that justices of the peace were people who knew the area and often knew some of the laggards who kept appearing before them. That was local justice being administered fully and properly. Now, JPs from the Axminster area have to sit in Exeter, where there is no assurance that they will hear cases relating to the area that they come from. One JP said to me, "The only cases I ever heard were from north Devon, of which I knew absolutely nothing." Another said, "I am giving this up. Having to travel 70-odd miles to court and back just to sit is not what I was contracted to do. That is not how the deal was set when I was happy and willing to become a JP."
What does that logically portend? I believe that it portends something about which the Lord Chancellor would be very happy, but which I believe to be wrong, and condemn—that is, moving away from having local magistrates to having only stipendiary magistrates sitting all the time as, one might say, junior judges. That is not local justice as it has been built up in this country, and it should not be encouraged by any right hon. or hon. Member of whatever party.
Problems arise in relation to solicitors. A solicitor in my area has complained about the way in which the magistrates courts committee undertook the lengthy period of consultation before Axminster magistrates court was closed. There is a panel of duty solicitors at Axminster, and I should have thought that the committee would have had to insist that that was one of the first areas of consultation, but consultation there was none. The hinterland of Exeter, Taunton, Yeovil, Dorchester and Weymouth is about 50 miles wide by 20 miles deep and has a population of about 1.2 million. In that area, only four firms and one sole practitioner undertake work for the new criminal defence service. Of course, solicitors in those towns undertake criminal work, but defendants have to travel to see them and have to travel to court.
The Legal Services Commission and the criminal defence service are beginning to realise that that sort of local justice gives rise to several problems. It would be unrealistic and hopelessly uneconomic to open a criminal defence service office outside every major town, but that might be what we are coming to. Firms that undertake criminal defence service work are unlikely to have a dedicated criminal defence solicitor to replace those who have worked on the panel, and distance again becomes a major concern.
The unreasonableness of all this can be shown by a number of factors. For example, a constituent of mine from Hawkchurch arrived for court at Axminster. He shouted to the clerk, "The bus has only just got in and I have run all the way up the hill." The clerk told him that he should have taken an earlier bus, but my constituent,

51WH
whom I know very well replied, "I caught the only bus. There is not another. It is the only one and runs once a week on a Tuesday."
I know that that sort of thing makes the Parliamentary Secretary and those who live in London and other cities smile, but we are talking about local justice in country areas. Another example is of a man from Sidmouth being summoned to appear on an allegation of driving without due care and attention. It was probably true as I think that he had hit some parked cars. He was a widower and dependent on his car for shopping. He had not driven out of Sidmouth for 20 years, but he drove to Axminster for the privilege of being disqualified, and he had to leave his car there.
The journey was only 20 miles, but there are no such problems in the cities. I am concerned that the decision that was taken in Devon was breached as a matter of convenience for those running the service, rather than for the customers or solicitors. The police are happy not to have to go to certain courts. Reliance—the private company that drives people to and from the courts—is more than happy not to have to travel to Axminster twice a week. The magistrates courts committee sees that as an easy way of dealing with the matter, but that is not how everyone feels. The Government claim to be a listening Government who want to hear from and act for the people whom they represent. That is not happening here. I have letters from local parishes in Hawkchurch and Seaton and a petition signed by 2,300 people from Exmouth who are against the closure of Exmouth court. There was a march through the town with people carrying banners, and that does not happen frequently. For the measure to stir up that sort of feeling in Exmouth is a great demonstration of local views.
I have referred to East Devon district council, but Devon county council, which used to run the court appealed against closure, said that the magistrates courts committee was mad and put its case to the Minister. I suppose that it is thought to be unreasonable or illogical that the people who know the job, having done it, were some of the strongest contenders—other than myself—urging the Government not to take the route that they did.
I am concerned that local crime is no longer reported in the local newspapers. It happens in Exeter and Honiton, but local reporters do not know when cases will be heard. One of the condemnations of the magistrates courts service inspectorate is that steps should be taken to improve the turnaround of local aid decisions as only the east Devon and west Cornwall clerks consistently comply with the two-day limit. One of the major factors in local crime is to expose local criminals to the community. The embarrassment of publicity no longer applies in east Devon.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary read the annexes to the report? East Devon comes either first or second in the table giving the percentage of defendants waiting for an hour or less for court and the staff costs per weighted case are the lowest but one. Such achievements are being thrown to one side and it is worrying that local justice is being thrown overboard. The Government have proved that they do not care that local justice was denied in seven courts in Devon last week. The Government are seeing to it that local justice does not exist in those
52WH
localities. They are not listening and they do not seem to care. I condemn their policy in all logic and with all reasonableness.
1.16 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): May I say what a pleasure it is to reply to an Adjournment debate under your chairmanship, Mr. Cummings? It is the first time and I look forward to many future occasions.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) on securing a debate on this important issue. I have listened carefully to all the points that he has so eloquently made. As he said in the debate that he secured in February last year, magistrates courts are managed by locally based magistrates courts committees. Hon. Members need to be continually reminded of that fact, which bears down heavily on the process that we go through when magistrates courts committees consider their accommodation strategy. Each committee is solely responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates courts in its area.
I have said it before, but it is worth repeating, that it is for MCCs—whether urban or rural—to determine how many courthouses are required in consultation with the relevant paying authority. They must also determine what other accommodation is needed. In discharging their statutory responsibility, we expect MCCs to undertake regular reviews of their accommodation requirements. The strategic aims of the MCCs, the facilities needed and the results of their user surveys are just some of the factors that MCCs take into consideration when undertaking reviews. They have to achieve a balance between providing an efficient and effective service to court users, while maintaining secure, well-equipped court accommodation and the full utilisation of courthouse facilities.
Mr. Livsey: Will I he Minister give way?
Jane Kennedy: I resist the hon. Gentleman, who did not give me notice of his intervention. I want to reply in full to the right hon. Member for East Devon, who secured the debate. I have a lot to say to him.
Sir Peter Emery: Perhaps the hon. Lady will give way to me. I am sorry to interrupt her speech, but will she please point out that magistrates courts committees have to operate within the budget allocated by the Government and that there will be a 10 per cent. cut in the money available in the next three years as a matter of policy? The MCCs cannot do what they want; they must act within the framework dictated by the Lord Chancellor and the money that he provides.
Jane Kennedy: Clearly, magistrates courts committees must operate within a budget, but in Devon and Cornwall the final cash limit for 2000–01 was £7.43 million. That includes the initial allocation to the magistrates courts committee, plus additional sums made available during the year. For 2001–02, £8.47 million has been made available to Devon and Cornwall, and there is a bid outstanding for a further

53WH
£1 million. I am unsure where the right hon. Gentleman obtained the figure of a 10 per cent. cut, but I shall examine that in detail as a result of his intervention.
Sir Peter Emery: Just from the Lord Chancellor.
Jane Kennedy: It is worth pointing out that, originally, the magistrates courts committee proposed the closure of 13 courts when consulting on its accommodation strategy. Although it will be no comfort to the right hon. Gentleman, who will lose his court in Axminster as a consequence of that decision and the failure of the appeal, the magistrates courts committee reduced the proposed number of courts to be closed to nine. It therefore listened to local representations and took on board local points of view.
I should like to discuss what we mean by local because one definition will not serve in every case. Local, which may denote the town, the village or the magistrates courts committee area, means different things to different people. For example, some people may view local as centred on a particular courthouse or petty sessions area, whereas others may interpret local as meaning the magistrates courts committee area. Much may depend on the size of the magistrates courts committee, but again that is for the magistrates who form the local committee to decide.
All users of magistrates courts deserve an efficient service that is delivered in well-equipped and secure buildings. Most magistrates courts that have closed have been courts that magistrates courts committees no longer felt able to justify because they lacked necessary facilities such as secure accommodation, separate waiting areas for victims and witnesses away from defendants, and access for disabled people. Those are basic standards of accommodation that all court users expect from a modern, 21st-century service.
Improvements have to be balanced against other factors such as local transport difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman ably illustrated some of the problems that local people face. The Government are particularly concerned to ensure the provision of courtrooms that enable cases to be listed in a manner that will achieve our aim of reducing delay in the criminal justice system. Users want their case to be heard on the day that it is listed; they do not want to make a long trek on public transport because their case has been deferred.
Transferring the work load to better-equipped centres is one way to modernise and improve the overall service that magistrates courts committees provide. Magistrates courts committees have local knowledge and are best placed to make judgments on how to use resources such as finance, staff or buildings. It is only in the event of a decision being challenged by the paying authority—as happened in this case—that the Lord Chancellor becomes involved.
The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his views on the recent appeal decisions clearly and forcefully. I should like to assure him that the decisions were made after careful consideration of the arguments, which included all representations for and against the magistrates courts committee's proposals. Indeed, he has ably and prolifically registered his views on the magistrates courts committee's proposals, not only during the debate last February, but in his question in the House last May, and when he met the Lord Chancellor in November last year.
54WH
The right hon. Gentleman will know that he was not the only hon. Member to make representations. Several meetings were held with each of the parties to the appeals, together with local Members of Parliament, to discuss the proposed closures. The cases for and against the appeals were made vigorously at those meetings.
I will remind the right hon. Gentleman of the reasons for the decisions. In the case of each closure, the most persuasive arguments proved to be the severe under-use of courts and the inadequacy of facilities. Last year, courtrooms in Devon and Cornwall magistrates courts committee area were used for an average of only 40 per cent. of their available hours, which is significantly lower than the national average of almost 58 per cent. The Devon and Cornwall MCC demonstrated that the work could easily be absorbed by alternative venues. It carefully considered travel. Details of public transport to alternative venues, with times and costs, and the results of court user surveys, indicated how people travelled to court.
The Crown Prosecution Service and probation service support each proposed courthouse closure. As I stated in my letter of 16 March, the magistrates courts committee has given an assurance that it will be flexible in listing cases, to meet the needs of all court users, including those the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The Lord Chancellor is committed to making better use of the court estate, including magistrates, crown and county courts. There is scope for further joint use of courthouses, creating more "justice centres" for the hearing of different types of case. Magistrates courts committees and local court service managers have been asked to draw up local plans, which might include other judicial users such as the coroners court, immigration appellate authorities and local tribunals. Such close working will have many benefits. For example, where two courthouses, such as a magistrates court and a county court, are close together, one might be able to accommodate all the work and only one will have to close. Such measures will improve the efficient use of our estate assets, while maintaining access to justice and releasing funds to improve facilities.
I was encouraged to learn that in Camborne, in the Devon and Cornwall MCC area, the MCC is seeking to provide a community resource in partnership with other local agencies. An old school will provide a range of facilities, including some court hearings, access to the citizens advice bureau and the local town council. Although plans have yet to be finalised and formal bids made, we welcome such an initiative in local joined-up working. A total of nine magistrates courts in Devon and Cornwall are already shared with other agencies including the Court Service, the coroners court, valuation tribunal and tax commission.
When preparing their strategic plans and consultation papers, MCCs examine everything that is relevant, including Government targets, funding details and population. They set out their strategic aims and objectives, and their plans take account of court user survey results, strategies for the use of buildings, staffing and security.
By statute, MCCs are required to consult only with paying authorities on proposals to close magistrates courts. In a spirit of good practice, and as recommended by the central council's guidance, MCCs invariably

55WH
consult more widely. Consultees typically include magistrates, staff, police, probation services, the Crown Prosecution Service, MPs and professionals such as the solicitors whose views the right hon. Gentleman brought to our attention.
We look to provide a modern system of justice with well-equipped and secure court rooms. We want to reduce the delay in the passage of cases through the courts. That will help to achieve our aim of reducing delay throughout the criminal justice system. The local initiatives that I have described demonstrate our on-going commitment to the delivery of justice.
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. We move to the next debate.

Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
1.29 pm
Ms Oona King: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise some very serious concerns about the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless families.
The Government have adopted robust measures to reduce homelessness, and have rightly committed themselves to reducing by two thirds the number who sleep rough on our streets. The rough sleepers initiative has shown that significant extra funding can enable the rough sleepers unit to make considerable progress towards achieving that target. I welcome the Government's commitment in that regard, and I have initiated today's debate because I want a similar target to be set in another area of housing policy.
The extended use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families with children is an aspect of housing policy that shames us all. In Tower Hamlets, the local council currently accommodates about 1,200 homeless households. As a result of initiatives undertaken by its Labour administration, almost half those households are housed in temporary accommodation in the borough. They, at least, have the small comfort of an assured shorthold tenancy near the supportive network of family and friends. The lot of a further 300 or so who are housed in similar assured shorthold tenancies outside the borough is not so good, but at least it is better than that of the remaining 300 or so households who are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
Anyone who has taken time to visit such accommodation will recognise that it is inappropriate to house vulnerable adults there for extended periods. It is important to recognise that we are not talking about a room with a view and a friendly landlady serving a full English breakfast with a wry joke about the weather. Often, those who flee, domestic violence have to share a cramped space and inadequate facilities with people with mental health problems, or problems involving alcohol, drugs or substance abuse. It is deplorable that families with vulnerable young children and impressionable teenagers are often forced to live in such an environment. The detrimental impact on a child's health, welfare and educational opportunities is undeniable. The stress for parents is unimaginable, and the problem is one that more and more families face.
According to recent figures, the publication of which has coincided with this debate, the number of households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is rising again. Some 10,000 households across England are in such accommodation, more than 7,000 of which are in London. That highlights the capital's problems in dealing with this issue. Moreover, several thousand other households are in bed-and-breakfast annexes.
In Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) tabled new clause 16 to the Homes Bill, which would have established targets for reducing the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I am not entirely sure what the Minister's view was at that time, but today we ask him the same question: are the Government willing to set targets for reducing the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation?

57WH
I accept that the commitment will place significant additional burdens on local authorities and I knew that the chance of new clause 16 being incorporated was very slim. In the nicety of parliamentary language, it was described as a probing amendment. I want to take a moment to probe the harsh realities of life for every child who went to sleep last night surrounded by the mayhem and insecurity that often characterise bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We have an opportunity now to do something about that. Despite recent performance improvements, many local authority homeless persons' units are still a long way from being able to complete assessments within the six-week period specified in the code of guidance. Many families with children for which local authorities accept a duty are not, even then, immediately moved into assured shorthold tenancies and many vulnerable adults must remain in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for up to a year before they are found alternative accommodation.
Ms Karen Buck: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has come across cases such as that of my constituent, Jane Dennis, who came to me having been told that she could expect to wait up to two years in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and is currently expected to wait another nine months. I have a later from a locum psychiatrist describing her depressive illness, which includes
"a decrease in energy, poor concentration, initial and terminal insomnia … feelings of"
unworthiness
"guilt and self blame about her current situation."
It says that she was
"tearful throughout the assessment, her sense of control had ceased and she was becoming increasingly distressed in the presence of her son."
That is a mild illustration of the sort of mental stress that people experience when told that they can expect to wait a long time in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
Ms King: I thank my hon. Friend for breathing life into the examples that I was giving, explaining the stress suffered by many people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, particularly children, and the damage that occurs to the relationship between parents and children. My hon. Friend's illustration bears out the fact that prolonged stays in such accommodation are simply unsuitable.
The figures for the average length of time spent by families with children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are not readily available. However, anecdotal evidence from hon. Members' advice surgeries, such as that outlined by my hon. Friend, as well as the eagerness with which many families accept temporary accommodation in cold, damp, expensive and poorly furnished flats of their own, reveal the extent of the problem.
There are problems with the approach that I advocate. I know that the introduction of tougher guidance demanding quicker assessment will not work without extra investment in services for homeless people. I know that those services are already over-stretched and would risk judicial review if they did not promptly move successfully assessed applicants out of
58WH
bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I know that the targets do not distinguish between families with children and vulnerable single adults, whom we also want to move into more suitable accommodation more quickly. I know that the targets fail to take account of the desperate shortage of affordable housing and temporary accommodation in London. I also know that the Government are committed, as no other in the past 20 or 30 years, to increasing investment in social housing. I know that if children are not moved out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, we fail them miserably and perhaps damage them for life. We must overcome those problems.
If the Government have succeeded in reversing the decline in the investment in social housing, the next step is to improve the service for homeless people. If, when setting targets, Ministers take the opportunity to allow local authorities more freedom to lease private sector accommodation and to improve the temporary social housing grant regime for registered social landlords, we can end the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for anything other than a reduced four-week assessment period.
I have learned during the past four years not to expect Ministers to cave in to impassioned pleas from a couple of Back Benchers in an Adjournment debate. That is astonishing, but I have learned that lesson. However, I am an optimist and I hope that my exceptionally right hon. Friend the Minister will at least assure us today that he will give sympathetic consideration to developing a series of targets—stepping stones to the abolition of prolonged use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I hope also that he will examine Shelter's proposals to increase the amount of temporary accommodation, particularly in London.
Britain is rich enough and the Government are bold enough and compassionate enough to consign bed-and-breakfast accommodation to the past. I trust that the Minister will do everything in his power to do that within the next three years.
1.42 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) for raising this important matter and for the way in which she presented a strong case for more effective action to tackle the problem of homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I share her concern about the large number of households that are in that position and the human impact that she graphically described, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). Both my hon. Friends have been assiduous in pressing the issue during this Parliament. I have no hesitation in agreeing with my hon. Friends that the number of households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is too high and must be reduced. The constraints and limitations of living in one or two rooms, with bed and breakfast only, can have a debilitating effect on family life and particularly the development of young children. We must discourage that.
The Government have a clear policy on the use of temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families with children. It should be used only as a last

59WH
resort when nothing more suitable is available and its use should be limited to the minimum possible time. That is stated clearly in our statutory guidance to local authorities on the discharge of their responsibilities to homeless people.
Bed-and-breakfast accommodation is used by local authorities as one way of discharging a legislative duty to secure accommodation for homeless households. In many cases, an authority owes an interim duty to homeless families while it completes inquiries to determine whether a substantive duty is owed under legislation. The authority may decide that the applicant does not have a priority need or is found to have become homeless intentionally or not to be without alternative accommodation. In such cases, the authority will not have a substantive duty and the use of temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation for a short period is understandable. It is less appropriate as a discharge of the substantive duty to provide accommodation for homeless households that have been accepted as the responsibility of the local authority. However, I know that some local authorities have to use it for that purpose. I would be particularly concerned if authorities were using temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation when that could be avoided.
Homeless families are generally placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation because no better options are available. Having said that, not all authorities facing serious pressures are making extensive use of bed and breakfast. Indeed some, including my own local authority in Greenwich, have avoided bed and breakfast even though they accommodate substantial numbers of homeless households. Often that is because they have been more successful in directly re-housing homeless households into permanent housing, or they have secured better alternative forms of temporary accommodation. We should remember that those in bed and breakfast are just a small proportion of the total number of households placed in temporary accommodation pending the availability of a more settled housing solution.
The problem is concentrated in a relatively small number of areas. At the end of December 2000, only 36 local authorities in England reported 50 or more homeless households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Those 36 authorities accounted for 7,980 of the total of 9,860 households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Of those 36 authorities, 25 were in London, five in the south-west, four in the south-east, one in the north-west and one in Yorkshire and Humberside. That reinforces my hon. Friend's point that the problem is heavily concentrated in London.
The London borough of Tower Hamlets, which covers my hon. Friend's constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow, is one of the inner London authorities that had more than 50 households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation—a total of 145 at the end of December 2000. I am pleased to say that Tower Hamlets council is working hard to keep that number as low as possible. While the total number of households in temporary accommodation in Tower Hamlets increased by about 806 during the period from December 1997 to December 2000, the numbers in bed-and-breakfast
60WH
accommodation decreased by 19, and in December 2000 represented just 9 per cent. of the total number of homeless households for whom the authority had accepted responsibility. That is much better than the London average, which is 15 per cent.
The picture in Regent's Park and Kensington, North is not so happy because my hon. Friend's constituency straddles two boroughs. Kensington and Chelsea has the highest percentage of all homeless applicants placed in bed and breakfast At the last count it was 68 per cent. The City of Westminster had the fourth highest percentage with 36 per cent. of homeless households accepted by the local authority being placed in bed and breakfast. That is an indication of how the pattern varies between areas and how, despite considerable pressures, some authorities can do much better than others to minimise the use of bed and breakfast. Tower Hamlets has also made good use of its own housing stock to meet the needs of 39 per cent. of its households in temporary accommodation; that compares with an average of just 16 per cent. across London generally.
Having accepted entirely the case that my hon. Friends have made that this is a serious and highly regrettable problem and having described the concentration of the problem in a limited number of areas, I come to the obvious question of what can be done to ensure that the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation is reduced to an absolute minimum. The best solution is to minimise the incidence of homelessness in the first place. That is easier said than done. The causes of homelessness can be complex and personal. One cannot wave a magic wand to ensure that all homelessness is eradicated immediately. However, the Government are doing a great deal and will do a great deal more to prevent homelessness.
The Homes Bill, on which both my hon. Friends served, is currently under consideration in another place. It will require local housing authorities to have a homelessness strategy and ensure that adequate provision of accommodation and support is available to those who cannot avoid homelessness. That will require a multi-agency approach, involving not just the local housing authority, but the social services authority and public, private and voluntary bodies whose activities can contribute to meeting the strategy's aims.
Some authorities already operate this sort of strategic and multi-agency approach, and we expect others to consider doing the same without waiting for the Bill to be enacted. Having said that, we expect the Homes Bill to reach the statute book soon to make clear our commitment to more effective and strategic responses to the challenge of homelessness throughout the country. Local authorities are best placed to tackle the problems of homelessness on the ground, but they need the tools to do the job. A supply of affordable accommodation is clearly the key and the Government are acting to achieve it.
Ms Buck: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and would not expect him to be able to make a clear commitment now. Can he assure me, however, that the Government are always open to representations from local authorities and others about high development costs, especially in central London? Shared ownership and social housing development for larger family units—dear to the hearts of Labour Members—is

61WH
difficult, so we must engage in continuing discussions to find ways of making such developments economically feasible.
Mr. Raynsford: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. We are mindful of the pressures and open to representations from Members of Parliament, local authorities and other interested parties—from any area—with proposals to tackle the highly difficult and complex problems that I have described. I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied, by the end of my remarks, that the Government are taking the necessary steps to achieve our shared objective to—reduce dependence on bed and breakfast for accommodating homeless households.
The underlying problem that has produced the current pressures on many authorities is the chronic under funding of social housing by previous Administrations. The Conservative Government presided over a massive decline in housing investment, and the level of resources provided to local authorities halved between 1992–93 and 1997–98. We have more than reversed that decline: the resources for local authorities in 2001–02 will be about twice the amount made available on average each year by the previous Government during their last five years in office. We shall increase resources further in the subsequent two years.
The Government took action at an early stage to reverse the decline through the capital receipts initiative, which provided an extra £1.3 billion for housing investment in the years from 1997–98. Following the comprehensive spending review in 1998, a further £3.3 billion was provided for housing investment. In last year's spending review, we added another £1.6 billion to housing budgets.
Much of the increase in funding will be directed at tackling the backlog of repairs in existing local authority stock arising from years of neglect. It is estimated that that will cost £19 billion. Improvements in the condition of the stock can free up additional lettings and assist authorities to meet the pressures of demand that they face. Authorities can also reduce the numbers of dwellings that are unpopular because of their poor condition or need for major renovation to make them acceptable as modern living accommodation. It is an uphill task, but we have begun in earnest and are making good progress.
However, a significant part of the additional resources from last year's spending review were provided for investment in affordable housing through the Housing Corporation's approved development programme. Funding is set to increase to more than £1.2 billion by 2003–04—almost double current levels. We cannot expect that to translate into an equivalent doubling in the output because of the problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North alluded, namely the pressure on land and construction costs in London and the high cost of acquiring property. Indeed, the costs of development in London are substantially higher than in other areas, which means that any additional provision is likely to reduce the overall number that can be achieved on average throughout the country. However, we are substantially increasing investment to help tackle the problem.
62WH
We are also providing £250 million during the next three years through the starter home initiative to assist key workers to purchase homes in areas where high prices would otherwise prevent them from living within a reasonable distance of the communities that they serve. Many of those people would not actually face the horror of homelessness, but the fact that they have an alternative means that some of the pressures on local authorities to provide accommodation will be eased. That all contributes to meeting needs.
The situation is particularly acute in London, where pressure on all forms of accommodation is intense. That is an unfortunate consequence of a bustling capital city operating in a thriving economy. The main difficulties for those seeking affordable homes are the buoyant housing market and the shortage of affordable housing. We have increased the resources available for housing investment. In London, the Housing Corporation's approved development programme has been increased by £20 million this year to just under £300 million and is set to rise to over £540 million by 2003–04.
In the immediate term, the London Housing Partnership should help London authorities to access additional properties that can be used to provide permanent housing for homeless households on a London-wide basis. Under that scheme, resources are used to create a pool of accommodation to be provided or brought back into use through purchase and repair schemes. Each London authority has access to a share of the accommodation pool, relative to its housing need. Last year, a total of £40 million was made available for the programme, funded partly from the approved development programme and partly by a top slice of the regional allocation of the housing investment programme. The programme has been expanded in the current year, with the Housing Corporation contributing approximately £90 million.
I have outlined several measures that the Government have put in place since 1997 to reverse the decline in housing investment and tackle the problem of an insufficient supply of affordable housing. Unfortunately, the measures will take time to come to fruition and have a practical effect. In the light of the continuing pressures in London and the south-east, we are looking to work closely with the Housing Corporation and the local authority associations to consider the scope for other initiatives that could have an immediate effect on reducing the need to use bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless families.
I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North will accept the Government's absolute commitment to tackling the problem that they highlighted in the debate and our determination to explore all the available options to ease the pressure on families that have to endure the unpleasant and disagreeable conditions that too often exist in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Two o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Home Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much of the budget from his Department for the home energy efficiency scheme in 2000–01 has been allocated; and what difficulties have been encountered by managers of the scheme in meeting the target number of homes due to be assisted. [156558]

  Mr. Meacher
  For the 2000–01 financial year the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) in England had a total budget of £121.8 million. This was for the final months of the old scheme and for the new HEES scheme, which started on 1 June 2000. The total amount allocated for the year was £113.1 million. Of this, £77 million was paid on the receipt of satisfactory invoices. The balance of £36.1 million represents work orders yet to be completed or for which invoices have not yet been submitted.

  The new public spending framework introduced in the Comprehensive Spending Review gives the Department freedom to carry forward unspent grant provision from one year to the next, within a three-year budget cycle.

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  High Peak borough council

  Revenue support grant

  1.993

  2.186

  2.122

  2.001

  2.235

  Income from national non-domestic rates

  2.790

  2.829

  3.043

  3.384

  3.353

  Housing investment programme

  0.894

  1.036

  1.103

  2.732

  23.817

  Capital receipts initiative

  —

  0.685

  0.671

  —

  —

  Housing revenue account subsidy (management and maintenance allowance)

  3704.69

  3702.92

  3709.44

  3733.63

  3732.81

  SRB funding4

  0.340

  0.332

  1.260

  0.463

  3.500

  ERDF funding5

  0.269

  0.176

  0.655

  0.132

  —

  Capital challenge (supplementary credit and basic credit approvals)

  0.340

  0.398

  0.500

  —

  —

  Derbyshire county council6

  Transport supplementary grant

  1.008

  1.060

  1.132

  —

  —

  Transport annual capital guideline

  1.008

  1.060

  1.132

  —

  —

  Transport block supplementary credit approval

  0.970

  0.891

  2.371

  5.939

  18.008

  Rural bus challenge grant (from 1999–2000)

  —

  —

  0.800

  0.155

  0.600

  Rural bus subsidy grant (from 1998–99)

  —

  0.714

  0.714

  0.714

  0.912

  1Where known

  2Includes major repairs allowance

  3Per property

  4SRB schemes include a five-year industrial development and enterprise training project, a five-year community-led project to improve social well-being in the most deprived area in the High Peak and a five-year project to develop Buxton. There is no SRB expenditure in that part of Derbyshire Dales district which falls within the High Peak constituency.

  5Includes expenditure in Derbyshire Dales district which falls within the High Peak constituency.

  6Figures for Derbyshire county council exclude funds allocated for the Derby local transport plan area.

  Registered Social Landlords
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer on 27 March 2001,Official Report, column 568W,
  100W
  The main difficulty encountered by HEES is recruiting sufficient contractors to install and repair gas central heating systems. This is caused by the national shortage of qualified heating engineers. To address the problem, scheme managers are seeking additional qualified heating installers, and encouraging existing installers to increase the number of installation teams dedicated to HEES. These efforts have substantially increased the number of installations and cut the time taken to install measures to less than three months in most areas of England.

  In conjunction with Transco plc and the Gas Industry National Training Organisation, my Department introduced training programmes to provide an additional 800 gas engineers over the next 12 months to work under HEES. These will enable the scheme to cope better with short-term fluctuations.

  Departmental Policies (High Peak)
  Mr. Levitt
  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 constituency, the effects on the High Peak constituency of his Department's policies and actions since May 1997. [156781]

  Ms Armstrong
  The principal funding that this Department has provided to High Peak borough council and Derbyshire county council between 1997–98 and 2001–02 is shown in the table. This includes grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much of this money Derbyshire county council has spent on High Peak constituency. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.

  (a) if he will assess the benefits of including the performance of registered social landlords in meeting housing need within the objectives of the Housing Corporation's proposed new regulatory code and (b) what representations he has received on this issue. [156851]
  101W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The contents of the Housing Corporation's new regulatory code are a matter for the Housing Corporation. The Corporation issued a draft regulatory code on 12 January 2001 for consultation and has received a number of representations in respect of the contents of the code.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 March 2001,Official Report, column 568W, what plans he has for the Housing Corporation's draft revised Statutory Housing Management Guidance to contain strengthened guidance on the obligations on registered social landlords to provide accommodation for households with priority under local authority allocation schemes. [156850]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Under S36 of the Housing Act 1996, guidance to registered social landlords is issued by the Housing Corporation. The Corporation plans to issue for consultation a draft of its revised Statutory Housing Management Guidance in May. The Secretary of State will not approve guidance under S36(4) unless he is satisfied with its requirements in relation to the provision of accommodation for households with priority under local authority allocation schemes.

  Rail Services (London)
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he intends to proceed with the East London Line extension to(a) Croydon, (b) Wimbledon and (c) Clapham Junction. [156738]

  Mr. Hill
  The proposals to extend the East London Line to West Croydon and Wimbledon form part of the Transport and Works Act 1992 application submitted last year by London Underground Ltd. The Secretary of State is considering the Inspector's report.

  The Strategic Rail Authority are looking into the possibility of a third extension to Clapham Junction as part of their Orbirail study.

  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for a London Orbital Rail Network. [156739]

  Mr. Hill
  The Strategic Rail Authority are actively working on developing the Orbirail concept as a major part of their aspirations to enhance rail services in London. The Government support these aspirations, but no commitments can be made at this stage while the proposals are still under consideration.

WALES

  Children's Commissioner for Wales
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what role the Children's Commissioner for Wales will have in respect of matters that are not devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. [157049]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Commissioner's core functions under the Bill rightly focus on matters that come within the Assembly's wide fields of responsibility. However, the Government have carefully considered the points made in debate here and in another place about 102W
  the Commissioner needing to have a role in matters not devolved to the Assembly. We therefore intend amending the Bill to empower the Commissioner to consider, and make representations to the Assembly about, any matter affecting the rights and welfare of children in Wales.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Policies (Hazel Grove)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Haze1 Grove constituency, the effects on Hazel Grove of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156185]

  The Solicitor-General
  In November 1999, in line with national policy the Stockport/Sale branch of the Crown Prosecution Service introduced procedures based upon the Narey proposals. It did this in liaison with the Greater Manchester police and the Stockport magistrates court.

  All adult defendants charged with a criminal offence now make the first appearance before Stockport magistrates court within 96 hours. The present figures suggest that between 40 per cent. and 45 per cent. of all defendants have their case finalised more quickly than previously was the case.

  In January 2001, in line with national policy and new legislation, the CPS and the magistrates court started sending the most serious (indictable) cases to the Crown court within one week of the first appearance in the magistrates court. Henceforth, Crown court judges will monitor the progress of these cases and it is anticipated that they should also be finalised more quickly than previously.

  So far as youth offenders are concerned, the CPS—together with the police, the magistrates courts and the local youth offending team—have agreed procedures designed to bring persistent youth offenders before the court much more quickly. They are working towards the Government's 71-day target for disposing of such cases. Protocols have also been designed to bring all youth offenders before the Crown court much more quickly.

  All these changes illustrate the Government's successful policy of speeding up the criminal justice system.

  Since May 1997, the Stockport team of the Stockport/Sale branch has successfully prosecuted a number of high-profile cases, including several murders, attempted murders and drug-related offences. On Friday 23 March 2001, a 16-year-o1d youth was found guilty of attempted murder and aggravated burglary on 87-year-old, Miss Edith Champman, of Hazel Grove. The defendant has been remanded in secure accommodation for reports to be prepared before he is sentenced. In October 2000, Ian Morrison was found guilty of the attempted murder of his ex-wife and two police officers and attempted wounding with intent of a third police officer. He was sentenced to a total of 16 years' imprisonment.

  Actions and policies of the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office do not directly affect the hon. Member's constituency.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  90 per cent. of complainants to be sent a formal case update within 10 working lays after the start of an investigation, the remainder within a further 10 days.
  Correspondence
  I also expect all correspondence from hon. Members delegated to the Chief Executive by Ministers or otherwise for reply, and all written complaints a addressed to him about Agency services, to be answered within 10 working days of receipt; the Agency's inquiry point to respond to 95 per cent. of calls within 30 seconds; and 100 per cent. of valid invoices to be paid within 30 days of receipt (or as agreed with the supplier).

  Workplaces (Injury Insurance)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on individual businesses of the transfer from Government onto individual businesses of the responsibility for insuring workplaces against injury. [148018]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]This Department has made no such assessment.

  Employment Agencies
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2001 on recruitment company products; [156843]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2001 on (a women returning to work, (b) ethnic minorities, (c) work experience students and (d) improving the skill of women in the workplace; [156847]

  (3) how many recruitment companies and agencies made representations to the Department during the consultation on the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2001; [156842]

  (4) what representations he has received from the Inland Revenue regarding the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2001; and if he will place these in the Library; [156846]

  (5) how many requests for a meting he received from recruitment companies regarding the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2001; [156844]

  (6) what discussions he has had with (a) women's groups, (b) representatives of ethnic minority groups and (c) student groups regarding the implications of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2001; [156848]

  (7) if he will list those recruitment agencies and companies that he has met regarding the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2001, indicating (a) those companies which requested the meeting and (b) those which he invited to a meeting without a request; [156845]

  (8) what discussions he had with (a) the Inland Revenue and (b) the Better Regulation Task Force regarding the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement. [156849]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  A summary of responses to consultation on revisions to the Regulations, which includes a list of respondents, has been placed in the Library of the House. I have had meetings with a number of these, though most contacts have been with the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and other trade bodies rather than with individual agencies.
  104W
  There have been discussions with both the Inland Revenue and the Cabinet Office's Regulatory Impact Unit about the draft Regulations, and consultees include members of the Better Regulation Task Force. Correspondence within Government on policy issues is not normally made public.

  The Regulations are designed to benefit recruitment agencies, their clients and those employed through them. They will remove unnecessary restrictions on agencies' operations and the services they can offer, while protecting the interests of work-seekers and vulnerable groups such as the young and those receiving care. They recognise the important role that this sector plays in a flexible labour market and in helping many people back into work. They support the Government's policies on skills and employment, for example by requiring appropriate training and experience to be given, creating incentives to increase the skills of the workforce, and preventing unjustified restrictions on temporary to permanent transfer. A draft Regulatory Impact Assessment has been placed on my Department's website, and a final version will be published when the draft Regulations are laid before Parliament.

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if charities and political think-tanks are considered political organisations for the purposes of Part IX of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. [157023]

  Mr. Byers
  Part XA of the Companies Act 1985 as inserted into that Act by Part IX of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 implements the recommendation by the Committee on Standards in Public Life that companies intending to make a donation to a political party or organisation should be required to have the prior authority of their shareholders. An organisation is to be considered "political" for the purposes of Part XA of the Companies Act if it carries on, or proposes to carry on, activities which are capable of being reasonably regarded as intended to affect public support for a political party or to influence voters in a referendum.

  The Government considered the definition carefully, and continue to believe that a test based on an organisation's intent to affect support for a political party or to influence the outcome of a referendum is both appropriate and proportionate. At the same time, the Government are concerned that the definition should not be interpreted so widely as to affect the funding of organisations which could not reasonably be regarded to show such intent. The Government do not believe, for example, that charities which campaign on issues of general public interest or political think-tanks whose publications and events are aimed at informing public opinion generally are likely to be caught by the definition if their activities would not appear, on any reasonable assessment, to be aimed at promoting a political party or to form an active part of a referendum campaign.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets he has set his Department's Radiocommunications Agency for 2001–02. [157021]
  105W
  Ms Hewitt
  I have set the Radiocommunications Agency the following quality of service targets for 2001–02 in respect of its licensing and enforcement activities, and correspondence. These are in addition to achieving on overall efficiency improvement of 3 per cent. over 2000–01.Licensing Targets
  Category A
  Licences that involve no frequency assignment, site clearance or international co-ordination: 100 per cent. of applications for new or varied services to be awarded or rejected (with explanation) within five working days.
  Category B
  Licences that involve frequency assignment but no site clearance or international co-ordination: 90 per cent. of applications for new or varied services to be awarded or rejected (with explanation) within 15 working days; the remainder to be awarded or rejected within 25 working days or an explanation of the delay to be given.
  Category C
  Licences that require frequency assignment and site clearance and/or international co-ordination: 90 per cent. of applications for new or varied services to be awarded or rejected (with explanation) within 40 working days; the remainder to be awarded or rejected within 60 working days or an explanation of the delay to be given.
  Enforcement
  100 per cent. of safety of life services reports of interference to be investigated within 24 hours.
  98 per cent. of business customers reports of interference to be investigated within five working days; the remainder within a further five days.
  98 per cent. of domestic customers reports of interference to be investigated within one month; the remainder within a further month.

  Glasgow

  Date of hearing

  Case number

  Applicant

  Respondent

  November 2000

  6 and 7

  S/102120/2000

  Mr. J. Burns

  The Royal Bank of Scotland

  8

  S/100197/2000

  Mr. D. Bryson

  Lei hcrest Ltd.

  9

  S/102361/2000

  Mr. R. McCambley

  William Grant and Sons Ltd.

  16

  S/102561/2000

  Mrs. L. Wynne

  Michael Curran

  16

  S/102534/2000

  Mrs. I. Kerr

  Chungwa Pictures Tubes UK Ltd.

  22

  S/100623/2000

  Mr. D. Walker

  Douglas Guest t/a Douglas Guest Associates

  22

  S/103957/2000

  Mr. D. Duncan

  Mick MacKenzie

  23

  S/100854/2000

  Mr. S. Strang

  Duncan and Co. (Scotland) Ltd.—in liquidation

  24

  S/103024/2000

  Mr. D. Cunningham

  Stone 3 Ltd.

  24

  S/102961/2000

  Mr. S. Patterson

  SCI Communications

  27

  S/102499/2000

  Mr. J. Taylor

  A. E. Transport

  29 and 30

  S/102798/2000

  Mr. S. Morgan

  Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd.

  December 2000

  4 and 5

  S/102896/2000

  Mr. G. White

  Blackbaud Europe Ltd.

  6

  S/101487/2000

  Mr. D. Tagg

  Mrs. Mary Eeles t/a Express Packaging Supplies

  11

  S/101473/2000

  Mr. D. Jess

  West of Scotland Water

  12

  S/102258/2000

  Mr. N. C. Bannerman

  Guardion Security

  14

  S/103212/2000

  Mr. S. Varney

  Stan Lavelle

  18

  S/103341/2000

  Mr. Y. Masih

  Mr. Rehmat Ali and Family

  19

  S/103111/2000

  Ms L. England

  D. O. Stevenson Ltd. (t/a Nova Bathrooms)

  Dundee

  Date of hearing

  Case number

  Applicant

  Respondent

  December 2000

  7

  S/300260/1998

  Mr. D. J. Gahan

  Greenfield Homes (Scotland) Ltd.

  7

  S/300026/2000

  Mrs. F. Gillespie

  Envirosafe (Scotland)

  20

  S/300620/2000

  Mrs. C. Bennett

  Frasers Studio

  22

  S/300468/2000

  Mrs. A. Brown

  Mr. and Mrs. P. Nimmo t/a Peacehaven Residential Care Home

  Tom Bower
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what sum has been set aside by his Department to cover his legal expenses in respect of his claim for libel against Mr. Tom Bower and Associated Newspapers; [156741]

  (2) when he issued his claim for libel against Tom Bower and Associated Newspapers in respect of the publication of extracts of Mr. Bower's book. [156740]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 7W.

  Lucy Crone
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employment tribunal hearings were chaired by Lucy Crone between 30 August and 31 December 2000 and if he will list the date, location and names of the parties in each such hearing. [156790]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Lucy Crone chaired 23 cases between 30 August and 31 December 2000. The details requested for these cases are set out in the tables.
  107W

  Statutory Instruments
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many statutory instruments were laid before Parliament by his Department each year from 1993 to 1998, inclusive. [156524]

  Mr. Byers
  The number of Statutory Instruments laid before Parliament by the Department of Trade and Industry from 1993 to 1998 are as follows:

  Year

  Number of Statutory Instruments laid before Parliament

  1993

  64

  1994

  126

  1995

  89

  1996

  102

  1997

  121

  1998

  117

  Advantage West Midlands
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the effects of abolishing Advantage West Midlands on businesses in Shrewsbury and Atcham. [156502]

  Mr. Caborn
  This Government are about ensuring that all regions of the country are given the opportunity to reach their full potential. It is the task of Government to ensure that the right framework is in place for regional economies to flourish.

  This is why we established Regional Development Agencies (RDAs)—to improve the economic performance of the English Regions. In the short period of their existence, the RDAs have emerged as the strategic drivers of economic development in the English regions—mirroring the success of their counterparts in Scotland and Wales.

  The RDAs have already made a considerable impact. They brought local partners on board to produce Regional Strategies. They have provided a focal point for regional economic development, and they have already established a track record in creating and saving jobs. RDAs have also had a key role in defining the skills needs in their regions in the context of their Regional Strategies.

  Our confidence in RDAs is shown in their increased budgets for the new financial year 2001–02. The £1.7 billion they will have by 2003–04 is almost double the amount they inherited in 1999.

  Shrewsbury and Atcham companies have already received funding from Advantage West Midlands (Advantage). Companies within the Shrewsbury area have been directly assisted with Rover funding totalling £130,000. I hope that Shrewsbury and Atcham will benefit from the development of the Wolverhampton-Telford high technology corridor, which Advantage is exploring. The Rural Regeneration Zone to the south of the district will, I feel sure, provide much needed support to businesses and communities in the vicinity, improving the local economy and indirectly helping businesses in the Shrewsbury area.

  Advantage is working with partners and leading on information, communications and technology (ICT), with a major emphasis on rural areas and market towns. It has
  108W
  taken the initiative and set up a Task Force to assess and address the social and economic impact of the foot and mouth outbreak in the region.

  It has approved expenditure of £230,000 for a Regional Organics Centre on the Battlefield Enterprise Park at Shrewsbury.

  It has taken an early opportunity to assist the Shropshire Local Learning and Skills Council by allocating a notional £450,000 for 2001–02 for skills development. Companies in Shrewsbury and Atcham, as elsewhere, will benefit from improving the skills of the workforce.

  It has made a very significant financial commitment of £2.8 million to restore Flax Mill, a Grade 1 listed building with the objective of providing employment and substantial tourism.

  Utility Prices (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the average change in prices for(a) gas and (b) electricity to the average consumer in Shrewsbury and Atcham since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [156501]

  Mr. Hain
  Average annual domestic bills1 for customers paying by quarterly credit for (a) gas and (b) electricity in cash terms in the West Midlands region2 for 1997 and 2000 are as follows:

  1997

  20003

  Difference4

  Gas5

  £329

  £297

  -10

  Electricity6

  £283

  £245

  -13

  1 Averages are weighted by customer numbers and based on all companies operating in the region.

  2Figures are those for the Midlands Electricity distribution area and the West Midlands Transco distribution zone.

  3Provisional.

  4Per cent. change.

  5Annual consumption level of 18,000kWh has been assumed.

  6An annual consumption level of 3,300kWh has been assumed. Customers with electric central heating are likely to consume considerably more electricity

  Average bills on a regional basis have been published annually since 1999 in the Department's annual "Digest of UK Energy Statistics" and in the "Energy Report".

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets he has set his Department's Insolvency Service Executive Agency for 2001–02. [157022]

  Dr. Howells
  The Insolvency Service's planning assumption is that compulsory insolvencies will total 26,500 in the year to 31 March 2002. On that basis and with the resources allocated to it, I have set the following performance targets:To complete sufficient bankruptcy and compulsory liquidation case administrations so that the number of open current cases at 31 March 2002 are no more than 16,775 cases—that is equivalent to no more than eight months new case input; with no more than 2.5 per cent. of those cases being more than 36 months;
  to maintain in real terms the unit cost of administering bankruptcy and compulsory liquidation cases over the period 1999–02 at the level of 1998–99, taking account of additional shorter-term cost of its new IT infrastructure and the delivery of improvements in its services to users;

  109W
  to reduce in real terms the unit costs of its investigation of bankruptcy and liquidation cases by 10 per cent. over the period 1999–02, also taking account of the additional shorter-term costs of its new IT;
  to continue to achieve the level of disqualification proceedings and orders against unfit directors as in 2000–01;
  to continue to submit reports of criminal misconduct at a level consistent with the Service's investigative case load and resources;
  to report to creditors on assets and liabilities within eight weeks in at least 98 per cent. of all cases; and within 12 weeks in 99 per cent. of all cases;
  to hold the initial meetings of creditors within 12 weeks in 97 per cent. of all appropriate cases, and within four months in 99 per cent. of all appropriate cases;
  to submit disqualification reports within 12 months in at least 65 per cent. of cases and within 15 months in at least 80 per cent. of cases where there is evidence of unfit conduct by directors;
  to reduce the average time from a company's insolvency to conclusion of disqualification proceedings from 28 months to 26 months; and to increase the percentage of disqualification cases concluded within 30 months from 68 per cent. to 72 per cent; and within 24 months from 42 per cent. to 45 per cent.; and
  to check and action at least 98 per cent. of Insolvency Service's Account payment requisitions within four days or by the due date.

  The Service is expected to action 100 per cent. of invoices for payment within 30 days of receipt and 90 per cent. within 20 days of receipt. The Agency Chief Executive is expected to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  I have asked Agency Chief Executive to continue to work on the development of outcome based targets for the Service's activities; and to continue to review and to seek to improve its quality of service performance in the light of his experience of its new IT infrastructure and the views of its users.

  Corus
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the arrangements formulated to protect employees' jobs in the Corus firm can be applied to employees' jobs in the former BSK factory in Llanidloes; and if he will make a statement. [156517]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I am disappointed to learn of the planned closure of BSK Ltd. with the loss of over 200 jobs. I have considerable sympathy with the individuals and local community affected by this decision. I understand that the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Development Agency are making every effort to mitigate the losses and are exploring options to retain a foundry operation in the area. Similarly the Government are seeking to minimise job losses at Corus. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has urged Corus to reconsider its decision to make 6,050 job cuts and has pressed the company to engage in constructive dialogue to identify a better way forward. I am pleased that a dialogue involving Corus, the Trade Unions and Government are now underway and hope this will alleviate the impact of the large scale redundancies proposed.

  Departmental Policies (Hazel Grove)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, including statistical information 110W
  relating as directly as possible to the Hazel Grove constituency, the effects on Hazel Grove of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156186]

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

  The hon. Gentleman's constituents, like many others throughout Greater Manchester, will have benefited from my Department's Employment Rights policies which include National Minimum Wage, Working Time Directive, Part-Time Working Regulations and improved Maternity Leave.

  In the North West region, my Department's policies have contributed to growth in employment by 107,000 and a fall in unemployment by 63,000; reductions in youth unemployment by 75 per cent. and long-term unemployment by 54 per cent.

DEFENCE

  Meteorological Office
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what progress has been made in re-siting the Meteorological Office; [155992]

  (2) if he will review the decision to re-site the Meteorological Off ice. [156019]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Ewins to Dr. Ian Gibson, dated 3 April 2001:
  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the relocation of the Met Office. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Met Office.
  The Under Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Lewis Moonie, announced in the House on 9 November (Official Report, column 326W) that the Met Office has chosen Exeter as its preferred site for relocation. Detailed tenders were submitted at the end of the February by the two consortia seeking to provide the new accommodation. These tenders are now being evaluated with a view to selecting a preferred bidder and further negotiations leading to contract signature by July 2001.
  Our existing accommodation in Bracknell is not suitable for a modern, IT based organisation. It places weather forecasting services at unacceptable risk and is increasingly costly to maintain. A new site with purpose build accommodation is the best way of meeting our long-term needs and those of our customers. Defence Ministers scrutinised the choice of site closely and are satisfied that both the financial and non-financial arguments are substantially in favour of Exeter and that this is the best location for the Met Office to build a secure and successful future. Since the choice was made, the arguments in favour of Exeter have, if anything, increased and there are therefore no plans to review the decision.

  Missile Defence Systems
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he ms reviewed the United States Aegis (SM2 BLOCK IV and SM3 missile version) air defence and anti-ballistic missile defence system as the possible basis for ground-based theatre defence for deployed forces; and if he will make a statement; [156729]
  111W
  (2) if he has recently reviewed (a) the Patriot PAC 3 Advanced Capability missile, (b) the ground-based Aster 30, (c) the Israeli Arrow system and d) other system of theatre anti-ballistic missile and combined anti-ballistic missile and anti-air defence; and if he will make a statement. [156673]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK's Pre-feasibility Study undertaken in 1994–96 reviewed all Government sponsored anti-ballistic missile systems either under development or expected to evolve into development programmes. The guidance from this study contributed to the decision, as part of the Strategic Defence Review, to embark on the Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme, which has continued to monitor developments both in the threat and in the technologies available to counter it.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is committed to the NATO summit decision to recognise the need for extended theatre defence against ballistic missiles for deployed forces; and what steps he intends to take to address this threat. [156678]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK is firmly committed to the implementation of the Defence Capabilities Initiative, which was launched at the last NATO summit in Washington DC in April 1999. Since 1998, we have contributed to NATO analysis of how best to defend deployed NATO forces against ballistic missiles, including preparatory work for feasibility studies on Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence. We expect these studies to start later this year. Nationally, we continue to assess the potential role of ballistic missile defence systems in countering missile attacks. We monitor developments closely, but it remains our position that it would be premature to decide to acquire a ballistic missile defence for either UK territory or forces deployed overseas.

  HMS Brean
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the operational status of HMS Brean. [156674]

  Mr. Spellar
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to HMS Ocean.

  HMS Ocean is currently undergoing a period of planned maintenance in Devonport. On current plans she will return to sea for trials, commencing in May 2001.

  Defence Equipment Projects
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are(a) the estimated total costs, (b) the amounts expended so far and (c) the estimated in-service dates in relation to (i) Type 45 destroyer, (ii) Future Aircraft carrier, (iii) Astute class SSN, (iv) Auxiliary Oiler, (v) Landing Platform Dock, (vi) Future Afloat Support, (vii) Strategic Sea Lift ROROs, (viii) Alternate Landing Ships Logistic, (ix) Primary Casualty Receiving Ships, (x) Type 23 Frigate, (xi) Sandown Class Single Role Minehunter, (xii) Fishery Protection replacement, (xiii) Future MCM Capability, (xiv) Nato submarine rescue system, (xv) Multi role survey ships, (xvi) Mark 8 Lynx conversion and rotorhead, (xvii) Merlin ASW helicopter, (xviii) Future Organic AEW aircraft, (xix) Future Carrier Borne Aircraft, (xx) Support and Amphibious Battlefield Rotorcraft, (xxi) Future Air to Surface Guided weapon, (xxii) Stingray life extension programme,
  112W
  (xxiii) Goalkeeper successor system, (xxiv) Sea Dart Extension programme, (xxv) Sea Wolf MLU, (xxvi) Spearfish heavyweight torpedo, (xxvii) ASRAAM, (xxviii) 114mm Gun update, (xxix) Harpoon successor system, (xxx) PAAMS, (xxxi) Swiftsure/Trafalgar sonar update, (xxxii) Sonar 2087, (xxxiii) Sonar 2193, (xxxiv) JTIDS, (xxxv) SAWCS, (xxxvi) Surface Torpedo Defence System, (xxxvii) Co-operative Engagement Capability, (xxxviii) Active Offboard Decoy system, (xxxix) Type 675 jammer successor, (xl) Electric Ship Technology Demonstrator and (xli) Combined Aerial Target Service. [156676]

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

  HMS Invincible
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if HMS Invincible is being used in the Landing Platform Helicopter role; and if he will make a statement. [156677]

  Mr. Spellar
  Operating as a Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH) is a secondary role for an aircraft carrier and is exercised on a periodic basis. HMS Invincible is currently preparing for her next refit. She was last employed in the LPH role between 19 February and 22 March 2001, during Exercise Tartan Relief. HMS Illustrious assumed Fleet Flagship duties on 23 March and in this capacity would be used as the LPH if required.

  Military Decorations (Burma Campaign)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the request for retrospective consideration of military decorations for servicemen in respect of action in Burma during the Second World War. [156736]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Interdepartmental Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals for the 1939–45 war decided in 1946 that no further awards would be given for wartime operations. It would not be appropriate to attempt to review events which happened more than 50 years ago with a view to altering contemporary decisions made by those closely involved at that time.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Student Loans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 9 February 2001,Official Report, column 764W, what nominal rate of interest additional to that supplied in his answer would be required to allow the raising of the income threshold for repayment to £20,000 per annum; and if he will make a statement. [150665]

  Mr. Wicks
  In 1999–2000 there were an estimated £982 million of income contingent loans issued in England and Wales, with an income repayment threshold of £10,000 per annum. If the income repayment threshold were raised to £20,000 per annum, an estimated nominal rate of interest
  113W
  of 15 per cent. would be required to increase the net present value of these loans by £0.7 billion over their current net present value.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if write-offs of student loan debts initiated by his Department for trainee teachers are planned to be taxable. [155872]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 28 March 2001]Detailed proposals for the write-off of student loans are still being developed by my Department. As part of this process, we are discussing the tax position with the Inland Revenue.

  Sixth Forms
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what further financial incentives he plans to introduce to encourage 16-year-olds to stay on in school. [154618]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 29 March 2001]We are committed to encouraging more students to continue in school, further education or training, and to raising attainment levels. Therefore we are developing a suite of measures to offer young people incentives and support while they stay in learning.

  Discretionary student support for further education and sixth form students will increase to £115 million in 2001–02, a rise of 16 per cent. on the 2000–01 allocation. This includes £62 million for further education access funds, up from £54 million in 2000–01, and over £10 million for access funds for sixth form students. The access funds are used to help pay for transport, books, equipment, and other expenditure associated with remaining in education, such as residential charges and childcare costs.

  We will continue to make Education Maintenance Allowances (EMAs) available in 56 of the most deprived LEA areas, covering approximately 30 per cent. of England by population. EMAs are a weekly allowance paid to the student or in some cases to the student's family, in return for the student's continuing attendance of an education programme. They aim to encourage young people to remain in full-time education and complete their courses successfully. Payments are means tested on the basis of parental income. Evaluation of the first year of the EMA scheme showed that EMAs lead to a significant increase in the numbers of 16 year olds deciding to remain in full-time education. The Government are considering the case for introducing a national EMA scheme.

  We are also introducing the Connexions Card, which will be available to all young people aged 16–19. It will provide a range of incentives to stay in learning, ranging from help with transport costs to discounts on the sorts of goods and activities which young people value. The benefits attached to the Card will be earned through regular attendance and effort.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of those who applied for teacher training courses started a teacher training course within 12 months in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [155647]
  114W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 29 March 2001]Information on the numbers of teacher trainees that start a teacher training course within 12 months of applying as a proportion of the total number of applicants is not collected centrally. Applications to courses leading to Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) can be made at both postgraduate and undergraduate level. Prior to the current applications cycle, information on numbers of applications to ITT courses can be presented only on an England and Wales basis; not for England only. The following tables contain the total numbers of applications that were received for postgraduate and undergraduate initial teacher training (ITT) courses for providers in England and Wales starting in academic years 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01:

  Postgraduate applications to initial teacher training (ITT) 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  England and Wales

  31,638

  33,056

  34,860

  Source:

  Graduate Teacher Training Agency, GTTR

  Undergraduate applications to initial teacher training (ITT) 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  England and Wales

  77,130

  66,141

  61,382

  Note:

  Figures represent applications up to the end of the application cycle for each year.

  Source:

  Universities and College Admissions Service, UCAS

  The figures for undergraduate and postgraduate applications cannot be combined as UCAS counts up to six applications per undergraduate applicant and GTTR counts only one application per postgraduate applicant.

  Undergraduate primary ITT recruits account for around a half of all primary ITT trainees. Recruitment to primary ITT courses in England has exceeded Government targets for as long as figures are available.

  The numbers of people recruited onto ITT courses in England starting in academic years 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are presented:

  Recruitment to initial teacher training (ITT) 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01

  England only

  Number

  1998–99

  PG

  17,415

  UG

  8,792

  Total

  26,207

  1999–2000

  PG

  17,461

  UG

  8,506

  Total

  25,967

  2000–01

  PG

  19,616

  UG

  8,099

  Total

  27,715

  Note:

  2000–01 ITT recruitment figures are the latest provisional figures.

  Source:

  TTA Survey of ITT Providers
  115W
  Recruitment figures for ITT courses in Wales are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. The full-time equivalent number of regular teachers in the maintained sector in England was over 404,000 in January 2000. This is an increase of 6,900 from January 1998 and the highest figure for a decade.

  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applicants there were for teacher training courses in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [155648]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 29 March 2001]Applications to initial teacher training (ITT) courses leading to Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) can be made at both postgraduate and undergraduate level. Prior to the current applications cycle, information on numbers of applications to ITT courses can be presented only on an England and Wales basis; not for England only. To allow a comparison of the latest figures with those of earlier years, the figures presented are for England and Wales combined. The tables show the numbers of applications that have been received up to the start of March for postgraduate and undergraduate ITT courses for providers in England and Wales starting in academic year 2001–02 with figures for comparable dates for the previous two years (courses starting in 1999–2000 and 2000–01):

  Latest postgraduate applications to initial teacher training (ITT) 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02, England and Wales

  Year

  Number

  1999–2000 (up to 3 March 2000)

  22,522

  2000–01 (up to 1 March 2000)

  19,981

  2001–02 (up to 2 March 2001)

  23,699

  Source:

  Graduate Teacher Training Agency, GTTR

  Latest undergraduate applications to initial teacher training (ITT) 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02, England and Wales

  Year

  Number

  1999–2000 (up to 3 March 2000)

  64,821

  2000–01 (up to 3 March 2000)

  60,003

  2001–02 (up to 2 March 2001)

  51,589

  Notes:

  1. Figures for undergraduate and postgraduate applications cannot be combined as UCAS count up to six applications per applicant and GTTR count only one application per applicant.

  2. Figures represent applications up to 2 March and equivalent for each year.

  Source:

  Universities and College Admissions Service, UCAS

  Undergraduate primary ITT recruits account for around a half of all primary ITT trainees.

  Recruitment to primary ITT courses in England has exceeded Government targets for as long as figures are available.

  This year, for the first time, applications are also being received for Fast Track teacher training places. A total of 1,574 applications were received for Fast Track places by the 31 January 2001 closing date. Applicants can submit simultaneous applications to both Fast Track and UCAS or GTTR.
  116W
  The full-time equivalent number of regular teachers in the maintained sector in England was over 404,000 in January 2000. This is an increase of 6,900 from January 1998 and the highest figure for a decade.

  Education Maintenance Allowances
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about take-up of education maintenance allowances in Stoke-on-Trent. [155909]

  Mr. Wicks
  I am pleased to say that the take-up rate of Education Maintenance Allowance in Stoke-on-Trent is high. There are currently 2,267 young people in receipt of an allowance. Recent published evaluation reports show that EMAs are making a positive difference to young people's lives. On average in the pilot areas there is an increase of five percentage points in the number of eligible 16 and 17-year-olds staying in education in the pilot areas because of EMA.

  Full-time Students (Hazel Grove)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of full-time students stayed in education in the Hazel Grove constituency after the age of(a) 16 and (b) 18 years in (i) 1992, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 2001. [156177]

  Mr. Wicks
  At the heart of our drive to improve participation and attainment is the new Connexions Service which we will be phasing in from April this year. The service will provide information, advice, support and access to personal development opportunities for all 13 to 19-year-olds, whatever their needs and circumstances, to keep them learning. Latest figures show that the numbers of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training in England fell by 28,000 from 185,000 in 1998 to 15,000 in 1999.

  Data on the percentage of students continuing in post-compulsory education at age 16 are not calculated for areas smaller than LEAs. Participation rates by LEA for 16 and 17-year-olds are published in "Statistical Bulletin 11/00: Participation in education and training by young people aged 16 and 17 in each local area and region, England, 1994–95 to 1998–99".

  The percentage of 16-year-olds in full-time education for Stockport LEA, which includes the constituency of Hazel Grove, was 75 per cent. in 1992–93, 66 per cent. in 1997–98 and 67 per cent. in 1998–99, the latest year for which figures are available.

  New Deal
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide the most recent data on the outcomes of those people who had their initial New Deal interview in January 1998. [156271]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]While we do not track people in the longer term once they have left the New Deal programme, we do keep details of their immediate destination on leaving. Of the 4,032 young people who had their initial interview in January 1998, 39 per cent. left New Deal for unsubsidised employment,
  117W
  10 per cent. transferred to another benefit, 25 per cent. left for another known destination, and 24 per cent. left to an unknown destination.

  Comprehensive surveys have shown that 56 per cent. of those young people who are recorded as having left for an unknown destination are likely to have entered employment.

  Education Development Plans
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to change the year of calculation of education development plans to a financial year basis. [156442]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Local education authorities' targets for raising pupil attainment are the key elements of an education development plan. These targets are necessarily related to schools' academic years. Information about an authority's planned expenditure in support of their EDP is already included in the plan on a financial year basis. New regulations and guidance will be required for the next generation of EDPs from 2002, which are under consideration.

  Beacon Schools
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those Beacon schools which have received a second Ofsted inspection and those which have received Beacon status following a second inspection. [156475]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]Inspection evidence is an important factor in the award of Beacon status and in the process of validating a school's continuing operation as a Beacon, but it is not the sole determining criterion. Consistently high performance in relation to school circumstances and the capacity, experience and willingness to build partnerships with other schools are also key factors that are taken into account. We have no record of how many inspections a school may have received prior to being awarded Beacon status. However, 111 Beacon schools have received an Ofsted inspection since becoming a Beacon:

  Aboyne Lodge Junior Mixed and Infant School

  Ashton on Mersey School

  Birkdale High School

  Bishop Luffa Church of England School

  Black Horse Hill Junior School

  Blackfriars School

  Broad Oak Primary School

  Broughton Infant School

  Carwarden House Community School

  Christ Church Church of England Primary School

  Clifton Hill School

  Colleges Nursery School

  Coulsdon Nursery School

  Cunningham Hill Infant School

  Dixons City Technology College

  Downe Manor Primary School

  Dunmore Junior School

  Eglingham Church of England First School

  Enfield County School

  Etchingham Church of England Primary School

  118W

  Exhall Grange School

  Fair Oak Junior School

  Garden Suburb Infant School

  Grange Lane Infant School

  Habergham High School

  Haggerston School

  Hartwell Church of England Primary School

  High Greave Junior School

  High Storrs School

  Highburton Church of England Voluntary Controlled First School

  Hillborough Junior School

  Hilton Lane Primary School

  Hummersknott Community School

  King David High School

  Kirk Hallam Community Technology College

  Knowle Church of England Primary School

  La Sainte Union Catholic Secondary School

  Linden Bridge School

  Loose Infant School

  Lytham Hall Park Primary School

  Margaret McMillan Nursery School

  Mary Elliot School

  Meadowhead School

  Merrivale Nursery school

  Montrose School

  Newchurch-in-Pendle St. Mary's Church of England School

  North Nibley Church of England Primary School

  Northview Primary School

  Notre Dame Catholic Primary School

  Notre Dame Roman Catholic Girls' School

  Orleton Church of England Primary School

  Our Lady and St. Philomena's RC Primary School

  Our Lady's Convent Roman Catholic High School

  Pennywell Nursery School

  Pensby High School for Girls

  Penwortham Girls' High School

  Pownall Green Primary School

  Priory School

  Ranelagh Church of England School

  Redhill Primary School

  Reynalds Cross School

  Riverhead Infant School

  RNIB New College

  Robin Hood Junior and Infant School

  Rodborough School

  Sacred Heart High School

  Saint Gregory's Catholic Comprehensive School

  Scarcroft Primary School

  Shaldon Primary School

  Sharnbrook Upper School and Community College

  Silverdale School

  Sir John Cass's Foundation Primary School

  St. Angela's Ursuline Convent School

  St. Anne's Nursery School

  St. Antony's RC Primary School

  St. Brigid's Catholic Primary School

  St. Catherine's RC Primary School

  St. Edmund Arrowsmith Catholic High School

  St. Elizabeth's Catholic Primary School

  St. Gregory's RC Voluntary Aided Primary School

  119W

  St. Helen's Primary School

  St. Joan of Arc Catholic Primary School

  St. Joseph and St. Theresa Catholic Primary School

  St. Joseph's Catholic Primary School, Wetherby

  St. Joseph's RC Voluntary Aided Comprehensive

  St. Julie's Catholic High School

  St. Mary's RC Junior School

  St. Nicholas Catholic Primary School

  St. Philip's Church of England Primary School, Atherton

  St. Thomas' Church of England Primary School

  Stockcross Church of England School

  Sutton in Craven Church of England Voluntary Controlled Swanshurst School

  The Ecclesbourne School

  The Ellen Wilkinson School for Girls

  The Grey Coat Hospital

  The Grove Special School

  Thomas Telford School

  Trinity Catholic High School

  Tubbenden Infant School

  Ubley Church of England Primary School

  Urchfont Church of England Primary School

  Walkden High School

  West Oaks School

  Westborough High School

  Wimbledon Chase Middle School

  Windlesham Village Infant School

  Winklebury Infant School

  Woodhouse Primary School

  Yealand Church of England Primary School

  Yerbury Primary School.

  Literacy and Numeracy (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent by schools on(a) literacy and (b) numeracy in Shrewsbury and Atcham (i) in May 1997 and (ii) on the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [156492]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not collect information on the level of spending by individual schools on particular areas of expenditure. In 1997–98, Shropshire LEA received £233,000 for books for schools. Since 1998–99, Shropshire LEA has been allocated total funding of £3,846,472 to support the implementation of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies in primary schools, including funding for books for schools. This also includes the allocations now made for 2001–02 of £619,405 for literacy and £669,904 for numeracy. For 2001–02, Shropshire has also been allocated funding of £399,823 for the English and mathematics strands of the Key Stage 3 Strategy.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of 11 year-olds in Shropshire attained marks above the national average in(a) English and (b) mathematics (i) in May 1997 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [156644]
  120W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The percentage of eligible pupils attaining level 4 or above in the English and mathematics Key Stage 2 assessment tests for 1997, 1998 and 2000 in the Shropshire local education authority are shown in the table;

  Percentage

  English

  Mathematics

  Year

  Shropshire

  England

  Shropshire

  England

  1997

  162

  63

  161

  62

  1998

  69

  65

  64

  59

  2000

  79

  75

  77

  72

  11997 figures for Shropshire relate to the local education authority prior to the local Government re-organisation of April 1998.

  The Government have set themselves the target of 80 per cent. of 11 year-olds reaching the expected level in English and 75 per cent. reaching the expected level in mathematics by 2002.

  In 2000, the percentage of children reaching level 4 in English rose by 4 per cent. from 71 to 75 per cent., building on the previous year's 6 per cent. increase. This means that there has been a 10 percentage point rise since 1998. In mathematics, the percentage of children achieving level 4 has risen by 3 per cent. from 69 to 72 per cent. This means that there has been a 13 percentage point rise since 1998. In Shropshire, between 1998 and 2000, the increase in performance of pupils in both English and mathematics was the same as the national rate.

  The results show teachers and pupils are firmly on track to meet the targets. There is also more evidence beneath the headline figures of the success of the literacy and numeracy strategies. The results show that standards are also being raised in the earliest years of primary education.

  Disabled Students (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students in Shrewsbury and Atcham have benefited from the disabled students' allowance; how much has been spent in total on these students; and if he will make a statement. [156507]

  Mr. Wicks
  Data are only available by local education authority, not by constituency area. Shropshire LEA paid out in disabled students allowances (DSAs) in academic year 1998–99 as follows:

  £

  DSAs

  Students

  Expenditure

  General allowance

  16

  2,255

  Non-medical personal help

  42

  52,654

  Specialist items of equipment

  40

  58,364

  Total

  98

  113,273

  Note:

  Students may be in receipt of more than one allowance and therefore there will be an element of double counting in the student figures.

  Provisional estimates suggest that 70 full-time undergraduate, 15 part-time and 10 postgraduate students at a total cost of £240,000 will have received DSAs in Shropshire in 2000–01, a doubling of expenditure in two years. The Government's policies of removing the means test for DSAs in 1998–99 and extending DSAs to part-time and postgraduate students in 2000–01 have

  121W
  benefited disabled higher education students in every area of the country, leading to an increase in expenditure on DSAs in England and Wales from £10.4 million in 1996–97 to an estimated £34 million this academic year.

  Beacon Schools (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list each school in Shrewsbury and Atcham that has been awarded Beacon status, indicating the size of grant given to each; and if he will make a statement. [156513]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There is one Beacon school in Shrewsbury and Atcham—The Grange Junior School. The school receives additional funding of £39,000 a year for the dissemination of good practice. It is one of a national network of 587 Beacon schools that are helping to raise standards by building partnerships with others, sharing expertise and providing professional support to teachers across the country.

  Ambition:IT
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will include Reading in the list of pilot areas for Ambition:IT. [156525]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]Ambition:IT will run in five pilot areas to be announced later in the Spring. A short list of areas for the pilot has already been announced: they are London, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, South Yorkshire, Liverpool, Tyneside, Cardiff, Glasgow, and Edinburgh and the Forth area. Areas have been selected on the basis of strong employer demand and high local levels of unemployment; both criteria had to be met for an area to be considered. On objective grounds, Reading does not meet both these criteria.

  Training (Manchester)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many training places are available in Manchester for work-based learning for adults; and what the ratio is of adult unemployed to these training places for(a) Manchester and (b) England and Wales. [156648]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]At 24 December 2000 (the latest date for which data are available), there were 623 people in Government-supported training on work-based learning for adults in the Manchester Training and Enterprise Council area and 16,359 adult unemployed, approximately one person in training to every 26 unemployed. Comparative figures for England and Wales are: 32,509 in training, 646,340 adult unemployed, approximately one person in training to every 20 unemployed.

  Education Finance (Newcastle upon Tyne)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the(a) educational SSA, (b) grants and (c) capital allocation in Newcastle upon Tyne for 2001–02. [156659]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]I refer my hon. Friend to the letter sent to him by the Secretary of State on 16 February. National increases of 122W
  £100 million in both the School Standards Grant and the devolved New Deal for Schools capital grant were announced in the Budget on 7 March. Newcastle upon Tyne's share of the increase in the Schools Standards Grant will total £0.5 million; its share of the additional New Deal for Schools capital grant will also total £0.5 million.

  In addition, since 16 February, further allocations have been made to Newcastle upon Tyne from the Standards Fund. Recurrent allocations to the authority now total some £13.1 million for 2001–02. Capital allocations for 2001–02 have also been announced, and Newcastle upon Tyne will be receiving £4.3 million, including the addition for New Deal for Schools capital mentioned above. The capital figures may be altered slightly in May, when allocations of New Deal for Schools Condition funding will be adjusted if appropriate to take account of additional data submitted by the authority.

  As a result of these increases, total funding allocated for Newcastle upon Tyne in 2001–02 is:

  £ million

  Education SSA

  118.0

  Grants

  14.0

  Capital

  4.3

  Vocational GCSEs
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the subjects to be made available as vocational GCSEs from September 2002. [156667]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]From September 2002, vocational GCSEs will be available in the following subject titles: Art and Design, Business, Engineering, Health and Social Care, Information and Communication Technology, Leisure and Tourism, Manufacturing and Science.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy to extend eligibility for individual learning accounts to include those aged 18 and studying part-time. [156669]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]There are no current plans to change the age criteria for Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs) which are available to anyone aged 19 or over. Account holders can use their ILAs for full or part-time courses as long as the learning is eligible for the ILA incentives. The vast majority of education and training is provided free to people aged under 19. Currently some people aged 18 have to pay for certain types of learning themselves. My Department has addressed this issue and from September of this year no 16 to 18-year-olds undertaking part-time learning will be charged tuition fees.

  Oxbridge Admissions
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy to require Oxford and Cambridge universities to provide his Department with the information they collect in respect of
  123W
  admissions to constituent colleges categorised by previous educational establishment for each of the last five years; and if he will publish this information. [156670]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]Cambridge and Oxford University have published information on admissions for entry in 2000 from both the maintained and independent sector, disaggregated by college. The

  Cambridge University-Entry 2000: Undergraduate applications and acceptances

  Percentage

  Applications from maintained sector

  Acceptances from maintained sector

  College

  Entry 2000

  Entry 1999

  Entry 2000

  Entry 1999

  Christ's

  55

  55

  37

  49

  Churchill

  75

  78

  68

  76

  Clare

  56

  56

  55

  46

  Corpus Christi

  49

  49

  39

  39

  Downing

  51

  51

  41

  46

  Emmanuel

  61

  56

  54

  42

  Fitzwilliam

  71

  73

  66

  67

  Girton

  61

  65

  61

  58

  Gonville and Caius

  48

  46

  48

  39

  Jesus

  57

  53

  54

  49

  King's

  84

  86

  77

  79

  Madalene

  42

  46

  36

  50

  New Hall

  59

  62

  58

  59

  Newnham

  58

  60

  49

  51

  Pembroke

  55

  58

  50

  53

  Peterhouse

  52

  53

  43

  40

  Queen's

  60

  61

  55

  57

  Robinson

  65

  62

  56

  58

  Selwyn

  58

  50

  49

  41

  Signey Sussex

  55

  48

  45

  43

  St. Catherine's

  58

  58

  52

  63

  St. John's

  52

  58

  45

  55

  Trinity

  56

  53

  48

  43

  Trinity Hall

  55

  56

  47

  46

  All standard colleges

  59

  59

  52

  53

  Mature student colleges (Hughs Hall, Lucy Cavendish, St. Edmunds and Wolfson)

  86

  89

  87

  83

  Oxford University Entry 2000: Undergraduate Offers

  Undergraduate

  Percentage to those from the state sector

  Percentage to those from the independent sector

  Balliol

  56.1

  43.9

  Brasenose

  44.2

  55.8

  Christ Church

  47.2

  52.8

  Corpus Christi

  55.6

  44.4

  Exeter

  59.8

  40.2

  Harris Manchester1

  100

  0

  Hertford

  61.3

  38.7

  Jesus

  56.5

  43.5

  Keble

  65.3

  34.7

  Lady Margaret Hall

  47.3

  52.7

  Lincoln

  46.4

  53.6

  Magdalene

  46.2

  53.8

  Mansfield

  74.6

  25.4

  Merton

  61.4

  38.6

  New

  47.6

  52.4

  Oriel

  40.4

  59.6

  Pembroke

  44.9

  55.1

  Queen's

  53.3

  46.7

  Somerville

  59.6

  40.4

  St. Anne's

  60.7

  39.3

  St. Catherine's

  55.9

  44.1

  St. Edmund Hall

  42.2

  57.8

  St. Hilda's

  53.0

  47.0

  St. Hugh's

  49.6

  50.4

  St. John's

  69.9

  30.1

  124W
  relevant extracts are in the tables. These data are not collected centrally and the universities themselves are responsible for its accuracy. The data have not been collected in the same way for each of the last five years.

  We welcome the publication of this information, and the steps taken by both universities to widen participation. We encourage them to continue this valuable work.

  Oxford University Entry 2000: Undergraduate Offers

  Undergraduate

  Percentage those from the state sector

  Percentage of those from the independent sector

  St. Peter's

  51.3

  48.7

  Trinity

  44.4

  55.6

  University

  48.0

  52.0

  Wadham

  66.2

  33.8

  Worcester

  46.8

  53.2

  Total

  53.6

  46.4

  1 Harris Manchester only admits students aged over 25

  National Training Organisations
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, (1) pursuant to his answer of 22 March 2001,Official Report, column 334W, what representations (a) he and (b) his officials received from trades unions representatives on the future National Training Organisation representation for the telecoms industry, indicating the dates of meetings and their outcome; [156840]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 22 March 2001, Official Report, column 334W, what discussions (a) he and (b) his officials have held with e-skills and EMTA—the

  125W
  Engineering and Marine Training Authority—on the future National Training Organisation representation for the telecoms industry; [156838]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 22 March 2001, Official Report, column 334W, what discussions (a) he and (b) his officials have held with the NTO National Council on the future National Training Organisation representation for the telecoms industry, indicating the dates of the meetings and their outcome; [156839]

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 22 March 2001, Official Report, column 334W, how many organisations have been sent the consultation paper by his Department on the future National Training Organisation representation for the telecoms industry; and if he will list them; [156836]

  (5) pursuant to his answer of 22 March 2001, Official Report, column 334W, what discussions (a) he and (b) his officials have held with board members of the former NTO-telecom on the future National Training Organisation representation for the telecoms industry, indicating the dates of meetings and their outcome; [156841]

  (6) pursuant to his answer of 22 March 2001, Official Report, column 334W, how many replies have been received in response to the consultation exercise undertaken by his Department on the future National Training Organisation representation for the telecoms industry. [156837]

  Mr. Wicks
  The consultation paper has been sent to a total of 2,330 organisations, a list of which has been placed in the Library. The document has also been made available on the internet. The Department's Consultation Unit has received 143 replies.

  This Government are committed to a strong network of employment led National Training Organisations (NTOs). As part of the consultation process, Ministers and officials have discussed with senior employer representatives from the telecommunications and call handling sector future NTO arrangements for the industry.

  No discussions have been held, by Ministers or officials, with the NTO National Council or with trades unions representatives on the future NTO representation for the telecoms industry. Ministers have however received correspondence from trade union representatives on this matter.

  Officials held discussions with the Chairman and Acting Chief Executive of nto tele.com on 16 August 2000. The Chief Executive of EMTA was also present at that meeting. No other discussions have been held with e-skills NTO and EMTA on the future NTO representation for the telecoms industry.

  School Achievement Awards
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each school which has received an improvement award for 1997 and 2000 the key stage test or GCSE/GNV results and the ranking of the differences between the two years. [154743]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]The schools that received an improvement award based on their 1997 and 2000 pupil performance data are contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made with setting up and activating the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme in response to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [157025]

  Ms Quin
  The Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme as announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in his statement to the House on 27 March 2001,Official Report, columns 827–31, has already opened to applications. First payments are due to be made before Easter.

  Parliamentary approval for additional resources for this new service will be sought in the 2001–02 Summer Supplementary Estimate for the Intervention Board Executive Agency. Pending that approval urgent expenditure estimated at £240 million will be met by a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a breakdown of sheep journeys in February by(a) movements direct to aggregation facilities prior to export, (b) live exports, (c) movements from farm direct to slaughter, (d) movements from farm to livestock markets, (e) movements from livestock markets direct to abattoirs, (f) movements from livestock markets to farms, (g) movements between farms arising from private sales, (h) movements between parcels of land in same ownership, (i) movements from winter keep to the home farm and (j) other movements. [156660]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]The full information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. But 118 consignments of sheep were exported to other member states during February.

  Factortame Judgment
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the names of the persons who are entitled to receive compensation from Her Majesty's Government as a result of the Factortame judgment, with the amount of entitlement in each case. [155130]

  Mr. Morley
  Agreement has been reached out of Court with all bar two of the 93 applicants in the Factortame litigation in full and final settlement of their claims against the United Kingdom Government. Full details of the settlements are set out in the table. The two exceptions, Parafleet Ltd. and Presslake Ltd., have appealed against the decision of the Court to strike out their claims in respect of two additional vessels. Those appeals are expected to be heard later this year.

  £

  Claimant

  Amount

  Agegate Ltd.

  501,360

  Alabau Ltd.

  519,730

  Anglebusy Ltd.

  11

  Anglo Spanish Fisheries Ltd.

  66

  Astonquest Ltd.

  267,062

  Baladome Ltd.

  66

  Baomar UK Ltd.

  55

  127W

  £

  Claimant

  Amount

  Basamar Fisheries Ltd.

  1,521,880

  Big John Ltd.

  302,232

  Bowman and Sons Ltd.

  229,786

  Britgal Ltd.

  366,555

  Britgal UK Ltd.

  271,558

  Burlort Ltd.

  112,797

  Jose Carreja

  Riviera

  Francisco Baltar

  Carreja

  Interpesco SA

  11

  John Andrew

  —

  Couceiro

  —

  Joseph Luis

  —

  Couceiro

  —

  Caughtafish Ltd.

  404,797

  Cavenhart Ltd.

  415,370

  Charmbuy Ltd.

  240,978

  Checkleap Ltd.

  66

  Cmaine Shipping Ltd.

  2,033,043

  Coingate Ltd.

  420,219

  Cutlerstar Ltd.

  659,552

  Dartclaim Ltd.

  488,681

  Dashgilt Ltd.

  234,249

  Decanos Ltd.

  401,217

  Detect Sea Enterprises Ltd.

  2,904,105

  Fabucar Ltd.

  757,483

  Factortame Ltd.

  584,705

  J. J. Fernandez

  702,225

  Costa Fishing Explorer Ltd.

  2,441,305

  Flagperry Ltd.

  613,621

  Gadsound Ltd.

  574,372

  Galaza Fisheries Ltd.

  528,275

  Glover Associates Ltd.

  655,786

  Grangedock Ltd.

  44

  Gregcrest Services Ltd.

  147,896

  Hayton of Fleetwood Ltd.

  J. K. Hayton

  K. P. Hayton

  C. S. Hayton

  1,500,000

  Hercules Fishing Ltd.

  374,469

  Hookdown Ltd.

  346,437

  Imphill Ltd.

  347,811

  Interpesco Securities Ltd.

  1,415,099

  Interpesco UK Ltd.

  965,059

  Intxorta Ltd.

  1,477,667

  Jaderow Ltd.

  1,863,090

  Joincode Ltd.

  357,930

  Jose Dolores Fishing Ltd.

  605,123

  Kuko Fisheries Ltd.

  611,554

  Laira Fishing Ltd.

  472,296

  Leicester Trawling Ltd.

  257,063

  Linesweep Ltd.

  198,171

  London Shipping Enterprises Ltd.

  11

  Luckyextra Ltd.

  569,611

  Majorangle Ltd.

  617,911

  Marina Fishing Ltd.

  436,748

  Marone Fisheries Ltd.

  221,401

  Millbay Secretarial Ltd.

  328,225

  Millbay Trawler Management Ltd.

  284,723

  Mouro Fisheries Ltd.

  1,170,597

  Narrowstyle Ltd.

  385,852

  Nashscope Fishing Ltd.

  694,583

  Neptune Ltd.

  550,405

  North West Fishing Ltd.

  658,702

  Mr. J. A. O'Connor

  Mrs. M. V. O'Connor

  123,818

  Oderule Ltd.

  494,806

  Ondar Ltd.

  515,794

  Pamona Ltd.

  289,105

  Parada Ltd.

  124,025

  Parafleet Ltd.

  455,761

  Paydual Ltd.

  360,590

  Pesca Fisheries Ltd.

  3,223,701

  Pimar Fisheries Ltd.

  44

  128W

  £

  Claimant

  Amount

  Plinthorp Ltd.

  649,699

  Plymouth Shipping Ltd.

  472,098

  Portfish Ltd.

  30,088

  Presslake Ltd.

  118,820

  Racefind Ltd.

  66

  Rawlings (Trawling) Ltd.

  546,164

  Rentkeep Ltd.

  2,483,556

  Robrisa Fishing Ltd.

  541,189

  Rowtrade Ltd.

  355,845

  Ruby Fishing Ltd.

  371,672

  SFP Fisheries Ltd.

  4,500,000

  Sun Fisheries Ltd.

  400,524

  Troulo Fisheries Ltd.

  168,015

  Trygrace Ltd.

  77

  Vincentpride Ltd.

  442,369

  Voiceplan Ltd.

  807,674

  Votereach Ltd.

  72,888

  Wherry Fish Selling Company Ltd.

  88

  White Fisheries Ltd.

  404,636

  Whiteplain Ltd.

  276,911

  Wickstone Ltd.

  547,896

  Widows Ltd.

  176,498

  Winleap Ltd.

  77

  Total

  54,966,190

  Foods
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will undertake studies of the causes of floods since October 2000 in Colnbrook, Slough. [156238]

  Mr. Morley
  Responsibility for such studies rests with local flood defence operating authorities, such as the Environment Agency and local councils, and other bodies, such as water companies. I understand from the Environment Agency that the flooding experienced at Colnbrook was due to a combination of factors, with prolonged and exceptional rainfall exceeding the capacity of local watercourses and surface water drains, and giving rise to high groundwater levels. For its part, the Agency is investigating the feasibility of flood alleviation measures for County Ditch.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Mozambique
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on flooding in Mozambique. [156539]

  Clare Short
  The situation in Mozambique is stabilising and is showing some signs of improvement but remains serious. The continued effective management of the dam discharge rates has helped to alleviate the effects of the seasonal rains on the lower Zambezi. The wet season is now drawing to a close reducing the threat of further flooding.

  Government of Mozambique reports continue to describe some 494,500 people in the Zambezi Valley as being affected by the current flooding. The Government of Mozambique estimate that some 204,130 are now accommodated in 77 temporary accommodation centres in the four flood affected provinces of Sofala, Tete, Manica, and Zambezia. As floodwater in the eastern part

  129W
  of Zambezia Province recedes, some of the displaced population are leaving the temporary accommodation centres and returning to their homes.

  Following the immediate relief operation in response to last year's catastrophic floods in Mozambique, my Department has remained engaged in rehabilitation as well as in developing new measures, via the United Nations system, to strengthen both UN and Government of Mozambique contingency arrangements for future disasters. Over the past few months DFID, FCO, MOD, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the UK Fire Service have been working together to prepare contingency plans for different emergency scenarios. In addition we have continued to work closely with the Government of Mozambique's National Directorate of Water to set up early warning flood systems with the UK Met Office.

  Following the onset of the current floods, we switched gear to immediate response operations deliberately aimed at 'preventative' rescue and relief, i.e. extricating people before the worst hits them and there is substantial loss of life and suffering. In addition to contributing £250,000 to the Red Cross and £160,000 to Food for the Hungary's appeal for Mozambique, we funded two Puma helicopters to move people from the riskiest areas and transport urgent relief supplies; provided three logisticians to the World Food Programme to assist in its operational response; and provided a humanitarian specialist in Beira to reinforce DFID presence on the ground and conduct field assessments.

  Clean Water Supplies
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list those countries for which her Department provides aid for the development of policies relating to the accessibility of clean water supplies. [156702]

  Clare Short
  The countries in which my Department supported development of policies, at either local or national level, relating to the accessibility of clean water supplies are listed. This relates to financial year 1999–2000.

  Afghanistan

  Angola

  Bangladesh

  Brazil

  Burkina Faso

  China

  Congo, Democratic Republic

  Czech Republic

  Egypt, Arab Republic

  El Salvador

  Eritrea

  Ethiopia

  130W

  Gambia, The

  Ghana

  Grenada

  Guyana

  Honduras

  India

  Iran

  Iraq

  Kenya

  Kyrgyzstan, Republic of

  Laos

  Lesotho

  Liberia

  Macedonia

  Madagasar

  Malawi

  Moldova, Republic of

  Montserrat

  Mozambique

  Nepal

  Nigeria

  Pakistan

  Russian Federation

  Rwanda

  Senegal

  Sierra Leone

  South Africa, Republic of

  Sri Lanka

  St. Helena

  St. Lucia

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  Vietnam

  West Bank and Gaza

  Yugoslavia

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Dublin and Monaghan Bombings
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what requests he has received to provide information to the independent commission of inquiry established by the Irish Government into the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings; and what has been his response. [155971] [155972]

  Dr. Reid
  I have received a request from Mr. Justice Henry Barron, the Independent Commissioner of Inquiry into the Dublin, Monaghan and Dundalk bombings, for all relevant information held by the UK Government relating to these incidents. This request has been shared with all relevant Government Departments and Agencies, including the Ministry of Defence, who are currently
  131W
  researching archived records to establish what information they hold. I have assured Judge Barron that I will respond substantively as soon as I am in a position to do so.

  I am replying on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence of whom this question has also been asked but who has not received a separate request from the Independent Commission of Inquiry.

  Fatal Incident Inquiries
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received concerning the holding of an inquiry into a controversial death at the same time as(a) the continuation of a police investigation, (b) the continuation of an inquiry by the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman and (c) the continuation of a coroner's inquiry; and if he will place a copy of this advice in the Library. [156538]

  Dr. Reid
  I have received a range of representations concerning the holding of inquiries in such a case. I am not legally precluded from establishing a public inquiry in advance of the conclusion of any criminal investigation. However, I believe that to do so would carry the significant risk of prejudicing the outcome of any investigation.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Palestine
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the EU Commissioner's meetings with Chairman Arafat with particular reference to(a) violence and (b) corruption. [155758]

  Mr. Wilson
  The EU Troika of Anna Lindh, the Swedish Foreign Minister, Commissioner Patten and Miguel Moratinos (the EU's Special Envoy to the MEPP) visited Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt on 12 and 13 March. They met with Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister Peres, President Arafat, Egyptian President Mabarak and Egyptian Foreign Minister Moussa. The visit went well. The Troika delivered strong messages to the Israelis and the Palestinians, including on the need to end the violence. The Troika urged the Israelis to end the economic siege of the Palestinians and resume the transfer of customs revenues due to the Palestinian Authority.

  The Palestinians have, since the visit, written to Commissioner Patten accepting the EU requests that they work up an austerity budget and improve the transparency and accountability of their financial management.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to Chairman Arafat about the actions which he has taken against the Tanzim. [156067]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government expect both the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel to insist on restraint and disciplined behaviour by their military and security personnel, and to restrain extremism. We are in regular contact with both parties, and urge them to take immediate parallel steps to address the current crisis.

  Turkmenistan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received a formal response from the Turkmen authorities to the demarche issued in February concerning the continuing incarceration of Shageldy Atakov. [156086]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Turkmen Foreign Minister undertook to respond formally to the EU/US demarche in February but has not yet done so. We intend to remind the Turkmen authorities of our concern within the next week.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Turkmen authorities about their obligations in respect of the Shageldy Atakov case under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. [156087]

  Mr. Vaz
  On 23 February, EU Partners and the US issued a demarche to the Turkmen Foreign Minister regarding Shageldy Atakov's detention. We used this opportunity to remind the Turkmen Government of their international human rights commitments, which include those under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. We will continue to remind the Turkmen Government of their legal obligations in future representations regarding Mr. Atakov.

  Syria
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts he has made to ensure that arms sales to Syria do not fall into the hands of(a) Hizbullah, (b) Hamas and (c) Islamic Jihad. [155995]

  Mr. Wilson
  As for all other countries, we consider all applications for licences to export military equipment to Syria on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, taking careful account in case of the nature of the equipment and the proposed end-use and end-user. If there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression, external aggression or diverted to an undesirable end-user the licence is refused.

  Opinion Polls
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) quantitative and (b) qualitative analytical work his Department has commissioned from GGC/NOP since 1 May 1997; and what was (i) the cost of the contract and (ii) the specific nature of the work commissioned. [155662]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 28 March 2001)I refer the hon. Member to the answer which the then Minister of State, Mr Fatchett, gave to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), on 2 April 1998,Official Report, column 630W.

  Iran
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has
  133W
  had with his European colleagues regarding the inter-ballistic missile capability of Iran; and if he will make a statement. [156068]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have not recently raised Iran's ballistic missile capability with European colleagues, but we remain concerned by Iran's development and testing of the Shabab-3 ballistic missile which has a range of 1,300 kms. We regularly engage the Iranian authorities on non-proliferation issues, and have urged Iran to refrain from the further development of such missiles, while understanding Iran's legitimate security concerns. We continue to work with our European partners on missile proliferation issues through the Missile Technology Control Regime.

  Falun Gong
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Chinese Government about its attitude towards practitioners of Falun Gong. [156408]

  Mr. Battle
  We take every appropriate opportunity to raise with the Chinese authorities our concerns about the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners. I did so with the Chinese Ambassador on 30 November 2000. During the sixth round of the UK/China human rights dialogue held in Beijing on 12–14 February, we pressed the Chinese Government to cease actions against Falun Gong adherents which contravene international human rights standards including the excessive use of force, and of administrative detention and psychiatric institutions.

  I also spelt out the UK's concerns on human rights in China, including the treatment of Falun Gong adherents, in my address at the UN Commission on Human Rights on 22 March.

  Holocaust Denial
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Lebanese Prime Minister on the planned conference by the Institute of Historical Review on 31 March regarding Holocaust denial. [156440]

  Mr. Vaz
  The conference has been banned by the Lebanese Government, following representations by the EU, and will not now take place.

  Iraq
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will publish his review of the sanctions imposed on Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [156775]

  Mr. Wilson
  We continue to discuss Iraq policy with the US, other key partners and countries in the region. We wish to ensure the most effective policy to prevent Iraq from re-equipping its armed forces and re-building its WMD while minimising the effects of UN controls on the Iraqi people. Any adjustments to our policy would of course be announced.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if(a) he, (b) the Permanent-Under Secretary and (c) the Director for the Public
  134W
  Departments was notified (i) orally and (ii) in writing about the Minister for Europe's decisions to reverse visa refusals. [156530]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]I have overturned visa refusals only at the request of right hon. and hon. Members, if I am satisfied that the applicants qualify under the Immigration Rules. In such cases the Joint Entry Clearance Unit notifies in writing relevant parts of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the right hon. or hon. Member is notified in writing.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review the effectiveness of the work of entry clearance officers, with particular reference to the refusal of visa applications. [156528]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]No, I am very satisfied with the practices and procedures which have been in place over tile last four years.

  The work of entry clearance officers is kept under constant review by entry clearance managers, who have a specific responsibility for reviewing all visa refusals.

  Visa refusals either carry a right of appeal to the Independent Appellate Authority or are subject to scrutiny by the Independent Monitor appointed under the Immigration Appeals Act 1993 to monitor refusals with no right of appeal. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office/Home Office Joint Entry Clearance Unit carries out regular reviews of Entry Clearance Sections overseas.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, in respect of each visa application approved, following initial refusal by the Minister for Europe,(a) the name of the hon. Member in whose constituency the applicant's sponsor lived, (b) the grounds stated in the notice of refusal on which the application was initially refused, (c) if (i) a second and (ii) a subsequent interview was conducted following the Minister of State's intervention, (d) the written terms under which the Minister of State instructed the entry clearance post to issue the visa, (e) if, after the original refusal, the entry clearance post stated that they continued to believe that the entry clearance should be refused, (f) if the applicant (1) overstayed the terms laid down in the leave to remain granted when they first arrive in the UK and (2) subsequently extended their stay and (g) if entry clearance posts notified the Migration and Visa Division (A) orally and (B) in writing of their concerns over the Minister's decisions to reverse visa refusals. [156527]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]It is not our practice to comment on individual visa cases. I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) on 22 March 2001,Official Report, columns 3l6–17W

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which hon. Members have made representation; to the Minister for Europe regarding visa refusals; and how many of these refusals have been overturned. [156199]

  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, columns 316–17W.

HEALTH

  Departmental Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what major advertising campaigns his Department is carrying out; and what the cost and duration of each is. [154261]

  Ms Stuart
  Advertising is often the most cost-effective way to communicate information to the maximum number of people as quickly as possible. Each campaign is evaluated for cost efficiency and campaign effectiveness.

  The campaigns carried out in the quarter ending March 2001 are shown in the table.

  Campaign

  Duration 2001

  2001–01 (planned spend) £ million

  Childhood immunisation

  January-March

  0.47

  National Drugs Helpline

  January-February

  0.48

  National Health Service careers including nurse recruitment

  February-March

  4.00

  NHS Direct—television advertising

  March

  0.50

  Organ donation

  January-March

  0.49

  Teenage pregnancy

  January-March

  1.03

  Smoking

  Adult tobacco education

  January-March

  4.39

  Pregnant smokers

  January-March

  0.28

  Winter

  January

  0.42

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ministerial meetings with hon. Members have been cancelled by Ministers since 1 January. [155239]

  Ms Stuart
  Two meetings have been cancelled and are yet to be rearranged including one with the hon. Member.

  A number of other meetings have been rearranged.

  Registered Care Homes
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria he will use to determine the ability of registered care homes, within the meaning of the Care Standards Act 2000, to provide nursing care to residents. [155411]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Care Standards Act 2000 defines a care home as any home which provides accommodation together with nursing or personal care for any person who is or has been ill (including mental disorder), is disabled or infirm, or who has a past or present dependence on drugs or alcohol.

  Care homes providing nursing will be required to meet the "Care Homes for Older People—National Minimum Standards" published on 2 March 2001. Nursing input will be determined using a recognised assessment tool, according to departmental guidance which is currently being prepared. National Health Service registered nurses will calculate the amount of nursing input for which the NHS will pay. In care homes providing nursing, the registered manager will have to be first level registered nurse and, by 2005, have a relevant management qualification, as well as having at least two years experience in a senior management capacity in managing a relevant care setting within the past five years.

  Blood Containers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent reports he has received regarding the safety of continuing to use PVC bags to contain blood in hospitals. [155775]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department is aware of six reports in the last two years relevant to the safety of the continued use of PVC blood bags. The reports were written by: The American Council on Science and Health; Greenpeace; the International Agency for Research on Cancer; Health Care Without Harm; the United States National Toxicology Program and the Swedish National Chemicals Inspectorate. They inform the continuing assessment of the safety of PVC blood bags used by the national blood services.

  Stroke Patients
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set standards for the care of stroke patients across health and social care settings; and when he intends to publish the National Service Framework for Older People. [155911]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department published the National Service Framework for Older People (NSF) on 27 March 2001. The NSF covers conditions prevalent among older people, including stroke, and it applies to all stroke patients.

  The NSF will drive up the quality, and reduce variations in services for older people. The stroke standard sets out the standards of stroke prevention and care which will be put in place and a service model for integrated specialist stroke services which will be in place in all general hospitals which care for people with stroke by April 2004.

  North Merseyside Health Action Zone
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the North Merseyside Health Action Zone. [155969]

  Mr. Denham
  Merseyside Health Action Zone (MHAZ) is one of the leading health action zones in the country—both in tackling inequalities and in relation to the modernisation agenda.

  During 2000–01 it invested over £7 million to support the implementation of coronary heart disease, cancer, and mental health national service frameworks. In Sefton it supports 66 schemes including four healthy living initiatives. The Netherton feelgood factory, a collaboration between MHAZ, pathways, single regeneration budget six and Bootle and Litherland primary care group partners, recently secured £900,000 from the new opportunities fund to develop a new building, housing a range of health related services.

  Meat Hygiene Inspections
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about recommendations in the Food Standard Agency's HACCP and food safety in slaughterhouses report concerning the
  137W
  replacing of independent Government meat inspection with industry inspection; and what response he has made. [154690]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 28 March 2001]I am advised that the Food Standards Agency (FSA) distributed a draft report on Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) and food safety in slaughterhouses to various stakeholder organisations and individuals attending a workshop arranged by the FSA in November last year. The draft report covered a wide range of issues relating to the European Commission's (EC) desire to introduce a new approach to the management of food safety in red and white meat slaughterhouses. The issues covered in the report included a suggested approach to the implementation of a HACCP based system in slaughterhouses; the need to reflect the fact that current meat inspection procedures do not adequately control microbiological hazards in meat, the responsibilities of operators; official inspection, supervision and enforcement and the need for the control regime to adapt to the new requirements. Comments on the draft report were received from the UNISON representative at the workshop and these have been noted.

  The EC has subsequently published a working document (entitled "The Development of Risk-Based Meat Inspection System") which is intended to form the basis of a EC proposal for new legislation on meat inspection. The EC intends to submit such a proposal by September 2001. The FSA will now seek to discuss with stakeholder organisations the approach to be taken when negotiations on that proposal eventually begin.

  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions he has had(a) at the Council of Ministers and (b) with the European Commission on Commission proposals to replace independent Government meat inspection with industry inspection; and if he will make a statement; [154691]

  (2) if he will seek independent advice on the impact of European Commission proposals to replace independent Government meat inspection with industry inspection; [154692]

  (3) if he will make it his policy to ensure that European Commission proposals to replace independent Government meat inspection with industry inspection are introduced by means of an EU directive; and if he will make a statement; [154693]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the benefits of the European Commission proposals to replace independent Government meat inspection with industry inspection by EU directive; and if he will make a statement; [154694]

  (5) if he will list the EU countries which have indicated (a) support and (b) opposition to EU proposals to replace independent Government meat inspection with industry inspection; [154698]

  (6) what discussions he has had with (a) EU representatives and (b) Food Standards Agency officials on the impact on animal welfare of European Commission proposals to replace independent Government meat inspection with industry inspection; [154695]

  (7) if it is Government policy to transfer responsibility for (a) animal welfare and (b) BSE controls in abattoirs and meat plants to the meat industry; [154696]

  138W

  (8) what discussions he has had with European Union partners on the issue of replacing independent Government meat inspection with industry inspection; and if he will make a statement. [154697]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer sent 28 March 2001]I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that the European Commission (EC) has not issued any proposals to replace independent Government meat inspection with industry inspection. Although it has issued a draft regulation on official controls for products of animal origin, as part of a package of proposals to amend and consolidate all existing European Union food hygiene legislation, this largely repeats the current inspection and supervision provisions in meat plants. This draft regulation has yet to be discussed in the European Council working groups in Brussels.

  However, in recognition of the fact that current meat inspection procedures do not adequately control microbiological hazards in meat, the EC has prepared a working document entitled "The Development of a Risk-based Meat Inspection System", which the FSA circulated to stakeholders in January. This document, which is the product of discussions held by the EC with independent experts and officials from member states, including officials from the FSA, is intended to form the basis for a EC proposal for new legislation on meat inspection. It follows the general principle that food operators have the primary responsibility for food safety and must guarantee that food safety hazards are under control through the successful application of a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) -based system.

  The working document proposes that the competent authority should remain present in slaughterhouses for reasons of animal health, animal welfare, public health and consumer confidence. However, it suggests certain elements of ante- and post-mortem inspection could be integrated into the HACCP system. The EC aims to publish the proposal by September 2001 in the form of a draft regulation. This is in line with its policy to achieve uniform implementation across all EU countries. The views of member states will be established during the course of subsequent negotiations at official level.

  The FSA, which provides independent advice to the Government and consumers on food safety matters, will represent the United Kingdom at those negotiations. The FSA will consult widely once the EC's proposals have been published, including taking advice from Agriculture Departments who are responsible for animal health and welfare controls in slaughterhouses. The FSA believes there may be food safety benefits from integrating some aspects of meat inspection into HACCP plans, but would not countenance changes to the present system which did not fully protect consumers, or which effectively allowed the meat industry to police itself.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has treat ambulance operational staff as an emergency service. [155993]
  139W
  Ms Stuart
  The ambulance service must continue to work closely and effectively with the police and fire services. However, the ambulance service's primary role is the provision of effective and responsive pre-hospital emergency care in a modern and integrated health service.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many industrial injury claims have been made by Ambulance Service employees in each of the last five years. [156656]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on 23 February 2001,Official Report, column 456W.

  Drug Tariff
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set a maximum period of time for the process of types of product new to part IX of the drug tariff. [R][156657]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]No. Products of a type which is new to part IX of the Drug tariff can at times raise complex issues which vary significantly from one type of product to another. It would not be possible to set a maximum period of time which took account of these variations.

  Meningitis C
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many yellow cards have been submitted in the past five years to record adverse reactions to the meningitis C injection. [156476]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]Between 1 November 1999 and 28 February 2001, the Medicines Control Agency received a total of 12,880 Yellow Card reports of 26,682 suspected adverse drug reactions to the Meningitis C vaccines. The most commonly reported suspected reactions were soreness and/or redness at the injection site, headache, dizziness, nausea and rash. These reactions are documented in the product information for the three Meningitis C vaccines. By the end of the immunisation campaign, the majority of suspected adverse drug reactions received were non-serious. During this time, 18.5 million doses of vaccine were supplied as part of a national immunisation campaign to vaccinate all children under the age of 18 years. This corresponds to a reporting rate of 1 in 1,436 doses distributed. Yellow Card reports of suspected adverse drug reactions do not necessarily mean that the drug caused the reaction.

  Mental Health Act Commission
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish his Department's response to the Mental Health Act Commission's Eighth Biennial report. [156903]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have published our response today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Surrey and Sussex Healthcare Trust
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the extra costs to be incurred by the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare Trust following his decision 140W
  to suspend the transfer of services between the East Surrey and Crawley hospitals if that suspension is (a) until January 2002 and (b) indefinite. [156786]

  Ms Stuart
  The Surrey and Sussex Healthcare National Health Service Trust has estimated the direct cost arising from the decision to suspend the transfer of services between East Surrey and Crawley Hospitals to be:

  (a) The total cost of maintaining services at both sites is approximately £239,000, if the services are maintained until January 2002, and;

  (b) approximately £53,000 per month thereafter if services are maintained on both sites.

  It is in the best interest of the local population that any further service reconfigurations are suspended until the conclusions of the South East Surrey and North West Sussex Service review are known by the end of 2001. The review aims to produce recommendations on the long term provision of acute, primary and intermediate care services for the area for 2010 onwards. The trust will continue to ensure that patient care is not compromised.

  NHS Publications
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of publishing, printing and distributing, 'The NHS Plan-an action guide for nurses, midwives and health visitors'. [156743]

  Mr. Denham
  The total cost of publishing, printing and distributing the National Health Service plan action guide for nurses, midwives and health visitors was £147,000.

  NHS Nurses
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full time, graduate nurses have(a) completed training and taken up a post within the NHS, (b) retired from the NHS and (c) resigned from the NHS in each of the last six years for which records are available; and if he will make a statement. [156810]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the vacancy level is for the full-time graduate nurses within the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [156808]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected centrally. The vacancy rates for all qualified nurses is shown in the table.

  Department of health vacancies survey—qualified nursing and midwifery staff—3 month vacancy rates1

  Total qualified nurses—2000

  Percentage

  England

  3.8

  Notes:

  1. Posts that had been vacant for three months or more at 31 March 2000

  2. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey 2000
  141W
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he plans to provide incentives to full-time graduate nurses to work within the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [156809]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department is improving recruitment and retention for all National Health Service staff by introducing fair pay, by encouraging the NHS to become a better employer, and by increasing the workforce.

  In addition, NHS funded students studying at degree level receive a favourable level of means-tested bursary. Additional allowances are available for older students, single parents and for those who have adult/child dependants. The NHS also pays the tuition fees and offers non-means-tested student loans, access funds, hardship loans and NHS hardship grants.

  Bursary rates will increase by 10.4 per cent. with effect from 1 September this year. This is the biggest increase since the introduction of the bursary.

  NHS Real Estate
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give those occasions on which NHS real estate has been sold for less than the assessed value made by the NHS district valuer in the last year. [156682]

  Mr. Denham
  There has been only one occasion during the last year when surplus National Health Service property has been sold for less than the district valuer's valuation. This was the Devonshire Royal Hospital in Buxton that was sold to the University of Derby.

  This information is not available in respect of any sale by NHS trusts.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drug-related Deaths (Peterborough)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evaluation he has made of the research cited in the Home Office publication, 'Reducing Drug-Related Deaths', concerning the number of drug-related deaths in Peterborough; and if he will make a statement. [156789]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are determined to reduce the number of drug-related deaths in this country, and have studied the report from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs carefully. The Government's response to this report, which was published on 30 March 2001, sets out the significant steps we have taken to tackle the problem. As part of the anti-drugs strategy, the Government will produce an action plan to reduce drug misuse-related deaths by 20 per cent. by 2004. The action plan should be published in the summer.

  Thames Valley Police Force
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of officers in the Thames Valley police force in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003. [156680]
  142W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Thames Valley police advise me that they hope that force strength will reach the following numbers (excluding officers on secondment):

  Year

  Number of officers

  31 March 2002

  3,771

  31 March 2003

  3,951

  In each case these are full-time equivalent numbers.

  Strength may vary from these estimates, depending upon: the success of Thames Valley Police in attracting recruits; any changes to expected wastage from the force; and any changes in the number of officers working part-time.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what organisational and accommodation changes have taken place in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate since 1 April 2000; what further changes are planned for the financial year 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [156088]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since April 2000, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's (IND) staff has increased by 3,079 full-time equivalents to 9,096 at the end of March 2001. We have taken on leases for space in 15 extra office buildings to accommodate these staff, who are delivering improved service on immigration and nationality casework, asylum support and immigration control. Over the coming financial year we expect staffing to increase to about 10,000 full-time equivalents and will take on space in another 12 office buildings. There will also be a phased return to the newly refurbished Lunar House in Croydon. Changes in organisational structures are made as required to support delivery of services: most significant in the last year has been to combine the Integrated Casework Directorate, Immigration Service and National Asylum Support Service into the Operations Directorate.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new computer systems(a) have been and (b) are planned to be installed in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in (i) the current financial year and (ii) the financial year 2001–02. [156084]

  Mrs. Roche
  The main focus in 2000–01 has been the continuing evolutionary development and roll-out of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's (IND) two main infrastructure systems POISE and TBC. POISE was supported by Sema until February 2001 and is now supported by Sirius, as the main Home Office Information Technology supplier. TBC is supported by Siemens Business Services.
  143W
  In addition the following four major new systems were implemented:
  IAF Project (Automated Fingerprint System)—This system allows fingerprints to be automatically matched against IND's collection of 350,000 fingerprint records.
  ACID Warehouse—This is a data warehouse developed by Siemens and used to collate case information held on a large number of existing IND systems.
  ASYS—A computer system on POISE supporting the operation of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) Directorate.
  Interpreters Database—Information about interpreters used throughout IND is now available on both POISE and TBC.

  Redevelopment of the Warnings Index also continued, with new hardware and software rolled out early in 2001. Further changes will be completed it 2001–02.

  In 2001–02 evolutionary development of the POISE and TBC systems will continue, with particular emphasise on the sharing of information across the two systems.

  There will be enhancements to ASYS and wider roll-out of ACID Warehouse. Siemens will make a number of other low-risk improvements to the TBC system.

  A review of the use of Information Technology within the Immigration Service is also currently taking place. Work is already in hand on a management information system for Detention Centres (DELMIS).

  Attachment of Earnings Orders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many attachment of earnings orders have been issued by each magistrates' court covering the Greater London area during the last 12 months. [156192]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the number of attachment of earnings orders is not available centrally and can be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary or State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women prisoners have died in prison in England and Wales during the last 12 months. [156188]

  Mr. Boateng
  128 males and nine females have died in prison custody in England and Wales during the last 12 months (up to and including 31 March 2001).

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Self-inflicted

  69

  7

  76

  Natural causes

  57

  2

  59

  Homicide

  2

  0

  2

  144W
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many women were sent to prison by courts in England and Wales during the last 12 months; [156189]

  (2) how many women were sentenced to imprisonment by courts in England and Wales during the last 12 months for shoplifting; [156193]

  (3) how many women have been sentenced to imprisonment by courts in England and Wales during the last 12 months for trading in illegal drugs. [156191]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available information, taken from the Home Office's Court Proceedings Database, relates to 1999 and is contained in the table. (Information for 2000 is not yet available.)

  Females sentenced to immediate custody1 in England and Wales, 1999

  Number

  All offences

  7,504

  of which:

  Dealing in illegal drugs

  609

  Shoplifting

  2,065

  1Unsuspended imprisonment, detention in a young offender institution, secure training orders and detention under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the mother and baby units in women's prisons in England and Wales, indicating the number of places in each prison. [156194]

  Mr. Boateng
  At present there are four Mother and Baby Units (MBU) in England and Wales; namely Holloway, Styal, New Hall and Askham Grange. Holloway and New Hall take babies up to the age of nine months. Styal and Askham Grange take babies up to 18 months but babies will leave the units at an earlier age if it is in the child's best interest.

  The table gives a brief description of the prisons, age limits of babies and the number of places available:

  Status

  Security category

  Places

  Age limit (months)

  Askham Grange, near York

  1—

  Open

  20

  18

  Holloway, London

  2—

  Closed

  13

  9

  New Hall, near Wakefield

  2—

  Closed

  9

  9

  Styal, Cheshire

  2—

  Open

  22

  18

  1Sentenced

  1Remanded and sentenced

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners use wheelchairs. [156249]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if all prisons can accommodate prisoners in wheelchairs. [156251]

  Mr. Boateng
  No. All new prisons are built to specifications which allow wheelchair access. Many existing prisons are able to accommodate prisoners in wheelchairs, or are capable of being so adapted. The Prison Service is ensuring that there is a sufficient
  145W
  geographical spread of prisons which conform fully to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, including wheelchair access. But there are a small number of prisons which can never be adapted for wheelchair access.

  Departmental Policies (Great Grimsby)
  Mr. Mitchell
  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 constituency, the effect on the Great Grimsby constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156246]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  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, Home Office Annual Report 2000–01, 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 recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the Great Grimsby constituency or the immediate locality:

  Reducing Burglary Initiative (RBI)

  Humberside police in partnership with North East Lincolnshire council were awarded approximately £545,000 for a scheme in Grimsby. Main interventions proposed include: reduction of repeat victimisation; target hardening; property marking; cooling hotspots; disruption of main offender access routes and a co-ordinated police, probation and Young Offending Team (YOT) partnership to work on prolific young offenders. DNA analysis and crime scene matching will also be used to increase detection potential of offences and quality life improvement measures.

  Youth Offending

  Great Grimsby is covered by North East Lincolnshire YOT, which also covers Cleethorpes and Immingham. The YOT is a multi-agency team working closely together with a variety of partners. One project, established with Government funding from the Reducing Burglary initiative, is known as the Burglary Understanding and Reduction Partnership. Part of this is the Targeted Offender Programme involving staff members from police, probation and the YOT. They are based at the police station and target their work on known burglars, combining and exchanging intelligence, surveillance and intensive interventions.

  In 2000, a Summer Splash project was run, funded largely through concentrating Government money and focusing on the children and young people living in the highest crime areas of North East Lincolnshire. Around 500 children made use of the various activities in the
  146W
  project and the police reported a reduction in juvenile crime and anti-social behaviour in the area over that period. 2001 will see not only a repeat of this work but an expansion so than these opportunities and benefits can be enjoyed for more than just the school holiday periods. This Youth Activities Project will be mainly SRB (Social Regeneration Budget) funded and is expected to work with 1,600 children and young people during the coming year. In the year 2000–01 the rate of re-offending on bail was 10 per cent. lower than in the previous year.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Great Grimsby to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment am 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 49,690 by the end of February 2001; 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.

  Departmental Policies (Luton, South)
  Ms Moran
  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 constituency, the effects on the Luton, South constituency of the Lord Chancellor's Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156166]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the affects of Home Office policies and actions on the Luton, South constituency.

  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, Home Office Annual Report 2000–01, 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 recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the Luton, South constituency or the immediate locality:

  Reducing Burglary Initiative (RBI)

  Under round 1 of the RBI, the area of Dallow, Luton was awarded approximately £70,000. This was used for target hardening, of repeat victimisation premises, including Homesafe burglary initiative i.e. installing

  147W
  gates, locks and lights. Identified streets were gated to create a 'ring of steel' to bolster the protection for the whole street.

  Under round 2 of the initiative the areas of Biscot. High Town, Lewsey and South Wards were awarded £73,000 for a project with Bedfordshire police working in partnership with Luton borough council. The main interventions proposed for the project include target hardening and environmental improvement of a group of geographical hotspot areas.

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  Luton borough council were awarded approximately £249,000 for two schemes submitted under round 1 of the CCTV initiative. Bury park/Dunstable road was awarded £180,000, providing cameras for one of the town's main roads. The area consists of shops, secondary housing, a community centre, a church and mosque and the Luton Town football stadium. The bid aims to reduce overall crime in the area by 50 per cent. over three years, particularly targeting violence against the person, vehicle crime and theft.

  Luton station car park was awarded £68,000 for an eight-camera scheme to extend coverage of the car park, which currently has three cameras. The scheme aims to reduce overall vehicle crime, assaults and criminal damage by 50 per cent. over three years.

  Youth Offending

  Luton, South is covered by Luton Youth Offending Team (YOT). Luton YOT is a multi-agency team consisting of staff from Luton borough council working in partnership with Bedfordshire health authority, Bedfordshire police authority and Bedfordshire Probation Service. The YOT is closely involved with the Youth Court Action Group which also includes representatives from the police, courts, Crown Prosecution Service across Luton and Bedfordshire. The group has been established in order to deliver the Government's pledge to halve the arrest time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders from 142 to 71 days. The group meets regularly to review progress and refine procedures in order to achieve this target. The most recent local figure for Luton and Bedfordshire is 68 days.

  The establishment of fortnightly 'case discussions' meetings involving all staff from the YOT has ensured that consideration is given to the skills and resources that might be available from all partner agencies in drawing up every Supervision Plan. In addition, a Service Level Agreement with Victim Support has ensured that all victims of crimes committed by children and young people, where the YOT might be involved, are contacted in order that consideration might be given to reparation being made available. There is a crime diversion scheme in place with Her Majesty's Prison Coldingley and Her Majesty's Prison Bullwood Hall where young people experience the reality of life of crime from drama and testimonies of serving prisoners.

  The Youth Justice Service continues to develop in partnership with Luton borough's Community Safety Strategy, with the Crime and Disorder Executive operating as the YOT Strategic Management Group. This ensures that all agencies are committed to the joint approach and this has been further enhanced recently with the addition of the local Drug Action Team. The service was successful last year in gaining funding from the
  148W
  Youth Justice Board to develop a Youth Inclusion Programme which is managed on behalf of the partnership by the Safer Luton Partnership, a branch of Crime Concern. The programme targets young people at risk to ensure they are included in mainstream activities by offering support to help them overcome a variety of social problems. A summer activities group runs weekly during each school summer holiday targeted at young people at risk. Structured group work sessions take place in the mornings followed up by supervised activities in the afternoons. Recent discussions across all agencies about the issues associated with nuisance youths has led to the creation of the Youth Intervention Group which meets on a monthly basis to share information on those young people coming to the attention of the police for 'sub criminal' behaviour.

  The introduction of Final Warnings in June 2000 built naturally on the success of the Youth Diversion Scheme. Assessments are carried out on all cases where the police decide a Final Warning is appropriate. The police officer seconded to the YOT is responsible for administering the warning, together with a member of the YOT when an intervention programme is to be offered. The YOT work in partnership with Spurgeons Childcare to develop groupwork programmes with parents on a statutory and voluntary basis. Comprehensive assessments continue to be carried out on the suitability of Parenting Orders whenever a young person is sentenced with the information detailed within the Pre-Sentence Report. Similar assessments are carried out when parents are prosecuted for failing to ensure their children receive education, and whenever an Anti-Social Behavioural Order is applied on a child or a young person. The successful application for funding under the Government's 'On track' initiative includes a joint post with Social Services to develop support for parents from Asian communities which will enable the YOT to introduce more culturally sensitive parenting programmes.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Luton South 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 49,690 by the end of February 2001; 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.

  Departmental Policies (Hazel Grove)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Hazel Grove constituency, the effects on Hazel Grove of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156184]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  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
  149W
  the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 2000–01, 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 recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the Hazel Grove constituency or the immediate locality:

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  Stockport Metropolitan borough council was awarded approximately £108,000 for a four-camera scheme, providing coverage for Marple Town Centre. The scheme aims to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. assaults by 30 per cent. robbery by 30 per cent. and criminal damage by 40 per cent. over three years.

  Youth Offending

  Hazel Grove is covered by the Stockport Youth Offending Team (YOT). The Stockport YOT provides a working example of partnership practice, drawing together skilled professionals into a multi-disciplinary partnership between police, social services, probation, health and education authorities. The team acts as the central hub of the local criminal justice systems specific to youth offending. Subsequently the team draws into action many agencies, voluntary sector groups and private organisations specific to the central aims of the Youth Justice System. Specific examples include: the development of computerised Youth Offending Information Systems (YOIS), contracted out to a private software company; NCH (National Children's Home) provides bails support service for the 10 local YOTs across Manchester and the development of diversion schemes specific to sports development is managed in partnership with local voluntary organisations (including Sports Stockport and Moving Up Through Sport).

  Together with development funding provided through the Youth Justice Board, financial resources are obtained through agreement with each of the partner agencies. Networks extend through voluntary sector organisations and local government agencies to public sector companies. Considerable time has been extended to developing community based networks through the work of the teams' four youth crime reduction officers.

  In accordance with National Standards for Youth Justice (April 2000) assessments are carried out on all young offenders who come to the attention of the team. A consistent approach to assessment is achieved through using the ASSET assessment tool, which is a national standardised tool, enabling the specific problems of the individual offender and the risks they pose to others to be assessed. Programmes are tailored to the individual needs, aimed at impacting upon each of the factors operating in an individual's life which contribute to the likelihood of further offending. Assessments are peer reviewed within a professional's forum, providing for further consistency of approach and quality assurance.
  150W
  If the primary aim of the Stockport YOT is to be achieved, consultation with the local community, agencies and partners is key However, consultation by itself is inadequate if concerns are not addressed. To that end, throughout its working practices Stockport YOT relies on community participation. Integral to the community served by the team are the concerns of victims and offenders. The team seeks to work in co-operation with offenders, utilising court ordered interventions and the secure estate where necessary. A cornerstone to the team's ongoing commitment to the community is provided through work with victims of youth offending. The victims of all offences are contacted, with reparation activities aimed at meeting the needs of victims of crime.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Hazel Grove 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 49,690 by the end of February 2001; 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.

  Passports
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports have been lost in the post and reissued as a result in the last 12 months. [155999]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 29 March 2001]The United Kingdom Passport Agency's records indicate that in the calendar year January to December 2000 3,851 passports, out of a total of 5,488,116, were reported as having been lost in the post.

  Community Penalties
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress made by his Department in considering the report evaluating the Norfolk and Greater Manchester pilot schemes for community penalties for fine defaulters and persistent petty offending published on 29 February 2000; and when he will make an announcement on bringing these measures into effect throughout England and Wales. [156483]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are still considering their response to the report on these new sentencing options, which have resource implications. A decision will be made in due course whether to bring these measures into effect throughout England and Wales.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers are available to restrict the movements of travellers during an outbreak of foot and mouth disease; and if he will review these powers. [156713]
  151W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Both the police and local authorities have powers to direct trespassers to leave land when certain statutory conditions are met. There are no specific powers to restrict travellers from moving around during the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease, but there are laws to prevent any person from moving into a designated foot and mouth disease area. Enforcement of the law is a matter for the relevant chief officer of police.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts and Tourism
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what the(a) budgeted running costs and (b) staff numbers were in 2000–01 for each (i) regional Arts Board and (ii) Regional Tourist Board; [156231]

  (2) what the budgeted expenditure in 2000–01 was for each (a) regional arts board and (b) regional tourist board. [156229]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Information on me budgeted running costs, staff numbers, and budgeted expenditure for 2000–01 for Regional Tourist Boards and Regional Arts Boards are set out in the respective tables.

  Regional Tourist Board

  Total expenditure including running costs (£)

  Running costs including salaries (£)

  Staff

  Cumbria

  1,311,483

  592,270

  130

  East of England

  2,094,128

  814,000

  41

  Heart of England

  2,648,272

  1,559,795

  48

  London

  5,272,157

  1,828,063

  37

  Northumbria

  2,383,209

  704,731

  232

  North West

  3,816,856

  1,531,305

  49

  Southern

  4,600,000

  1,700,000

  60

  South East

  1,632,027

  878,098

  337

  South West

  2,600,000

  1,174,000

  443

  Yorkshire

  3,800,000

  490,000

  41

  18 part-time

  24 part-time

  39 part-time

  418 part-time

  Regional Arts Board

  Total expenditure (£)

  Total administration and overheads (£)

  Staff (full time equivalents)

  East England Arts

  9,690,169

  2,028,838

  35.5

  East Midland Arts

  9,598,019

  ,534,075

  42

  London Arts

  31,498,337

  3,214,962

  69

  Northern Arts

  12,623,240

  1,407,115

  37

  North West Arts

  18,643,253

  2,071,889

  53

  Southern Arts

  11,278,692

  1,565,038

  39

  South East Arts

  7,210,107

  1,642,913

  42

  South West Arts

  9,266,951

  1,426,484

  37

  West Midlands Arts

  13,766,026

  1,637,777

  45

  Yorkshire Arts

  12,775,475

  1,665,275

  45

  Notes:

  1. The figure for total administration and overheads includes staffing, premises, travel and subsistence, legal and company costs. It excludes everything which may be considered to be direct arts spend.

  2. Figures are taken from RAB business plans.
  152W

TREASURY

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) full-time staff, (b) part-time staff, (c) personal computers, (d) servers, (e) printers, (f) fax machines and (g) vehicles are based at the Office for National Statistics facilities in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK (A) for the year 1999–2000 and (B) forecast for 2000–01. [155084]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Swinney, dated 3 April 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about staff and resources in this Office (155084).
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) employed 2,917 full time staff and 532 part-time staff in 1999/2000, and 3,161 full time staff and 578 part-time staff in 2000/01. All of these employees are based in England and Wales. The Office also employs an interviewing field force of 1,287, on an hourly fee paid basis, of which 73 are based in Scotland.
  The ONS' use of personal computers, servers, printers, fax machines and vehicles in these same periods is shown in the table below.

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Personal Computers:

  —

  —

  Desktop PCs

  —

  4062

  Laptops (UK)

  —

  11699

  Laptops (Scotland)

  —

  1110

  Servers

  —

  208

  Printers

  —

  830

  Fax Machines

  —

  200

  Vehicles

  12

  14

  1Includes interview field force

  Records of Personal Computers, Servers, Printers and Fax machines are not kept year by year, but the current position is shown.
  There are more computers than people because some are pool laptops and some desktop machines are used to run specific applications. There are also some machines awaiting disposal.

  Census
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has undertaken on the likelihood of(a) those with insecure immigration status and (b) those in breach of immigration control of complying with the requirements of the Census. [156225]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Fiona Mactaggart, dated 3 April 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question asking what research has been undertaken on the likelihood of those with insecure immigration status and those in breach of immigration control complying with the requirements of the Census. I am replying in his absence (156225).
  We have not conducted specific research into this issue. Our approach to ensure returns of census information in respect of such individuals who meet the residence criteria has been twofold. First,

  153W
  we have put in place special arrangements to enumerate those resident in communal establishments, including hotels, hostels, camps and immigration detention centres.
  Second, we have sought advice and information from local authorities with regards to the numbers and general location of such individuals living in the community. Through our community liaison programme we have sought to promote both the importance and confidentiality of the Census process. The fruits of each of these initiatives have been built into the guidance and procedures for enumerators in order to ensure compliance with Census requirements.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken to encourage compliance with the Census by people from ethnic minorities. [156226]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Fiona Mactaggart, dated 3 April 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question asking what action has been undertaken to encourage compliance with the Census by people from ethnic minorities. I am replying in his absence (156226).
  The overall publicity campaign for the 2001 Census will establish the awareness of the Census across the population as a whole, and the banner logo 'Count Me In' aims to encourage universal self-inclusion in the Census. However, the full range of ethnic newspapers will be used to advertise the Census to ethnic minorities and publicity material has been placed in a wide range of community-based publications and centres of activity.
  Customised press notices associated with all the main PR events will be disseminated to all ethnic minority media outlets. For our Recruitment Blitz the press notice directed at ethnic minority media carried a supporting quote from Civil Service Commissioner Karamjit Singh CBE, and we specifically targeted metropolitan areas at 14 sites around the country where there would be good links with local TV and radio as well as a high concentration of ethnic minority populations. Our partnership with BBC Local Radio extends to the BBC's Asian Language Network, which has already run a number of Census promotions.
  The Census questions and the information leaflet have been translated into 24 commonly used foreign languages and will be available from April 1, as will the dedicated Language Helpline which can offer help in 12 languages. In addition, an ethnic version of the promotional video has been produced using an Asian celebrity, which we hope to place on Asian cable TV.
  A new initiative for the 2001 Census is the Community Liaison Programme in which the ONS is working in partnership with minority groups, including ethnic communities in order to encourage participation in the Census and to help identify sources of field staff. A significant number of local community members are playing an active part in the census operation as members of the field staff and also by supplying local intelligence that will benefit the Census. The wide range of links established with local communities has helped with the recruitment of the local field force where our aim has been to reflect the make-up of these communities. As well as appointing Enumerators who speak other languages and who understand the needs of local communities, interpreters will be used where necessary.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if VAT default surcharges will be imposed on VAT liabilities subject to time to pay arrangements introduced in response to the foot and mouth outbreak. [156813]
  154W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs and Excise will deal sympathetically with all businesses who are seriously affected by the foot and mouth outbreak. Where this results in a time to pay arrangement to discharge outstanding VAT liabilities, default surcharges will not be imposed during the term of the agreement.

  Tax Credit Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Inland Revenue will complete its benchmarking of the level of fraud within Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Person's Tax Credit; and if he will place a copy of the results in the Library. [156788]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The benchmarking exercise currently under way to determine the level of fraud within Working Families Fax Credit and Disabled Person's Tax Credit is expected to be completed by early next year.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) investigations of fraudulent claims, (b) prosecutions of fraudulent claimants and (c) penalties for fraudulent claimants have been made in respect of the Working Families Tax Credit. [156787]

  Dawn Primaroio
  Up to the end of February 2001, approximately 29,250 inquiries have been opened in respect of Working Families Tax Credit applications, and approximately 250 penalties have been levied. Up to the end of March 2001, there have been 15 prosecutions in respect of Working Families Tax Credit.

  IR 35
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the first year's revenue from IR 35. [156861]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to Table A2.1 of the 2000 "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Partnerships UK
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the sale of equity in Partnerships UK. [156966]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The offer for sale of 51 per cent. of the equity in Partnerships UK closed on 27 March 2001 and was oversubscribed. The successful institutions have been informed of their individual allocations and I will be making a further announcement shortly.

  Logos and Branding
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent by his Department on departmental and agency logos and associated branding since 1 May 1997. [152650]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Since May 1997, £2,000 has been spent on external graphic design work relating to the Treasury corporate crest logo. Most issues concerning the corporate logo are dealt with in-house by the Treasury's publishing unit and the costs are minimal.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by Valuation Office area the number of proposals to alter the 2000 rating list which have yet to be determined and the last date on which the programme is targeted for completion. [155035]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The following schedule depicts by Valuation Office areas, appeals mad in respect of the 2000 Rating Lists and outstanding at 28 February 2001.

  Appeals made by 30 September 2000 are programmed to be dealt with by 31 March 2003. Some appeals made since 1 October 2000 to date are also programmed into this period and the remainder are planned to be dealt with in 2003–04.

  Valuation Office areas

  Birmingham

  22,810

  Bristol

  18,788

  East Anglia

  25,232

  East Midlands

  35,850

  Leeds

  31,538

  Liverpool

  11,985

  London City

  19,195

  London North

  31,923

  London South

  23,412

  London Westminster

  24,230

  Manchester

  36,622

  Newcastle

  24,389

  North Wales

  7,232

  North West

  21,335

  Reading

  34,352

  Sheffield

  26,026

  South East

  30,163

  South Wales

  17,496

  South West

  16,679

  St. Albans

  25,777

  Stoke

  23,552

  Wessex

  28,161

  Wolverhampton

  12,894

  Totals

  549,641

  Specialist Units

  40,798

  Grand Total

  590,439

  National Insurance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many national insurance accounts had no annual contribution or credit in each year since 1992. [152430]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, 2 April 2001,Official Report, columns 91–92W.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Coalmining Communities
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what specific support his Department has provided to coalmining communities since 1997 by(a) region and (b) social security district. [154306]
  156W
  Mr. Rooker
  Social Security benefits operate on a national basis and people in coalmining communities will have benefited from our policies in the same way as other groups.

  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.

  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.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals are helping 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; and the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally.

  We have recently published the Green Paper "Towards Full Employment in a Modern Society", which sets out how we will build on our achievements and deliver employment opportunities for all.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 11 million older people nationally 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. Over 10 million pensioners nationally 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 over 4 million nationally. Around 1.7 million pensioner families nationally 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.

  Housing Benefit
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has
  157W
  received on the length of time taken to process applications for Housing Benefit; and if he will make a statement. [155112]

  Angela Eagle
  We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and other interested parties on the length of time taken by some local authorities to process Housing Benefit claims.

  Although Housing Benefit administration is the statutory responsibility of local authorities, we are determined to help under-performing authorities to improve standards and build on best practice. Our strategy for reforming Housing Benefit was set out in "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all—The way forward for housing" published in December 2000. Our priority is to work with local authorities to improve administration, drive out fraud and error and promote work incentives.

  Raising standards of administration is the biggest challenge facing Housing Benefit today. That is why we have set up the Expert Help Team, bringing together advice and support from experienced local authority managers, the Department's staff and external consultants.

  The first local authorities have signed up for this additional help. Hull, Bristol, East Ayrshire and Lambeth are working with the team, and more councils will follow.

  SERPS
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of changes to the regulations governing inherited SERPS. [156572]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Social Security (Inherited SERPS) Regulations 2001 were made on 20 March 2001 and come into force on 6 October 2002.

  The effect of these Regulations will be to provide protection for the spouses of people who reach State pension age between 6 October 2002 and 5 October 2010, in recognition of the fact that the amount someone needs to save to make up for the reduction to 50 per cent. inheritance increases the closer they are to pension age. The amount of SERPS that the surviving spouse can inherit will be reduced from a maximum of 100 per cent. to a maximum of 50 per cent., but on a sliding scale.

  This is in addition to the protection for the spouses of existing pensioners or of people due to reach State pension age by 5 October 2002.

  The overall effect of the changes will be to prevent the cliff edge effect of the original proposals.

  Pensions
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have been made since 1997 to help pensioners with small occupational pensions. [156645]

  Mr. Rooker
  Pensioners with small 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.

  As a result of tax and benefit measures introduced by this Government, pensioner households will, on average, be over £11 a week, or £580 a year, better off.
  158W
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what role the Pension Credit will play in encouraging people to save for retirement. [156569]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Pension Credit will ensure that people of modest means are rewarded for building on basic pension level through SERPS, a private pension or other forms of income and savings.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend the National Insurance Act 1946 to prevent companies from exercising their powers to take account of a person's basic state pension. [156326]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to my written answer to my hon. Friend for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) on 14 March 2001,Official Report, column 605W.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress is being made with the introduction of the Pension Credit. [156553]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are considering more than 400 responses to our consultation paper. We will consider our response in due course.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what efforts are being made to ensure that pensioners entitled to back-dated payments for winter fuel allowance are(a) made aware of their entitlement and (b) given guidance on how to claim. [156341]

  Mr. Rooker
  An information campaign has been running since last April. Its aim is to ensure that existing and potential customers know about changes to the scheme and what, if anything, they need to do to get a payment. It is up to the individual to choose whether to claim payments for past winters. There is no time limit on claiming payments for previous years of the scheme.

  Departmental Policies (Hazel Grove)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Hazel Grove constituency, the effects on Hazel Grove of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156183]

  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 me 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 sat 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 Hazel Grove since May 1997.
  159W
  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 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Hazel Grove 9,744 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 Hazel Grove the number has reduced from 1,000 to 600. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally and in Hazel Grove from 1,000 to 900.

  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 18,000 older people in Hazel Grove 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 16,500 pensioners in Hazel Grove 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 6,500 in Hazel Grove. 1,900 pensioner families in Hazel Grove 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: 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.

  Departmental Policies (Luton, South)
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [156160]

  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.
  160W
  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 Luton, South 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 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Luton, South 12,540 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 Luton, South the number has reduced from 3,100 to 1,900. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally and in Luton, South from 1,800 to 1,700.

  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 or households who qualify. Around 13,900 older people in Luton, South 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 13,000 pensioners in Luton, South 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 Luton, South. 2,900 pensioner families in Luton, South 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.

  Departmental Policies (Great Grimsby)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information
  161W
  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. [156247]

  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 Great Grimsby 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 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Great Grimsby 12,007 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 form 1,562,400 to 960,600; in Great Grimsby the number has reduced from 4,300 to 3,300. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally and in Great Grimsby from 2,300 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 16,400 older people in Great Grimsby 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 15,700 pensioners in Great Grimsby 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 6,600 in Great Grimsby. 3,600 pensioner families in Great Grimsby are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our
  162W
  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.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many ministerial meetings with hon. Members have been cancelled by Ministers since 1 January. [155243]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our records do not show any meetings with hon. Members have been cancelled.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in respect of each major benefit(a) the number of national insurance claimants and (b) the average size benefit payment made for the latest period for which figures ale available. [156095]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 29 March 2001]The information is in the table.

  Social Security Benefit

  Number of claimants

  Average weekly amount (£)

  Jobseeker's allowance (contribution based)1,2,3,4

  153,700

  49.70

  Retirement Pension1,2,5,6,7

  11,043,000

  67,40

  Widow's Benefit1,2,5,6,7

  256,500

  54.81

  Incapacity Benefit1,8,9

  1,509,700

  81.73

  1Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred, amounts to the nearest penny

  2Based on 5 per cent. sample therefore subject to sampling error.

  3Includes claimants who are entitled to contribution based Jobseeker's Allowance and are also in receipt of income-based Jobseeker's Allowance.

  4Source: Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Enquiry, November 2000.

  5Figures include the Channel Islands and overseas.

  6Average weekly amounts are based on entitlement recorded on PSCS at the date of extraction.

  7Source: Pension Strategy Computer System at 30 September 2000.

  8Excludes a small number of cases held clerically.

  9Source: 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system.

Disability Income Guarantee

  (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will benefit from the Disability Income Guarantee in Shrewsbury and Atcham; and if he will make a statement. [154650]

  Mr. Bayley
  It is estimated that in 2001–02 approximately 150 individuals or families will benefit from the Disability Income Guarantee in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency.Notes:
  1. The figures are based on data taken from the November 2000 five per cent. scans of the Income Support and the Disability Living Allowance computer systems.

  163W
  2. Due to the small sample sizes involved these figures are subject to a high degree of sampling error and should be used only as a guide.

  Benefits (Deductions)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under what circumstances deductions from benefit payments are made in cases where a claimant has been awarded compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and if he will list the benefits concerned. [155839]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]A person's capital can affect entitlement to the following benefits; Income Support (IS), Jobseeker's Allowance (income based) (JSA(IB)), Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB).

  Whether an injured person's entitlement to one of those benefits will be affected by compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board will depend on a number of factors including the amount of that compensation, the amount of other capital they have, the benefit concerned and whether they place the award in trust.

  If the compensation award is placed in a trust for the person who has been injured, the capital value of that trust is ignored. Income which the person receives from the trust may be taken into account in the same way as other trust income.

  In all other cases, normal capital rules will apply.

  Miners Compensation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many officials are working on clawing back moneys from miners' compensation; and if he will make a statement.[154188]

  Mr. Bayley
  Sixty-seven officials in the Department's Compensation Recovery Unit are working on miners' compensation recovery. These staff are also employed on other duties.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many clawback calculations on miners' compensation have been completed to date; and if he will make a statement. [154062]

  Mr. Bayley
  The number of assessments made by the Compensation Recovery Unit up to and including 16 March 2001 is 97,858. On only a limited number of these cases has the action required by both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Compensation Recovery Unit been fully completed—the majority of cases are therefore still being dealt with.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average cost is of each clawback sum from invalid miners' compensation reclaimed by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [154189]

  Mr. Bayley
  The average administration cost per case based on all miners compensation cases completed (including those cases where no recovery is made) is £72.48.
  164W
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what average sum has been clawed back by his Department from miners' compensation. [154207]

  Mr. Bayley
  The average sum per case recovered in all miners compensation cases completed (including those cases where no recovery is made) is £2,069.81 in respect of benefit already paid to the individual.

  Any amounts recovered are in respect of payments to miners as a consequence of their illness and are recovered direct from the Department of Trade and Industry, not the miners themselves. Sums are recovered by the Department of Trade and Industry from the miners compensation payments in only a limited number of cases.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of clawback from compensation awarded to invalid miners were completed in(a) 1998 and (b) 2000; and if he will make a statement. [154187]

  Mr. Bayley
  The following is the information:

  Number of cases where the action required by both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Compensation Recovery Unit has been fully completed

  Year

  Number of cases

  1998–99

  876

  2000–01 (to 16 March 2001)

  2,928

  Any amounts recovered are in respect of payments to miners as a consequence of their illness and are recovered direct from the Department of Trade and Industry, not the miners themselves. Sums are recovered by the Department of Trade and Industry from the miners compensation payments in only a limited number of cases.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Adjournment Debates
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the average time the half-hour Adjournment debate on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays began in each parliamentary Session in this Parliament. [155216]

  Mrs. Beckett
  In the session 1997–98, the House began the adjournment debate on the days in question at 10.34 pm; in 1998–99 at 10.32 pm; in 1999 to 2000 at 11.09 pm and in the current session at 11.23pm.

  Timetabling
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the effect of the use by the Government of programming for the debating of legislation in the House. [155220]

  Mrs. Beckett
  As the Modernisation Committee said yesterday, programming has great potential to improve"the legislative 'term of trade' to the benefit of everyone:
  the Government will get greater certainty for its legislative timetable;
  the Opposition parties and backbenchers will get greater opportunities to debate and vote on the issues of most concern to them; and
  the House will scrutinise legislation better and may well be able to improve it"
  165W
  The extent to which those benefits are achieved depends on the willingness of all parties to make programming work.

  Peerages
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council when the Appointments Commission's nominations for people's peerages will be forwarded to the Prime Minister. [155221]

  Mr. Tipping
  The House of Lords Appointments Commission will make its recommendations to the Prime Minister on the appointment of non-party political peers as soon as it has completed its assessment process.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on progress in the appointment of people's peers. [155213]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I understand that the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which is responsible for recommendations for non-political peerages, is making good progress with the identification of names to submit to the Prime Minister.

  Modernisation Committee
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the Government's responses to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons since 1997. [155222]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The overwhelming majority of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has been implemented. Rules relating to the conduct of Members in the Chamber and to access by the press have been modernised and the House is experimenting with a parallel chamber in Westminster Hall, revised sitting hours on Thursdays, programming of legislation and deferred divisions.

  Electronic Voting
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons on electronic voting in the House. [155223]

  Mr. Tipping
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 19 December 2000,Official Report, column 201.

  Business Co-ordination Unit
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on her role in the oversight and direction of the business co-ordination unit. [155224]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Following its launch in September, I am very pleased to report that the Unit, which is located in my Department, has made excellent progress. In just a short space of time it has improved access to Ministers for the business community, through its co-ordination of invitations received across Whitehall.
  166W
  The initiative has been extremely well received both by the business community and the agencies that represent business. I am also pleased to say that this initiative is an excellent example of Government working together—the support the Unit has received from Regional Government Offices has been a key factor in its success.

  Members' Pay
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to introduce new proposals on hon. Members' pay, allowances and information technology equipment. [155225]

  Mr. Tipping
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 16 March 2001,Official Report, column 753W to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), this will be a matter for decision by Parliament and will be put before the House to decide in due course.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Council when she intends to respond to the recent review of parliamentary pay allowances report published by the Review Body on Senior Salaries. [155226]

  Mrs. Beckett
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 16 March 2000,Official Report, column 753W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), this will be a matter for decision by Parliament and will be put before the House to decide in due course.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how much has been spent on works of art and antiquities since 1 May 1997; and where the items purchased are on display. [155214]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Voted expenditure on acquisitions by the Advisory Committee on Works of Art since May 1997 has been £424,649. Most of the acquisitions are on display in the public rooms, lobbies and corridors of the Palace of Westminster, in Portcullis House and in the House of Commons outbuildings. Some minor items are in Members' offices.

  Palace of Westminster (Memorials)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what plans there are to erect memorials in the Palace of Westminster to commemorate the achievements of former female Members of the House. [156785]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  There are always plans to commission, or purchase, works of art commemorating the achievements of serving or former hon. Members—whether male or female. In the last decade the Advisory Committee on Works of Art has commissioned a number of portraits of contemporary and recent parliamentarians for the permanent collection of Works of Art at the House of Commons, including a number of women parliamentarians; a bronze portrait roundel by Michael Rizzello of Lady Astor, a bronze bust by Shenda Amery of Baroness Boothroyd and most recently a commission has been let for a statue by Neil Simmons of Baroness
  167W
  Thatcher. Paintings of Baroness Boothroyd by Jane Bond and of Baroness Thatcher by Henry Mee were also commissioned and hang in 1 Parliament Street.

  Parliamentary Pay
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the President of the Council when she received the recommendation of the Senior Salaries Review Body into Parliamentary pay and allowances. [156812]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Prime Minister commissioned this report. Sir Michael Perry, Chairman of the Senior Salaries Review Body, wrote to the Prime Minister in late February enclosing a copy of the report. The Government published the report on 16 March.

PRIME MINISTER

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with his European counterparts concerning United States policies on carbon dioxide emissions. [156542]

  The Prime Minister
  The issue was raised at the informal European Council in Stockholm on 23 and 24 March. The Council agreed a declaration which said"The European Council, recognising climate change as a global threat to future well-being and economic progress, recalls the necessity of efficient international action o reduce emissions. It reaffirms its strong commitment to the Kyoto Protocol as the basis for such action and expresses its deep concern at the fact that this Protocol is being called into question. The European Council urges all its negotiation partners to engage constructively in reaching agreements on modalities for implementing the Kyoto Protocol and to facilitate a successful outcome of the resumed COP-6, which will create the conditions for ratification and entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol by 2002"

SCOTLAND

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met representatives of business and trade unions to discuss manufacturing industry in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [155172]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular meetings with representatives of business and trade unions to discuss issues of interest to the manufacturing and other sectors of the Scottish economy. We aim to strengthen the competitive edge of our traditional industries while also looking increasingly to the areas of growth for the future, such as the creative and financial services industries.

  Incomes
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement about the change in average incomes among(a) men and (b) women in Scotland since 1997. [155173]

  Mr. Foulkes
  From 1997 to 2000, in Scotland, the average gross hourly earnings for men have increased by 12.1 per cent., while average gross hourly earnings for women have increased by 13.6 per cent.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive on the impact of foot and mouth disease on the Scottish economy. [155174]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My colleagues in the Scottish Executive have kept me fully briefed on developments in Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to witness first hand the action being taken to contain and eradicate and to discuss the impact of the disease on the Scottish economy on her visit to Dumfries and Galloway with the Prime Minister last Friday.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedures are being used to co-ordinate action to combat the spread of the foot and mouth outbreak straddling the Scottish-English border. [155180]

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to co-ordinate a cross-border approach to the foot and mouth outbreak. [155193]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Great Britain is a single epidemiological zone. The control of animal health diseases is exercised on behalf of the GB Agriculture Departments by a single State Veterinary Service under the management of the Chief Veterinary Officer.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the impact of the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease on the rural economy of Scotland. [155175]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My colleagues in the Scottish Executive have kept me fully briefed on developments in Scotland. I was able to witness at first hand the action being taken to contain and eradicate foot and mouth disease and to discuss its impact on the Scottish economy during my visit to Dumfries and Galloway with the Prime Minister last Friday.

  My right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Environment, and the Scottish Executive have announced packages of measures designed to provide help for rural communities in Scotland. The Scottish Executive launched their Comeback Code on 23 March providing simple clear advice on how people can enjoy rural Scotland, while protecting farmers and their animals.

  Unemployment
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the current levels of unemployment are in Glasgow constituencies; and if she will make a statement. [155176]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The table shows the current levels of unemployment in each of the parliamentary constituencies in Glasgow.

  Percentage

  Parliamentary constituency

  Men

  Women

  People

  Rate People

  Difference since 1997

  Anniesland

  1,566

  354

  1,920

  10.6

  -26.7

  Baillieston

  1,820

  456

  2,276

  10.2

  -37.2

  Cathcart

  1,260

  307

  1,567

  10.6

  -30.0

  Govan

  1,777

  453

  2,230

  4.7

  -32.9

  Kelvin

  1,663

  469

  2,132

  1.2

  -41.7

  Maryhill

  2,162

  534

  2,696

  6.4

  -39.7

  169W

  Percentage

  Parliamentary constituency

  Men

  Women

  People

  Rate People

  Difference since 1997

  Pollok

  1,769

  379

  2,148

  12.0

  -33.0

  Rutherglen

  1,116

  281

  1,397

  8.3

  -40.8

  Shettleston

  1,968

  434

  2,402

  8.6

  -27.0

  Springburn

  2,212

  529

  2,714

  11.8

  -31.9

  Scotland Office
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Prime Minister concerning the future of her Department. [155177]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with the Prime Minister on a wide range of issues.

  Electricity Interconnectors
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on the electricity interconnector to Northern Ireland from Scotland and the upgrading of the English interconnector. 155178]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Progress is ongoing on upgrading interconnector links from Scotland to both Northern Ireland and England and I welcome the further expansion of business opportunities in the electricity market. Work is under way to have the Scotland—Northern Ireland interconnector fully operational by the end of the year, at a capacity of 480MW, which will be its design maximum. It is expected that at least some of the electricity exported to Northern Ireland would then be re-exported to the Republic.

  Work is also progressing to complete the upgrading of the Scotland—England interconnector by October 2002. The upgrade will take its nominal capacity from 1600MW to 2200MW.

  Drugs
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the First Minister concerning the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [155179]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend meets regularly with the First Minister and discusses a range of topics, including how best to tackle the serious problem of drug abuse.

  Most recently, on Sunday 1 April, my right hon. Friend and the First Minister and I, along with colleagues, demonstrated the determination of the Government and the Scottish Executive to work in partnership in the fight against illegal drug dealers by participating together in the Daily Record's "March Against Drugs" which was held in Glasgow.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Government have taken to secure the future of the Scottish coal industry; and if she will make a statement. [155181]
  170W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme provides for up to £110 million to be paid by the UK Government to the UK coal industry. Longannet coal mine in Fife was the first to receive money under this scheme, assistance which will help ensure its future.

  This significant injection of Government funds has helped safeguard 700 jobs at Longannet. Scottish Coal is now looking to recruit an additional 130 staff, including 30 apprentices, which will bring the total number of employees to 830. This is the first time in 20 years that Scottish Coal, or its predecessor British Coal Scotland, has advertised for apprentices.

  New Deal
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland have secured jobs as a result of the New Deal; and if she will make a statement. [155182]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The New Deal has been a tremendous success in Scotland. 48,627 people have found jobs as a result of their participation in the New Deal for Young People, New Deal 25+, New Deal for Lone Parents and New Deal 50 plus.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the impact of the New Deal in Scotland on youth employment. [155189]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The New Deal has made a significant impact on youth employment in Scotland. In January alone, 700 more young people in Scotland have found work through the New Deal. 32,000 more young people in Scotland are now in work thanks to the New Deal. Unemployment among young people has fallen by 67 per cent. since the introduction of the programme in 1998.

  Pensioner Poverty
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive on UK-wide initiatives to alleviate pensioner poverty in Scotland. [155184]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have frequent discussions with the Scottish Executive on a wide variety of issues. On pensioner poverty, we have introduced a number of measures to target the poorest pensioners. These measures include the Minimum Income Guarantee, free television licences for those aged 75 or over and the Winter Fuel Payments for those aged 60 or over. From this month, the basic State pension will raise by £5 for a single pensioner and £8 for a couple. From 2003, we shall introduce the Pension Credit which will reward pensioners with modest savings. Together with Jackie Baillie I launched the Government's Fuel Poverty Strategy in Scotland.

  European City of Culture
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about the award of European City of Culture 2008. [155185]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I am in regular contact with colleagues on a wide range of matters, including cultural issues relevant to the UK. The award of the European City of
  171W
  Culture would be a boost for any of our cities and towns throughout the UK. I am aware of interest in the newly established city of Inverness in bidding to become the European City of Culture in 2008 and wish them well in their deliberations.

  Greenock Semi-conductor Plant
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she discussed the Health and Safety Executive's study of employees' health at the national semi-conductor plant in Greenock when she last met members of the Scottish Executive. [155186]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have regular discussions with the Scottish Ministers on a wide range of issues. On the Health and Safety Executive's study. the HSE send the Scottish Executive monthly progress reports. The HSE's approach to the study has the support of an independent panel of Scottish experts.

  Block Grant
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will discuss with Treasury Ministers plans for a further needs assessment in relation to the Scottish block grant. [155187]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have no plans to modify the current basis for determining the Scottish Expenditure Block. The Barnett Formula provides a fair deal for Scotland and has led to stable settlements under successive Governments for over 20 years.

  State Pension
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pensioner in Scotland are benefiting from the recent increases in the basic state pension. [155188]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Around 900,000 pensioners in Scotland benefit.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland will benefit from the uprating of the national minimum wage. [155190]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The increase in the adult national minimum wage to £4.10 per hour from October 2001 will benefit at least 120,000 people across Scotland, many of them women and people who work part-time.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the impact of the climate change levy on manufacturing industry in Scotland. [155191]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The climate change levy will raise an estimated £1 billion in its first year, all of which will be recycled back to business via a 0.3 per cent cut in employers' National Insurance contributions and £150 million of spending on energy efficiency.
  172W
  The Government expect the levy to be broadly neutral between services and manufacturing. Its impact on the manufacturing industry in Scotland will depend on a number of factors including the extent to which industry adopts more efficient energy management practices.

  Oil and Gas Industry
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the future of oil and gas industry businesses in Scotland. [155192]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Last week we had a very positive debate at the Scottish Grand Committee on the future of the oil and gas industry in Scotland. I congratulate my hon. Friend on her valuable contribution to that debate. This Government remain determined to work with the industry so that it can maintain and build upon its international reputation and success.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Gender Imbalance
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research she has carried out into gender imbalances in the judiciary and their implications for the conduct of cases of(a) rape and (b) other sexual offences. [155202]

  Jane Kennedy
  No research has been carried out in the terms mentioned. The Lord Chancellor has confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and therefore does not consider the gender of a judge to be relevant when judges are allocated to preside over particular types of cases, such as rape or other sexual offences.

  Community Legal Service (South-west)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the Community Legal Service in the south-west. [155203]

  Mr. Lock
  The Community Legal Service is making good progress in the south-west. There are now CLS Partnerships in Cornwall, Devon, Plymouth, north Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire, Bristol, Swindon, and Gloucestershire. The CLS Partnerships cover 76 per cent. of the population of the south-west, and I am confident this figure will continue to grow.

  Rural Courthouses
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's policy towards two-courtroomed courthouses in rural areas. [155204]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government's policy is that magistrates courts are best managed locally by magistrates courts committees, under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. We encourage magistrates courts committees to liaise with the Court Service and other agencies considering sharing arrangements and ensure better utilisation of court buildings.

  Magistrates (Social Background)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on progress in widening the social background of magistrates. [155206]

  Jane Kennedy
  As the Government announced in "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead" (CM5074), my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has asked for a national strategy for the recruitment of lay magistrates to be developed. A lot of good work is done by the local advisory committees who do encourage people from all walks of life to consider applying.

  The Magistrates in the Community project run by the Magistrates Association and funded by my Department also does valuable work in raising the profile of justices of the peace. We need however to see whether there is more we should be doing from the centre to get the message across that we want benches to be representative of the community they serve.

  Legal Profession
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has for changes in the workings of the legal profession. [155207]

  Mr. Lock
  On 7 March 2001, the Director General of Fair Trading published his report on competition in the market for professional services. The Government are keen to remove restrictive practices that are not in the public interest and which reduce incentives on lawyers to provide innovative and affordable services to the public. We will consult on the report, and consider responses on the Director General's analysis before taking further action.

  Witnesses (Learning Disabilities)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the training that judges receive on conducting cases in which witnesses have learning disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [155208]

  Mr. Lock
  Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board, an independent body, chaired by Lord Justice Waller. Training seminars for judges include dedicated sessions or case studies (sometimes both) on disability issues, of which learning disabilities form a part. In addition, all judges are issued with written guidance on all aspects of fair treatment, called the "Equal Treatment Bench Book." A new section of the Bench Book, entitled "Disability" was published in January 2001. This section includes material on learning disabilities and a chapter on the provisions of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 relating to witnesses with learning disabilities.

  The Judicial Studies Board keeps the training it provides under continuous review.

  Court Security
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on protection of court officials and the prevention of escape by defendants. [155209]
  174W
  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department takes security in courtrooms and threats to the public, judges, magistrates and staff very seriously.

  Both the Court Service and magistrates courts committees carry out regular risk assessments of the adequacy of physical security measures in court buildings and there are ongoing programmes of security improvements across the court estate. In addition, more secure docks are being installed in certain Crown and magistrates courts so as to provide higher levels of courtroom security for the more serious cases being heard.

  The Lord Chancellor has asked officials to report to him on the adequacy of existing security arrangements across the court estate (particularly following the reduction of routine uniformed police presence in Crown Courts), on the options for their improvement and on the feasibility of more fundamental proposals.

  The adequacy of prisoner security measures during court hearings is the responsibility of the Prison Service and the Prison Escort and Custody Services (PECS).

  Lord Chancellor's Apartments
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people have visited the Lord Chancellor's apartments. [155210]

  Mr. Lock
  Since March 1998, there have been 282 public tours and 99 charity receptions held in the Lord Chancellor's official residence. As a result, 16,511 people have visited and approximately £2 million has been raised for charity.

  Rural Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on her policy on rural magistrates courts. [155211]

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

  Lay Magistracy
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps she is taking to increase the number of lay magistrates. [155212]

  Jane Kennedy
  The numbers of justices required in any one area of the country is determined locally depending on the workload of the courts. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has no present plans to seek to increase the number of justices generally. If my hon. Friend has any specific problems in mind I would be happy to discuss these further with her.

  Departmental Policies (Luton, South)
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the
  175W
  constituency, the effects on the Luton, South constituency of the Lord Chancellor's Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156158]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for the administration of the courts and for legal services. We have taken steps to improve the management and effectiveness of the services we provide and to meet customer needs, including working closely with other agencies to provide a fair, swift and effective system of justice, improve the availability of affordable and good quality legal services and to improve the lives of children and help build and sustain strong families.

  In particular, Luton, South constituency is covered by the Luton and South Bedfordshire Community Legal Service Partnership, which is one of 170 Community Legal Service Partnerships throughout England and Wales.

  Within the Luton, South constituency, as at 8 March 2001, 12 firms of solicitors and three Not-for-Profit organisations had been awarded Legal Service Commission contracts with an expected combined expenditure value in the financial year 2001–02 of £451,000. The contracts cover a range of categories, including Family, Welfare Benefits, Immigration, Debt, and Mental Health.

  As at noon 30 March 2001, nine firms in the constituency had signed Criminal Defence Service contracts for 2001–02. During the year, the total value of payments for work done under these contracts is expected to be approximately £2,290,000.

  Sentencing Guidelines
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions she has had with the judiciary on sentencing guidelines, with particular reference to convicted offenders in wheelchairs. [156250]

  Jane Kennedy
  None. Sentencing is a matter for the courts. Parliament lays dow the parameters within which sentencers must work but it is then for the courts to decide on sentences in the individual circumstances of each case. Sentencing guidelines are laid down by the Court of Appeal, with the assistance of advice from the Sentencing Advisory Panel. Additionally, the Magistrates' Association publishes guidance to assist magistrates with sentencing.

  Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what effect the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill will have on the rights of Crown leaseholders to enfranchise and to acquire a new or extended lease. [157024]
  176W
  Mr. Lock
  Following a statement made on 2 November 1992 by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the Crown authorities gave an undertaking that the Crown would, as landlord and subject to specified conditions, agree to the enfranchisement or extension of residential long leases under the same qualifications and terms which applied by virtue of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 to lessees who hold from other landlords.

  The Crown authorities have confirmed that they will apply the terms of this undertaking to the provision of the 1967 Act and the 1993 Act as amended by the present Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill if enacted. This undertaking accordingly supersedes the one given on 2 November 1992.

  The full terms of the agreement made by the Crown are as follows:

  (1) the Crown as landlord will, subject to the conditions described, agree to the enfranchisement or extension of residential long leases or the grant of new residential long leases, under the same qualifications and terms which will apply by virtue of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 to lessees who hold from other landlords;

  (2) enfranchisement will be refused where property stands on land which is held inalienably;

  (3) enfranchisement will also be refused where certain circumstances, which only apply to the Crown, obtain. These are:

  (i) where there are particular security considerations (on the advice of the Royal and Diplomatic Protection Group of the Metropolitan police or other security agencies)

  (ii) where properties are in, or intimately connected with, the curtilage of historic Royal Parks and Palaces;

  (iii) where properties, or the areas in which they are situated, have a long historic or particular association with the Crown.

  (4) the areas referred to in paragraph (3) (iii) include the Off Islands within the Isles of Scilly (St. Agnes, Bryher, St. Martins and Tresco), the Garrison on St. Mary's and parts of central Dartmoor. The properties referred to in that paragraph include Old Land Revenue and reverter properties and grace and favour properties.

  (5) where enfranchisement is refused on the grounds set out in paragraphs (2) and (3), but the tenant would otherwise qualify for enfranchisement, lease extension or the grant of a new lease by analogy with the statutes, the Crown will be prepared to negotiate new leases.

  (6) the Crown will follow the valuation bases set out in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

  (7) the Crown will agree to be bound by arbitration where there is dispute over valuation or other terms, except in cases under paragraphs (2) and (3). The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal will be empowered to act as the arbitration body, and will hear such disputes on voluntary reference.

  (8) the Crown will be entitled to apply to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for approval of a scheme of estate management in the same way as other landlords.

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.

Rheumatoid Arthritis: Anti-TNF Drugs
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is expected to complete its appraisal of anti-TNF therapy drugs for rheumatoid arthritis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence expects to give guidance to the National Health Service on the clinical and cost effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis in October this year, provided that no appeals are made.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Will he ensure that NICE sets the cost of these drugs against the high cost of rheumatoid arthritis to this country, estimated at£1.3 billion per annum, as well as the benefits which accrue to sufferers who do not respond to standard treatments?
Will he also remind those health authorities across the land which are using reference to NICE as an excuse for denying funds for the purchase of those drugs that that is discouraged, if not prohibited, under the terms of his relevant circular?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, NICE is required to assess evidence on all the clinical and other health-related benefits of treatment and to judge whether on balance they would represent a cost-effective use of NHS and personal social services resources. That provides the right framework for dealing with the important issue which the noble Lord raised.
Policy guidance issued to health authorities was set out in National Health Service Circular HSC/1999/176. In the light of that overriding guidance, we made clear that health authorities and primary care groups and trusts should not wait for guidance from NICE but should develop policies for the managed introduction of those drugs, as for any other clinical development, based on the availability of evidence as to their clinical and cost effectiveness. The guidance should not be used as a mechanism for failing to take a decision. If the noble Lord has particular cases in mind, I should be happy to investigate them.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the Government offer advice to health authorities, as my noble friend explained. However, what action can they take when those health authorities choose to ignore their advice and refuse to fund the kind of drugs mentioned?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if the advice from NICE is that a certain drug should be used for certain conditions, we expect the health authority to implement that guidance. The whole basis of the establishment of NICE is that it enables us to ensure much greater consistency in the introduction and use of cost-effective drugs and other treatments.
As part of our appraisal of the success of NICE, we are monitoring to ensure that health authorities implement such guidance.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister aware that research has shown that the sensitised white blood cells which attack the joints in rheumatoid arthritis produce a substance called "tumour necrosis factor" and that the drugs to which he referred are the first which have been shown directly to counteract that particular factor and thus strike at the heart of the pathological process which is responsible for the disease? Is it not remarkable that these remedies, which were developed in the United Kingdom, are freely available in the USA, Holland and Germany but very scantily available in the UK?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for clearly explaining the potential effectiveness of those drugs. I must agree with him that the clinical evidence for the two drugs is convincing. The history of the NHS over many years involves the inconsistent and patchy introduction of new treatments and drugs which have been found to be more effective than previous ones. The purpose of establishing the national institute was to ensure that we achieve a more consistent introduction and use of such drugs.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, Ministers claimed that the introduction of NICE would end postcode prescribing. That was said to be its key function. The Minister mentioned that the acceptance of the NICE guidelines were being monitored but can he give more details of that? Can he also describe the nature of the enforcement that is taking place? Surely, if we are to end postcode prescribing it is vital that the appraisals and recommendations of NICE are put into practice.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, indeed it is, which is why we are monitoring the introduction of he guidance. We expect health authorities fully to implement that guidance and we should be most concerned if instances were brought to our attention showing that was not happening. The whole purpose of NICE is to ensure consistent approaches throughout the NHS.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords. I am very often informed by correspondents that these drugs, so

719
important in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, are, as my friend the noble Lord, Lord Walton, explained, available in many other countries. How do I answer their question: why cannot they be made available here without that most painful form of rationing known as "postcode prescribing"?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that postcode prescribing, which has been an endemic problem in the National Health Service, is unjustified given the national nature of the service. But I believe that the introduction of NICE is the best way to enable a consistent approach to be taken and to allow for the speeding up of the introduction of effective medicines and treatment. The whole benefit and purpose of NICE is to provide advice, based on the most careful judgment, as to whether a particular treatment or drug is effective, including cost-effective. Once that advice has been given it will lead to its speedy implementation throughout the National Health Service. I believe that that is the best way to deal with postcode prescribing.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is there evidence to show that what the Minister has just said is correct? Does the noble Lord agree that, surely, it is one thing for NICE to make a judgment about a particular treatment, but it remains for health authorities to fund that treatment once the judgment has been forthcoming, and that has not always been seen to happen in practice?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl raises two points. It is surely right to expect health authorities to fund the implementation of NICE guidelines from their allocations which, as the noble Earl will be aware, are at a record level. We expect health authorities to implement those guidelines, and we are monitoring that at the moment. If we find an instance in which it has not been implemented we take it up vigorously with the health authority concerned.

Constitutional Change
2.44 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What lessons they have learnt from the constitutional changes they have so far introduced.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, our major programme of constitutional reform of course drew out profound debate in Parliament and the country about the nature and effectiveness of our institutions, their mutual relationships and our sense of national identity. The Government have both contributed to and learnt from that debate. But we have concluded that we were right to have removed the hereditary peerage from this House, subject to a temporary right for one-tenth to remain; right to have created the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales; right to press ahead with
720
democratic self-government for Northern Ireland as part of the peace process; right to create the regional development agencies and to restore an all-London tier of government; right to have put the Freedom of Information Act on the statute book: and right to have introduced the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act will stand as a major legislative and constitutional monument to this Government's first term of office.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that Answer. I heard a great many "rights" in his response. With his well known reputation for listening and taking advice, in the quiet weeks ahead will the noble and learned Lord reflect on two points? First, has devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland made the trend towards an English national parliament at Westminster irreversible? Do any of us really want that? How could it be reversed? Secondly, on a more domestic front, is it not time that serious all-party consideration was given to the appropriate powers of this revised upper Chamber? If we are to have a credible ability to revise and delay, is it not time that we went back to the situation in which we had the ability to delay public legislation for two years rather than 13 months?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any appetite in England for a national parliament for England. As to the second point, the Wakeham commission was of the clear view that the basic scheme of the Parliament Acts should remain unchanged, and we agree. The noble Lord's proposition would turn back the clock from 1949 to 1911 and allow the Lords to delay for two Sessions, not one, the will of the elected Chamber. That does not find any support from the Government.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, given that impressive list of constitutional changes, will my noble and learned friend reflect perhaps a little further on the Human Rights Act and give his view on whether it is settling down or has produced the chaos in the courts that many of its opponents foresaw?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, those who opposed the Human Rights Act as some kind of alien intrusion from Europe predicted, as my noble friend correctly said, chaos in the courts and suggested that they would become clogged up with worthless cases making centuries-old English traditions illegal. The prophets of doom have had their day in the media but have been comprehensively proved wrong, as we knew they would be. The courts and Whitehall were well prepared. Our decision to allow for a long pause between passage of the Act and implementation to ensure preparation has been vindicated. Hopeless cases are being rejected; the most important cases are being fast-tracked and sensible decisions are being handed down. Our institutions and practices have been shown to be substantially convention-compliant; where they are not, the Act signals a new partnership between Parliament, the executive and the judiciary to make them more compliant.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that the impressive list that he read out was all part of the Cook-Maclennan agreement between our two parties prior to the last election and that we therefore share pleasure in the progress made during this Parliament? Does the noble and learned Lord believe that an early and radical reform of this Chamber, devolution to the English regions and fair votes for another place would make a good menu for another reforming Parliament?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we welcome support from all quarters, including the Liberal Democrat Party. That is undoubtedly an attractive menu, but it is one to which I cannot commit the Government.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, have the Government none the less not learnt some lessons from the creation of a London mayor, which has led to disputes and confusion over transport plans, of a Scottish Executive, which is now in the process of decimating the Scottish fishing industry, and of a Cabinet committee, shared with the Liberal Democrats, although the Government still do not know from day to day whether the Liberal Democrats will be with them or against them?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is of the nature of all forms of devolution that diversity is promoted. It is not necessarily the case that the Government will like every decision of the Welsh Assembly or, indeed, every decision of the Scottish Parliament or Executive. But the function of devolution is to promote diversity, in which we should rejoice.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, in the light of the increased proportion of appointed Peers since the reform, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the appointed Peers make an important contribution to the House because of the experience in medicine, social work. politics and other fields that they bring? Does he share the observation that appointed Peers, especially those who serve for a long time in your Lordships' House, suffer from mysterious bouts of amnesia when they forget those who have appointed them?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure about the noble Earl's latter point because I am sure that every Peer, whether appointed or otherwise, values his or her independence. We are sometimes asked whether the House is now more legitimate. It is in the sense that it now has a predominance of life Peers, who have been individually selected, and it may be that that does make the House more legitimate. However, the Government remain committed to the primacy of the House of Commons, the elected Chamber, as expressed in the Parliament Acts.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that the great problem with constitutional reform is that most people find it economically irrelevant? What the regions want is
722
more investment from outside and more migration from inside. The trouble with constitutional reform of this kind is that it is entirely irrelevant and makes more difficult those two important economic problems.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I doubt whether there are many in the House who would agree with that. It is of the highest importance to recharge and reinvigorate our institutions and to bring them closer to the people they serve.

Afghanistan
2.52 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they can take to provide humanitarian aid inside Afghanistan.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, Afghanistan is currently suffering from its worst drought in 30 years. This financial year the Department for International Development has provided over£10.5 million of humanitarian assistance to Afghans through UN agencies, the Red Cross and NGOs. As well as drought relief assistance, that includes a longer-term programme of humanitarian assistance to the Afghan population, both in Afghanistan itself and to Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. She will be aware that the British NGOs working inside Afghanistan have been severely hampered over the past two years by her department's funding policy on reasonable grounds of security risk. Will she now confirm that that policy has been abandoned and that DfID will be supporting those NGOs which work in situations of grave risk but on their own behalf? Can she say whether the UN sanctions will pose even more problems for the humanitarian work of those organisations?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the department's policy on Afghanistan has been reviewed relatively recently. Perhaps it would be helpful to the House if I explained that under the previous policy we would not fund NGOs that sent expatriates into Afghanistan against the advice of their own government. As the House may recall, the background to that was the attacks on UN personnel in Afghanistan in 1998. However, we continue to provide humanitarian assistance through UN agencies, the Red Cross and local and international NGOs. The threat still remains, but there have been no serious security incidents for some time. We are now willing to consider funding for agencies that send UK nationals into Afghanistan so long as they are able to assure us about the security mechanisms that they put in place. With respect to sanctions, I do not accept the argument that sanctions

723
have caused the crisis in Afghanistan. The current problem has been the result of drought, conflict and unusually cold weather.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for what she has just said about reviewing the policy. We have been pressing for that for some time. I should declare an interest as patron of the Rokha health clinic in the Panjshir Valley. Does the Minister agree with the UN in recognising President Rabbani and the Northern Alliance Government as the true governing body in Afghanistan and not Taliban representatives in Kabul? Does she agree, too, with the military leader in the north, Ahmed Shah Maoud, who states correctly,
"that the Afghan people, with considerable self sacrifice, played an important role in the defeat of Communism",
and that the religious, fanatical Islamic posture of Taliban is as great a threat to the world as communism was? What are Her Majesty's Government doing to encourage Pakistan to withdraw ISI and regular army support from the Kabul regime?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of the concerns expressed previously by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, with respect to our policy on funding NGOs. I am pleased that she welcomes the new initiative. The noble Baroness will be aware that we do not consider there to be an effective national government in Afghanistan with whom we can conduct government-to-government business. The noble Baroness asked about Pakistan. She will be aware that we are constantly engaged in discussions with the countries surrounding Afghanistan, including Pakistan, in order to try to achieve a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Afghanistan.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the recent actions of the Taliban in destroying the poppy crop in Afghanistan will have a major impact on the prevalence of heroin on the world market and over the next year will lead to a decrease in the amount of heroin available. Does DfID have a role in helping those farmers who have had their crops destroyed to diversify into other areas?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, Afghanistan is the source of 95 per cent of the heroin that reaches the UK and western Europe. Last year the Taliban issued a decree denouncing poppy cultivation and ordered that all poppy crops be destroyed. There are mixed reports on the effectiveness of that decree. There is undoubtedly less cultivation, but we do not know whether that is as a result of the drought or the decree. We are already providing humanitarian assistance that benefits farmers who have lost their livelihoods.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, can my noble friend say what action the Government have taken following the closure of the BBC office in Kabul, which is very much to be regretted?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government have raised the closure of the BBC office with the Taliban
724
mission in Islamabad. In doing so, we have underlined our commitment to press freedom and to the BBC's record for impartiality and independence.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say which organisations carrying out de-mining operations in Afghanistan currently receive assistance from the United Kingdom Government? Are they affected by current funding policies?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs carries out mine action activities in Afghanistan. Recently we undertook a review of those mine action activities and we are currently considering the options as regards further support for that programme.

MRSA: Vaccine Development
3 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What research they are sponsoring to develop a vaccine for the "superbug" methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, a research advisory group has reviewed needs in the field of antimicrobial resistance. It has recognised the importance of vaccine development. Recommendations that further detailed consideration be given to this area, in collaboration with the Medical Research Council, industry and other funders will now be taken forward.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather vague reply. Is he aware that MRSA has spread to most hospitals in the country? People are becoming fearful of going into hospital for routine operations. This problem is costing the National Health Service an immense amount of money, as well as exacting a high toll on human resources.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government regard the matter of MRSA and hospital acquired infection in general as one of great concern. Indeed, two reports from the Select Committee of your Lordships' House have drawn attention to the challenges we face. We have issued guidelines to the NHS. We have introduced a system of controls assurance which makes the chief executive of every NHS trust report to the board on the measures being taken to ensure that everything possible is done to reduce the incidence of infection. I also believe that we need to ensure that preventive measures are adopted. Some of those measures are as basic as ensuring that simple hand-washing is undertaken by all staff in hospitals.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in January this year the Government announced what they described would be the biggest ever hospital clean-up and stated that they would launch a series of unannounced visits to every hospital in the country by the end of March. What are the results of that hospital inspection process and how prevalent is MRSA in those hospitals?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, MRSA is prevalent, but the data we hold at present are not sufficiently robust to enable me to give definitive answers to the noble Lord's questions. That is why we have introduced a new data collection system from 1st April this year. It will establish a baseline from which we shall be able to monitor the progress being made and, potentially, then issue targets to the NHS to ensure that the incidence is reduced.
Having launched Operation Clean-Up, I can tell the noble Lord that we established patient environment action teams which have made regular visits to over 400 hospitals in NHS trusts over the past few months. The teams have graded the hospitals into green, yellow or red groups. Those hospitals which are seen to be in some difficulty over cleaning have been told in no uncertain terms exactly what improvements need to be made. We shall announce the overall results of that initiative in due course, but the indications are that it is having a considerable effect.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the new database mentioned by my noble friend in his last response be based on a national surveillance scheme to measure the extent of microbiological antibiotic resistance in all hospitals in the United Kingdom? Furthermore, can he tell the House whether the Government envisage introducing a scheme so that residential care homes and nursing homes will also be covered, perhaps on a sample basis? They often act as reservoirs for MRSA infection.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I can confirm to my noble friend that the new data collection scheme will embrace all the NHS trusts in England. So far as residential care homes and nursing homes are concerned, such information would be covered by the PHLS Piloted Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre, which is based on capturing and collating the results of all antibiotic susceptibility tests performed on routine specimens in microbiology laboratories. That scheme will be rolled out to other regions over the next two years.
The other way in which residential care homes and nursing homes can be covered is through their regulation, at present undertaken by health and local authorities, but in the future to be undertaken by the national care standards commission. I am sure that the commission will wish to look at rates of infection in individual homes.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in view of the fact that it has been reported that each year more than 5,000 people are killed off by the National Health Service through infections and that many thousands
726
more are made seriously ill, perhaps I may make the following recommendation. As no one has yet died from eating unpasteurised cheese in this country, perhaps the Government should move those environmental health officers currently employed to watch what we do to work in hospitals?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that seems to be an extremely helpful suggestion and I am sure that it will be given every consideration. We have to be cautious about the estimated figure of 5,000 deaths. That estimate was based on a 1980 study undertaken in the United States which used 1970s data. However, we have to be extremely concerned about any potential deaths arising from MRSA or wider hospital-acquired infection. This stresses the importance of ensuring that the new data collection scheme is effective. We shall then be able to make future judgments and set targets against that data.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is it not time to bring back matron?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl knows that I am very keen to bring back matron. We have introduced modern matrons as part of the NHS Plan. Those staff will be real matrons because they will have the authority to deal with issues in relation to cleaning, linen, catering and the feeding of patients, which the previous government disempowered ward sisters from undertaking. That is why we are reintroducing the whole concept of clinical nurse leadership in our hospitals.

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2001
3.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, since the House last considered this issue on 16th May 2000, when it approved the existing amnesty period extension order, we have achieved significant political progress in Northern Ireland. Devolution has been operating successfully for 10 months. This period has seen the publication of the first Budget by a local Northern Ireland politician for over 30 years and agreement by the Executive on a programme for government, endorsed by the Assembly as a whole. Local politicians have demonstrated that it is possible for individuals from different sides of the political divide to work together for the common good.
Progress has continued to be made on the implementation of every aspect of the Belfast agreement. New arrangements are being put in place to enhance the protection of individual rights and opportunities. The Government have moved ahead with policing reforms and remain committed to creating a police service for Northern Ireland that has

727
the trust and respect of everyone in the community. The Government expect to publish draft legislation shortly which will implement many of the recommendations made by the Criminal Justice Review.
The British and Irish governments and all of the pro-agreement parties have remained in regular and close contact and have continued to demonstrate their commitment to the agreement. The Prime Minister has made two visits to Northern Ireland this year, first in January and again in March, during which he held useful and constructive discussions. From these it clearly emerged that all participants wanted to see substantial progress made on all of the outstanding aspects of the Belfast agreement by June of this year.
With decommissioning, progress has continued to be slower than any of us would have wished. Even so, there has been some movement. Following the IRA statement of 6th May, there have been two separate inspections of a number of IRA weapons dumps. On each occasion, the independent inspectors, Martti Ahtisaari and Cyril Ramaphosa, reported that they had seen a significant number of weapons and that the IRA was serious in its pursuit of peace. After the second inspection they were also able to report that the arms dumps had not been tampered with in the intervening period.
Two weeks ago, the IRA re-engaged with the de Chastelain commission. In their recent report on 22nd March, the commissioners stated that this re-engagement was "in good faith" and that they believed that progress could soon be made.
None of this is to deny that the process is still beset with difficulties and uncertainties. We have yet to secure what we all wish to see: the start to actual decommissioning; and the removal of the bomb and the bullet from Northern Ireland politics for good. That is why it remains important for us to keep in place all of the mechanisms which will make decommissioning possible. The amnesty period extension order is one such mechanism.
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 27th 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 order made in May last year, the amnesty period will expire at midnight on 19th May this year.
The day appointed in any order must not be more than five years after the passing of the 1997 Act, and this five-year period will end at midnight on 26th February 2002. The order currently before the House appoints 27th February 2002 as the date before
728
which the amnesty period identified in a non-statutory decommissioning scheme must end. This is the maximum extent permitted under that Act.
The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach said at Hillsborough Castle on 5th May last year that,
"the remaining steps necessary to secure full implementation of the Agreement can be achieved by June 2001".
This remains the Government's position. However, as the legislation currently stands, all decommissioning—including decommissioning by loyalist groups—would have to be completed by 19th May, which is when the current amnesty period will expire. This is clearly unrealistic. That is why the Government are bringing this order before the House today.
In preparing this order, we obviously had to consider what was the optimum date for extending the amnesty period. One possibility was to set a June date. However, the Government concluded that inviting the House to agree an extension of only a few weeks was not sensible.
The reality is that decommissioning is a voluntary act, and it is not only the IRA which must decommission. Some of the loyalist groups which are committed to the agreement have made it clear that they will only consider decommissioning after the IRA has made tangible progress itself. So, while we want to see decommissioning take place by June, it would be unhelpful to treat that as a deadline after which the scheme would cease to be available. We want the decommissioning commission to be able to deal effectively with all groups which still have illegally held weapons. In our judgment, it would be counterproductive not to have some flexibility over timing.
To come back to the House in June for an extension for a further period would not, we believe, have been helpful. We believe that it is far better to extend the present arrangements for the full nine-month period permitted by the legislation, which is, of course, a shorter period than the House has endorsed on a number of previous occasions.
The Government share the frustration of many noble Lords over the intractability of the decommissioning issue. However, in our view, there is no sensible alternative but to keep working away at it. This order creates the framework in which we can continue to do that. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for moving the order. With certain reservations, which I shall speak to, we support the need for the order.
As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, at the time of the Good Friday agreement, full implementation was expected by May 2000. That date is long gone and a lot of history has past since then.

729
Last year, the governments in Dublin and London set a new date of June 2001. That date has not yet arrived, but the noble and learned Lord is moving the order in the anticipation that nothing will happen before June this year. Although I understand where the noble and learned Lord is coming from, I am sorry about that in many respects.
I believe that the Government are making a serious mistake in deciding to extend the period to 27th February 2002 because it sends a number of wrong messages. First, it is quite clear that an enormous amount of continuous pressure is required on the republicans—and, indeed, on the loyalists—to get them to move at all. This order will lift the pedal—it will lift the pressure off them—and they will assume that nothing is expected of them until somewhere around January/February 2002.
Secondly, February 2002 is the wire; it is the end; it is the deadline for the Act as it stands. That could well give the next government—I hope that they will be of my party—considerable problems. We have heard and seen how incredibly difficult it is to get the decommissioning that we all want, and I feel that a deadline of 27th February 2002 risks backing the government of the day into a tight corner.
I believe that Sinn Fein/IRA can deliver if it chooses to do so arid if there is sufficient pressure. The organisation is run by its army council. As Peter Robinson MP did in another place yesterday, I shall name that army council. He said:
"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".—[official Report. Commons, 2/4/01; col. 144.]
They are members of the political party that calls itself Sinn Fein and which takes part in our devolved government in Stormont. The point I am making is that they control the Provisional IRA. I am not suggesting that they control the Real IRA or the other dissident groups, but if there is sufficient pressure, and if they think it is right, they can set the scene for decommissioning.
The republican movement is a master of the two strategies described by the acronym "TUAS": "Totally Unarmed Struggle" and "Tactical Use of the Armed Struggle". These two strategies are run side by side, and we have watched their success for years. It is now time for Sinn Fein/IRA to end the ambiguity and deliver on decommissioning. If it does, as the noble and learned Lord indicated in opening, we believe that the loyalists are prepared and ready to follow.
However, the republicans still believe that there is more to be gained by continuing with the TUAS strategies. This can perhaps be demonstrated by the fact that, even now, they are informing their West Belfast constituents in a leaflet that they have succeeded in ridding them of the RUC and that the police reservists will be off the streets by next year. I am
730
fearful that such a situation may come to pass. I understand from the press that the Chief Constable and most of the top echelon of the RUC will be gone by the summer of 2002. The comments of Mr Pat Armstrong, the chairman of the Northern Ireland Police Authority, when presenting the policing plan for 2001–02, lead me to believe that he has serious doubt that there will be sufficient resources available to police the Province for the next year while implementing the new structures required by Patten and the Northern Ireland Police Act.
I make these points because the situation is still very serious. I know that we have had no bullets in public and no big bombs for a few years, but they have not gone away. We still have the growing threat of the Real IRA and Continuity IRA. We believe that there are leakages of arms and technology from the Provisionals to the dissident groups—although, as I said, we do not necessarily believe that Adams, McGuinness and company in the army council have much control over them. Added to that, we have a serious escalation of organised crime, as has been recently recognised by the RUC and the establishment of a new special task force to tackle it.
Whatever happens over the election period—regrettably for Northern Ireland this will be a prolonged and extended period—the Government must not take their eyes off the escalating problems in Northern Ireland. However, an extension to the amnesty period is clearly necessary and, with those reservations, I support the order.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, on these Benches we shall support the extension of the decommissioning period for a further nine months. However, in the spirit of bipartisanship it must be asked how long the Government envisage the situation continuing. It is questionable how far the peace process is served by such regular extensions, which are becoming all too predictable. Certainly, it hardly enhances the standing of Parliament to be associated with what is becoming something of a charade.
It is equally true that too much has been invested politically in the act of decommissioning per se, which, as almost everyone acknowledges, would be almost wholly symbolic. The reality is that Provisional IRA weapons are not, and have not been, in use for some time—although, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, there may have been some seepage to other Republican paramilitary bodies. The fact of non-usage has to be acknowledged, as does the increased activity of the loyalist paramilitaries, which again does not assist in progressing the Belfast agreement. Both points need to be factored in to the equation that comprises contemporary politics in Northern Ireland.
Let us hope that after the general election a more normal politics can be established so that people can get on with building a democratic society. I know that that is asking a lot in the context of Northern Ireland, but it means a reduction in symbolism arid its associated rhetoric. That would be a real act of decommissioning.

731
Can the Government estimate when substantive moves in decommissioning are likely? What position will the Government take if nothing positive has occurred by 27th February next year? I regret to say that in the light of experience that is not a hypothetical question.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, as has been said, the introduction of the extension order merely confirms the well-founded suspicion that the parent Act of 1997 was always intended to be a moveable feast. It is for that very reason that the government of the day—and they are not the only guilty ones—found it necessary to come back and literally humiliate Parliament by inviting Members to engage in something that was clearly unworkable and could not be sustained. It is a further insult to law-abiding citizens that terrorists are to be granted still further amnesty, despite the fact that not one ounce of Semtex and not one bullet has been surrendered after all these years.
Against the advice of those of us who had first-hand experience in these matters over many years, both Houses of Parliament—I suppose with the best of intentions and a degree of optimism—gave unconditional approval to the Belfast agreement, which insisted that all weapons must be handed over by 22nd May 2000. Sadly, that date came and went and every single undertaking was dishonoured. All that happened was that when both governments sounded tough we had the appearance—but only the appearance—of movement on the part of the terrorists, both republican and loyalist. That appearance usually took the form of a mere telephone call to the de Chastelain commission, which was always welcomed and labelled by the commission as "encouraging developments"—that was the summary of a mere telephone call. A telephone call was "sold" by government Ministers and others who should have known better as "a breakthrough".
On a lighter note, I suppose that we can safely assume that as the next deadline approaches in June, one Mr P O'Neill—who I understand from the list is not a paid-up member of the army council but lends his pen name to all communiqués of any significance—will have collected sufficient coins to telephone de Chastelain and the telephone call will pass as another "encouraging development". Should the supply of coins be sufficient to finance a lengthy discussion, I believe that the de Chastelain commission would feel bound to proclaim "a breakthrough".
The noble and learned Lord echoed yesterday's Statement at the Dispatch Box in another place by the Northern Ireland Office Minister responsible for security, Mr Adam Ingram, who quoted the joint statement on 5th May last year by the British and Irish Prime Ministers that,
"the remaining steps necessary to secure full implementation of the Agreement can be achieved by June 2001".
732
Mr Ingram added:
"That remains the Government's position. We are absolutely clear that we want to see substantial progress on decommissioning by June [this year]".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/4/01; col. 134.]
The significance of these undertakings will not be lost on the Northern Ireland electorate in the month of June. If the two governments indulge this time in any form of fudge or slippage, they will expose to electoral annihilation those Ulster politicians who have been forced repeatedly to make concessions, only to be abandoned and betrayed. Unfortunately, that will be the view of the electorate.
The electorate needs to know, not in June but now, exactly what will happen, not if but when the latest deadline produces no result whatever. Will Her Majesty's Government calmly accept the collapse of the Belfast agreement, the Assembly and the Executive, complete with its two IRA army council members? If there are no plans for a workable alternative, I have to ask the Minister—I understand that there may be limits on what he can say now—whether the Government have prepared a contingency plan, as all governments do in all circumstances, for continuing sound administration in Northern Ireland, appropriately protected from the mushrooming paramilitary bodies and gangs? In that context, I want to emphasise that one of the most dangerous groups of gangs are those of the drug barons on the so-called loyalist side, particularly in North Belfast. There are Members of this House who have more detailed knowledge of the threat posed by those bodies in that part of the city.
The Government will find such a plan for the future good governance of Northern Ireland set out in the Conservative Party manifesto for 1979. It recognised the unworkability of full-blooded legislative devolution and proposed instead a modest administrative structure not far removed from the present, seemingly workable, structure that operates in Wales. I have quoted a political party, but the idea was endorsed by more than just members of that party. Section 22 of the 1979 Conservative manifesto was endorsed by 14½ million electors in the United Kingdom in general.
My suggestion might appear to ignore the continuing menace of political armies, but fortunately—and encouragingly—in the past few weeks we have seen a very convincing remedy to terrorism. The limited incidence of foot and mouth in the area on the Irish frontier caused the immediate sealing of the frontier by a massive array of security forces based in the Irish Republic. So effective has been that operation, mainly on the Irish side of the frontier, that the repeated question has, quite understandably, been asked: why was this not done years ago to prevent the terrorist murders of over 3,000 British citizens? Given that terrorists operate in the main from the Irish Republic, where de Chastelain and company confirmed that all of the arms dumps are situated, surely the continued sealing of the frontier by

733
Irish security forces, both Garda and army, would be the logical consequence of the utter collapse of the decommissioning fiasco?
Finally, I have to say that there would be full cooperation from the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland in any course upon which Her Majesty's Government decided to embark, both as far as concerns real security and the work of stable government in Northern Ireland. It is no excuse to say, as has been said by a Member of this House who is presently absent from the Chamber, that those plans made in 1979 were not enough. Of course, they were not enough to fulfil the ambitions of people on all sides of the argument. But had they been implemented, they would have started on firm foundations and literally thereafter there would have been no limit to what could have been achieved.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I believe that everyone present agrees about the disgust we feel for the lack of decommissioning of terrorist weapons. This extension order shows how government policy has failed in this respect. I do not say that in an effort to try to get at the Government: it is a fact that that has failed. I should like to add one point. This decommissioning is only the tip of the iceberg of terrorist infrastructure, which includes such issues as intimidation, fraud and smuggling.
Let us take the latter as an example. I trust that noble Lords will at least believe what I am about to say, and that they will definitely share some affinity with it. I have in mind foot and mouth disease. The smuggling that is endemic in South Armagh is the cause of Ireland's problems with foot and mouth today in its totality. As I understand it, what happened is that lambs were bought in Longtown market. They were then transported to Northern Ireland to be slaughtered. According to the driver of the transporter, who appeared on television, he arrived too late to go to the abattoir. He took the lambs to South Armagh so that, so far as he was concerned, they could be put in a field for the night.
At that point, or sometime shortly afterwards, the tags were removed from those animals and they were sent on to the Republic of Ireland. It would appear that the farmer, or someone close to the field where the lambs were placed for the night, decided to keep about 35 of them—perhaps because they were nice ewe lambs, or whatever. It was one of those animals that subsequently developed foot and mouth disease. The remainder of the lambs are untraceable at the moment because the tags were taken out of their ears. In all probability, they went on—some of them definitely did—to an abattoir in Roscommon where they were slaughtered. However, there is no record of them because their tags were removed. A large hunt was subsequently launched for the lambs purely because there is no record of their being killed. That sort of activity has been going on for years in—dare one say it?—terrorist-controlled South Armagh.
734
When lambs are slaughtered in the Republic of Ireland, the belief is that they are then sold as "Irish lamb" to the French, or whoever. Not surprisingly, that has an added value because the French prefer Irish lamb. However, they are being conned: they are not Irish lambs. It is smuggled meat. This is the cause of our foot and mouth outbreak in Ireland. As I said, arms decommissioning is just the tip of the iceberg.
The Minister mentioned the benefits that we have received in Northern Ireland. I agree with the noble and learned Lord in that respect. For example, we have the Assembly and we are able to manage our own budget. But what many people do not understand is the fact that the people of the North and South of Ireland are still being held to ransom by every other activity that these evil men lay on us. It is perhaps the unseen side of the story that people do not realise is still going on. I believe that we have not had one single weapon handed over. We shall not get anywhere until we have achieved that objective.
The decommissioning of weapons is vital. This Government must push for it. They must insist upon it. Although I support the extension order, we cannot continue extending it. Food health and hygiene—whether it is a matter of BSE, foot and mouth, or illegally-imported meat—is so important at the borders of this country with the rest of Europe, or outside it. If we do not sort out the problem now, it will happen again.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say whether it is true that, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux said, not one single ounce of Semtex—or, indeed, one bullet—has been surrendered? Further, can he confirm that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said, not one weapon has been handed over? In all conscience, if that has been the position since 1997, the amnesty order having been extended to June 2001 and now to be extended to 27th February 2002, cannot we just say that this is a charade?
I am not so sure that it is such a bad thing, as everyone is saying. I guess that there has been some sort of reduction in the ghastly killings in Northern Ireland that have taken place since 1969. Perhaps we must have this fig-leaf going on indefinitely, in perpetuity. Is it not a bit of a charade to say that we shall extend it now until 27th February 2002? Could we not just extend it indefinitely?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, it seems to me that every day that devolved government goes on working is a day that contributes to peace. The longer we have devolution working successfully alongside a peace process, albeit with flaws, the better the chance of winning through in the end. Further, based on my experiences in Northern Ireland, it is my firm belief that both sides—that is, both the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Fein—have very little margin for political manoeuvre. The difficulties of the Ulster Unionist Party are open and transparent; indeed, we can all understand them because they are the subject of public debate. However, the difficulties that Sinn Fein faces

735
in terms of its own organisation and its relationship with the IRA are not quite so obvious because it keeps them secret. I believe that Sinn Fein's difficulties are every bit as great as those of David Trimble as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party.
It would be a disastrous outcome for the peace process if there were to be a bigger split in the IRA than we have already seen through the hiving off of the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA. If Gerry Adams were to lose control of a larger proportion of the IRA membership, that would spell doom to the peace process. We should be more understanding of the difficulties that he faces within his organisation than is perhaps obvious in public utterances. Although I have no evidence, I suspect that some of the difficulties about achieving decommissioning are that the leadership of Sinn Fein, who, I believe, do want peace, feel that they have very little margin for manoeuvre. That is why the decommissioning process is taking such a long time. I believe that there has been a small amount of decommissioning by the LVF, but clearly there has not been the substantial element of decommissioning that we would all have wished.
I do not believe that the process is a charade. I believe that it is an important process. Enormous progress has been made in Northern Ireland since devolution but it is not reflected in the speeches that we have heard this afternoon. For the majority of people in Northern Ireland there is peace and more prosperity, and the economy is doing well. We should not so readily dismiss the gains that have been made because not everything has yet been achieved. Decommissioning is important and, of course, it is right that the Government should pursue it.
The two greatest threats to the agreement are the paramilitaries on both sides who are not on ceasefire—we know who they are—and if we were to lose belief in the peace process. The order is important because it is a sign that decommissioning must take place. However, we must not lose faith in the peace process. That is what we are offering the people of Northern Ireland. It is important that they understand that we realise their difficulties but we also understand the enormous progress that has been made.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he implied that some of us spoke in a totally depressing manner and did not appreciate that any good had come out of the agreement. I think that I speak for all of us who come from Northern Ireland. We all appreciate very much what has come out of it, perhaps more than is realised. However, what we cannot do—dare I say it?—is waste people's time going over that kind of ground when we are talking about decommissioning and the problems brought about by it.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I understand what the noble Viscount says. My point is simply that in this and other debates on Northern Ireland not much is said about the progress that has been made and the improvement in the quality of life that has been achieved for the bulk
736
of the people in Northern Ireland, even if, understandably, the debates concentrate on the progress that has so far not been achieved.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, this order is a facilitating measure that provides a legal climate in which decommissioning could take place.
By suspending the normal criminal law, and providing an amnesty for those who become involved in the process of decommissioning, we remove an important legal barrier and facilitate that process. In this sense I endorse the order, but my support is qualified and I shall return to my reservation shortly.
We are all aware of the importance of decommissioning, of its importance in the political process and of its status as a central plank of the Belfast agreement. Many government Ministers, both in this House and in another place, have on numerous occasions confirmed that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked. Sinn Fein and the IRA are one and the same organisation with an interchangeable membership, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, indicated earlier. Indeed, according to some of last Sunday's press, it has an interchangeable leadership also.
All the signatories to the agreement—that includes Sinn Fein/IRA—in paragraph three of the decommissioning chapter,
"accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations … to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms".
In order fully to implement the agreement it is necessary that actual decommissioning takes place. The process of decommissioning was to take place within two years of the signing of the Belfast agreement and be completed by May of last year. This aspect of the agreement precipitated the second and third incarnation of this order, with the third such order merely extending the amnesty from February to May of last year in accordance with the agreement.
This short extension of the order to bring the legal deadline in line with the political one seemed to have been a factor in republicans beginning to recognise their commitments under the agreement and in their giving an undertaking to put weapons completely and verifiably beyond use.
With expectations of definite progress at that point, in May last year, the fourth incarnation of this order was approved. It is the expiry of the extension provided by the fourth order that necessitates the extension provided by this order before us today.
Regrettably, the potential provided by last May was not realised and Sinn Fein/IRA did not engage with the independent international commission to discuss the methods and procedural aspects of decommissioning with a view to putting their weapons beyond use.
Another year on we see a belated gesture by Sinn Fein/IRA of an undertaking for further contact with the decommissioning body. This further contact, just shy of the June deadline, has created renewed expectation for closure of the decommissioning issue.

737
I have a reservation with respect to the extension period of the amnesty in this order to February of next year. I feel that it has the effect of to an extent distracting attention from the clear June deadline. I am aware of the argument that if republicans meet the June political deadline the legal period for an amnesty will need to be such as to permit loyalist paramilitaries to follow. Indeed, hopes of loyalist decommissioning have been increased by the de Chastelain report of last month. That report, referring to recent contact between de Chastelain and the UVF and UFF noted the progress on modalities, on which there was general agreement, and in the renewed commitment of those organisations to the principle of decommissioning.
Such references were unfortunately conspicuous by their absence in the general's report on recent contact with Sinn Fein/IRA—only a basis for further discussion was evident.
An end of the legal amnesty and facilitation period in June would have gone some way to concentrating the minds of those who have the ability to bring closure on the issue of decommissioning. References to the June target date should not be misconstrued. June is both the target and deadline for product on this issue. Without that necessary progress June will signify the expiry of de Chastelain's mandate without renewal.
This order has a simple effect prolonging the amnesty period to the maximum provided for under the 1997 Act, but it must not be forgotten that this extension will not be necessary without progress in terms of product by June. I am hopeful that the Minister can reassure me that he too shares my focus and emphasis on the June deadline and the necessity for further progress by this date.
Although slow progress on this issue has been made so far, I share, with the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, the hope that by June we shall be in a position where full implementation of the Belfast agreement is a reality and there is closure on the issue of decommissioning.
Lord Renton: My Lords, your Lordships may be surprised at my taking part in a debate on Northern Ireland at all for it is nearly 40 years since I had a ministerial responsibility before there was a Northern Ireland Office and when the Home Office was the link between the Stormont government and the United Kingdom government. For three and a half years of that time I played a part in forming that link. Since then I have been to Northern Ireland a number of times and I have taken a close interest in Northern Ireland affairs. I should like to say first of all that I naturally support all the efforts that the Government are making.
I have only two points to raise, but they are fundamental. First, I remain of the opinion I formed when I had that responsibility many years ago that the main reason for the IRA's effectiveness is the financial help it has received, mainly from the United States. I know that British Prime Ministers from both parties have made representations to Presidents of the United States about this important and delicate matter. I do
738
not ask the Government for a specific reply today on the issue; I merely say that they should continue to concentrate on it if they wish to achieve peace in Northern Ireland.
The Government may not be in a strong position to answer my second point. We are discussing an order that specifies that decommissioning must take place by February 2002. If there has been no decommissioning by then, what sanction is there to enforce it?
Baroness Blood: My Lords, I shall not rehearse what my noble friends from Northern Ireland have said. Everyone knows that Northern Ireland is awash with guns, but we are also awash with words. I do not oppose the order. We have talked about its effect. In Northern Ireland it will be viewed in two ways. One side will say, "We have pushed the deadline back almost another year", and the other side will say, "There you see, they are winning again".
We have to be careful about what we say because in Northern Ireland words can be every bit as dangerous as guns. Less than a fortnight ago, the Secretary of State assured the people of Northern Ireland that decommissioning was on track for June. People took that on board. Now, although the process is still on track for June, there is a provision to push the date back. We have to be careful about how our words will be interpreted.
Throughout Northern Ireland we are fed a daily diet of what she said, what he said, and what it means. Will the Minister assure me that the Secretary of State will go out of his way to explain exactly what the order means to the people in Northern Ireland who are interested?
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that debates on Northern Ireland are always doom and gloom. My response is simple: why should I be ecstatic about having a normal life? I am a United Kingdom citizen, just like everybody else here. I expect to have a normal life. I do not expect to have to say that I am glad that this happened or that happened. We do not have normal life in Northern Ireland. We have gangsters, thugs and drugs and the place is awash with guns. We must do something about that. Pushing the deadline back year after year will not solve the problem. We have a saying back in Northern Ireland that nothing concentrates the mind like a hanging. We need to get to that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have participated. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for supporting the extension order, subject to his point about the date, and I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Smith, Lord Dubs and Lord Rogan, for supporting the order. I shall certainly take the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, to be very careful about what I say in my reply.
A number of noble Lords have asked why the extension should be until February next year. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, asked why we did not extend it indefinitely and the noble Lord,

739
Lord Glentoran, and others asked why we did not opt for a shorter period. The primary Act gives the Government power only to extend until February 2002. We have not abandoned June as our target date for decommissioning. But it is a target, not a deadline. That is why we need the extension order. If decommissioning is to happen, the order is essential to ensure that the necessary immunities remain in place after 19th May, when they would otherwise expire.
We are still committed to making substantial progress on decommissioning by the end of June. However, it is a voluntary process that involves loyalist paramilitaries as well as the IRA. The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported on 22nd March, just a few days ago, that the loyalists will not decommission before the IRA. We need to provide a context in which all paramilitary organisations are able to give up their weaponry. That is what the order is designed to do. We could not effectively achieve that if June was the deadline, given that the loyalists will decommission only after the IRA. In those circumstances, looking at the issue in the round, the sensible course appeared to be to extend it until February. However, I must make it clear that we are still committed to making substantial progress on decommissioning by the end of June.
Anyone who wants to know what will be achieved by the end of June should ask the commission. It is very important that credible progress is made at the earliest possible moment.
General de Chastelain has always said that he would tell us if he and his colleagues concluded that decommissioning was not going to happen. They have not yet so told us, so we think that it is worth going on.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to the pressures on the RUC and the loss of experienced officers. He is right to refer to that, but it is worth seeking some encouragement from the nearly 8,000 applications that have now been received in response to the first recruiting campaign for 240 vacancies in the new Police Service of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith, asked us to estimate when substantive decommissioning would begin. As I said, that is a matter for General de Chastelain and his commission. However, we are clear that a creditable start to decommissioning must be made soon.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith, and others asked what we would do if decommissioning was not completed by next February. As I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, the present legislation runs out in February. It would be for Parliament to consider nearer the time what provision, if any, should apply for decommissioning thereafter. It is too soon to speculate today on what we would do.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, invited me to speculate about certain contingencies and asked what plans the Government have made. He also asked me to take inspiration from the 1979 Conservative Party manifesto. With regret, I fear that I must decline that tempting invitation.
740
The noble Lord also referred to the sealing of the border in certain circumstances. I assure him that the Government have no intention of taking any risks with security and do not in any way underestimate the continuing threat. That is why we still have 13,500 troops in Northern Ireland. That is considerably more than the 8,000 that we would require for a normal peacetime garrison.
Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the difficulty of sealing the border for any length of time or the disruption that would be caused to normal social and economic life. It would be an admission of defeat if such a measure became a routine part of life in Northern Ireland.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister at this late stage in his speech. I thought that I had made it clear that the Irish army and police had sealed the frontier efficiently. I simply said that what they can do on one occasion, surely they can do with equal efficiency on another.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I entirely understood that point. My response was that it would be a great disruption of normal life for Northern Ireland if sealing the border in those circumstances became the norm.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, talked about smuggling and the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, referred to organised crime. Since September 2000, my right honourable friend Adam Ingram, the Minister of State, has been chairing a task force to counter the threat of organised crime in Northern Ireland. The work of that task force is already well under way.
Last week a number of important developments took place. On 23rd March, my right honourable friend in another place launched the first threat assessment of organised crime and announced the strategy that is being adopted to confront that threat. On 19th March he announced a small business payment assistance scheme and introduced the Northern Ireland launch of a nationwide initiative, "Bank Note Watch". A private sector consultation exercise was also initiated.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, asked whether it was true that no weapons had been destroyed in the course of the decommissioning process. It is not quite true. In December 1998, the Loyalist Volunteer Force destroyed some weapons under the supervision of the commission. The commission described it as,
"a small but significant quantity".
Nevertheless, the fundamental point that the noble Baroness made is that progress has been very disappointing. That obviously remains true.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, made the point that the non-renewal of the amnesty will mean the end of the de Chastelain mandate. That is not so. The mandate of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning flows from the international agreement—Treaty 54 of 1997—between the United Kingdom and the Republic

741
of Ireland. The Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 and this series of amnesty orders have no direct bearing on the establishment of the de Chastelain commission. I hope that I have answered all the main points raised during the course of this short debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armed Forces Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill
4.2 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, 1 beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Gardner of Parkes) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Application of Part 5 of the Care Standards Act 2000]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1. line 9, leave out "ordinarily".
The noble Lord said: I begin this Committee stage by expressing the hope that the Government will still concede the amendment that they would have conceded had a general election been called yesterday for 3rd May. However, that may be a pious hope.
In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2. These are probing amendments to find out what the Government mean by the phrase "ordinarily resident in Wales"—that is, who is covered and who is not.
Three, if not more, groups of children cause us some concern. The first are children born and bred in Wales but living in England. They may be fostered or in an institution, a home, a school or a hospital. We are not sure whether they fall within the purview of the commissioner. Their families may still be in Wales but the children may be in England. Of course, they could have been referred to their locations outside Wales by one of the regulated services in Wales.
Secondly, there are English children in Wales. I well remember an occasion when, as a Welsh Office Minister, I visited a special home in Powys only to find that the majority of the children there were from Birmingham. As I understand it, it is a fairly regular occurrence to find children placed by English authorities in Welsh homes or with Welsh foster parents.
Thirdly, of course, children of travellers, gypsies and so on, may be in, but not of, Wales, yet they could be described as being resident in Wales although not ordinarily so. We should have a definition of "ordinarily resident in Wales" which makes clear who is included and who is not. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am very grateful for the way in which the noble Lord has put the matter. If I may, I shall cast my response a little more widely than his question. I understand the concerns that he expressed, particularly, for example, in relation to the children of travellers or, indeed, of asylum seekers. The important point is that such children may not be ordinarily resident in the usual way in which the courts interpret that term. However—I hope that this assists the noble Lord—if those children receive services from any of the numerous bodies listed in Schedule 2B, they will, in any event, come within the commissioner's jurisdiction. As a matter of practice, we can think of very few children who would receive no services at all.
I said that I would reply more widely, and perhaps this is a convenient moment for me to do so. As we promised to do, we considered with some care the points which were put forward very constructively at the earlier stage of this Bill. My noble friend Lady Farrington has been in correspondence with a number of noble Lords.
One central—if not the most important—concern was why the commissioner should have no formal role in policies and services that do not come within the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales. I hope that it is helpful to the Committee to conclude that we have listened with some care. I am able to confirm that we intend to bring forward on Report an amendment that would empower the commissioner to consider, and make representations to the Assembly about, any matter which affects the rights or welfare of children in Wales.
I hope that the Committee will consider that to be a significant amendment and a significant step forward. We promised to consider the matter very carefully and, accordingly, we are able to give that assurance. Therefore, the commissioner will have a formal role in matters which do not fall within the devolved fields of responsibility of the National Assembly.
As I said, the intention is for the commissioner to be able, by virtue of the amendment—if your Lordships accept it—to make representations to the Assembly. He can do so yearly as part of his required annual report. If he believes that it is more appropriate, he can do so on an ad hoc basis. The Assembly would then be able to consider the commissioner's representations and make representations itself to, for example, central government by virtue of its powers under Section 33 of the Government of Wales Act.
We shall also bring forward amendments to ensure that the commissioner is able to exercise discretion in circumstances involving a child who has died. We have looked again at the provisions in Clause 1 about which, I believe, a question was raised. There may be some doubt about it and we intend to remove that doubt.

743
We shall also bring forward amendments to ensure that the commissioner's power to review the exercise of functions by the Assembly or by any of the Schedule 2A bodies will extend to other persons or bodies who may exercise functions on behalf of the Assembly or the bodies listed in the schedule. We intend to add community councils in Wales to the list of bodies whose exercise of functions in relation to their effect on children is subject to review by the commissioner.
I have taken a little while in giving my response because the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, was kind enough to say that he wanted to know what our proposals were. He understands that there will not now be an election in early May. Therefore, we shall have the opportunity, which I intend to take, to table those amendments. Members of the Committee will want to know when that will be done. My noble friend Lady Farrington has said on several occasions that we are more than happy to have meetings—with or without officials, as is thought appropriate—and we should be perfectly happy to have the draft amendments ready so that noble Lords can see them in plenty of time before the next stage.
I have spent some time responding to the noble Lord but I hope that that will shorten our consideration of other amendments.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: From these Benches I very much welcome the words of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. His comments suggest that on this matter at least the Government are listening, although he did not cover all of the matters about which I am concerned. There are no doubt other matters that we shall raise during this Committee stage but a substantial part of our concerns has been catered for. I am most grateful to the Government.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his announcement about changes that the Government may introduce on Report. He will be aware that we have tabled an amendment, which we shall reach shortly, on representations. We shall of course adapt our remarks in light of his announcement. Nevertheless, we hope that our contributions will help to influence his thinking and will affect the amendments that are tabled on Report.
I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of what "ordinarily resident in Wales" means in practice and for his reassurance that all who are connected with the regulated services will be covered by the commissioner. In thanking the noble and learned Lord, it gives me pleasure to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Prys-Davies: After our short discussion on amendments to this historic clause, this is an
744
appropriate moment to return to the question that I asked on Second Reading. I asked whether the Assembly was,
"fully satisfied with the terms and the effect of the Bill that is now before us?".— [Official Report, 19/2/01: col. 551.]
I believe that that is a valid question that needs to be answered, but I notice that it has not been. The explanatory note that the Welsh Office prepared does not address that issue. I believe that an answer would assist both Houses of Parliament. I submit that our response to the Bill depends to a great degree on the answer to that question.
If the Bill as currently drafted is broadly acceptable to the Assembly, which is an elected body, and if we seek stability in relation to the devolution settlement, the House should facilitate the Bill's passage. If, on the other hand, the Bill is not broadly acceptable to the Assembly, the House should amend the Bill so that it approximates more closely to the Assembly's aspirations. Parliamentary procedure in your Lordships' House, which is not an elected House, must keep up with the historic decision to devolve power to the Welsh Assembly. I suggest that the Select Committee of your Lordships' House dealing with constitutional matters would make a valuable contribution if it clarified what the approach of both Houses of Parliament should be to a Bill initiated by the Welsh Assembly. I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General would comment on that.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to my noble friend for asking that question. I believe that his question is: is the Welsh Assembly broadly satisfied with the terms and content of the Bill? I can fairly answer that question in the affirmative. I do not pretend that there is a perfect match between what the Assembly wanted and what is in the Bill but I hope that I can reassure Members of the Committee and my noble friend in particular by reciting briefly what happened.
The Health and Social Services Committee of the Assembly published its report at the end of May 2000 with its recommendations on the remit, role and functions of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. The Assembly then unanimously endorsed that report in plenary session on 7th June. That was the basis of the bid by the Assembly Cabinet to secure wider statutory powers for the commissioner. The bulk of the recommendations are reflected in the Bill, although I do not pretend that there is a perfect match.
A much wider constitutional question, which was identified by my noble friend, is involved; namely, how will further legislation that is Assembly-related or Assembly-invited be dealt with by your Lordships' House? I do not dissent from the proposition that that will be a developing area of consideration. For the

745
moment, we must come to our own conclusion. I think that I can fairly say that the Assembly is broadly content.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will appreciate that such constitutional matters arise in relation to Amendment No. 20, which I propose to move. I shall voice many of the concerns that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"CHILDREN'S AND YOUTH COMMISSIONER FOR WALES
In section 72 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14) (Children's Commissioner for Wales) for the words "Children's Commissioner for Wales" there shall be substituted "Children's and Youth Commissioner for Wales"."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 3 and the amendments grouped with it—Amendments Nos. 21 and 27—are probing amendments. The commissioner is, as we know, involved with further and higher education and is responsible for young people up to and occasionally over the age of 18 who are still in the education system. It therefore seems sensible to extend his title to cover those young people.
I suspect that I shall be told that the Children Act 1989 also covers young people of 18 and over and that the proposed change of title is inappropriate at this time, despite the disadvantages of describing young people as children when they do not regard themselves as such and might be offended by the description. The change will have to come sooner or later. I look forward to the Government's response. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I can give a reply in two stages. First, the Children's Commissioner is already in post. If we change the nomenclature now, that would simply bring about fruitless confusion, especially during this important stage in the commissioner's work. The present position is well accepted now by the media in Wales, by those who are interested generally and by the public at large. The noble Lord was right—I refer to the Children Act 1989. Mr Peter Clarke's remit will be 0 to 18, and Children's Commissioner—though I realise this is not a perfectly persuasive point among some of your Lordships—is the title used in similar offices in Europe.
Secondly, we want to cover those who are children; that is, they are not adult, not having reached the age of 18 years. The very wide consultation carried out by the Assembly was with children and young persons under the age of 18. We think the title is right, and it is well recognised now. I think it is receiving public acceptance and recognition in Wales.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I do not think there is any question but that the title is accepted in Wales. The point I was making was that the commissioner will be dealing with young people up to the age of 18, and, I
746
think, over 18 if they are still in education. I am content with the explanation of the Minister. Clearly, the Government are not going to change the commissioner's title at this stage because it is already in the Act passed last year. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Principal aim of the Commissioner]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
"(2) The Commissioner may make appropriate representations to the Secretary of State or any statutory body about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children in Wales.""
The noble Lord said: We come to the important matter of representations by the commissioner to which the Minister has already referred. The noble and learned Lord has announced that he will bring forward a suitable amendment to enable the commissioner to make representations at Report stage.
There has been constant demand for the commissioner to have the right to make direct representations to bodies outside his jurisdiction if he has good cause. I shall not trace the history of the demand—from the Health and Social Services Committee report of the Welsh Assembly through Standing Committee in another place to our own Second Reading debate. I notice that today the campaign group highlights this as one of three changes it would like to see in the Bill. The group says it would like the commissioner to have the power to consider and make appropriate representations about any matter underlined affecting the rights or welfare of children ordinarily resident in Wales. I am sure that we are all aware of the campaign group that comprises the NSPCC Cymru, Save the Children, Barnardo's Cymru and the Children's Society in Wales. They were a very important group of organisations pressing for the establishment of a commissioner.
The demand is summed up in the expression of the desire that the commissioner should have a power similar to the power of the Assembly in Section 33 of the Government of Wales Act which, I remind your Lordships, states:
"The Assembly may consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting Wales".
Our amendment seeks to meet that aspiration. The Government have certainly acknowledged that the commissioner has a right to make representations on matters outside his jurisdiction to government departments and other bodies—but informally or through the Assembly. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, whom I am pleased to see in her place, said:
"That would not give him substantive functions in non-devolved areas".—[Official Report, 19/2/01: col. 570.]
The noble and learned Lord appeared slightly more relaxed about the issue but equally firm at the end of the day in saying:
"Even if some issues are outside the statutory remit, he does not have to stay silent. If during the course of his work he receives representations about non-devolved matters, he can bring them to the attention of relevant government departments and in so doing

747
can indicate his views. He can also bring to the Assembly's attention complaints and information he receives about non-devolved matters. He can do that, of course, through the annual report to the Assembly".—[Official Report, 19/2/01; col. 542.]
That seems far away when we are dealing with what may arise, namely, urgent cases brought to the attention of the commissioner that require a response. We find that the Government appear to concede the argument and to acknowledge that such cases may arise but they are not prepared to formalise the commissioner's duty at this stage. We have received very good news that they are considering it and may bring an amendment forward at Report stage. That is necessary because most of us believe that the position should be formalised, that it should be a function of the commissioner to make representations where he feels it is necessary to the Secretary of State—which can be any Secretary of State—or any mandatory body, otherwise his approaches to them will, in our view, be too informal to merit proper attention on their part.
I cannot see why the Government cannot give the commissioner's status this extra boost in his dealings with bodies outside his jurisdiction. Certainly, it would remove the most glaring deficiency in the commissioner's relationships with bodies responsible for children in Wales but outside his remit. I am glad to welcome the decision of the Government to accept the case in essence and to bring forward a considered amendment on Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My name is attached to this amendment. It would be premature for me to make any comment having regard to the announcement by the Minister at the beginning of our deliberations. I noted, in particular, that he referred to ad hoc reporting on specific issues to the Assembly. That seems to me to meet many of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, made. The process of seeing the proposed amendment and discussing it with the Minister, as he invited us to do, is the way forward.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is very generous, and not for the first time, from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The proposed amendment is to empower the commissioner to consider and to make representations to the Assembly about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children in Wales. So it is pretty broad.
I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that one may have something quite urgent that needs an ad hoc series of representations to the Assembly.
I deal with the Assembly's position. It seems to many of us in this House that the success of the Assembly is critical to the success of the devolution settlement in Wales. There were faint hearts when we started on this journey together. The Assembly needs to grow in experience, authority and confidence. I do not say that in a patronising way. This is a very new body indeed. I think it is surprising how well it has done rather than how badly it has performed and it has not fulfilled the rather gloomy prognostications.
748
The Assembly's position is critical in the constitutional settlement and that is why it is very important, in our judgment, that the commissioner makes representations to the Assembly which, as the duly elected body, comes to its own conclusions about what representations and to whom and in what terms the Assembly wishes to exercise its powers under Section 33 of the Government of Wales Act.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: I know that church leaders in Wales of all denominations are strongly supportive both of the establishment of the Children's Commissioner in the first place and this specific amendment, which will enable the commissioner to make representations. I know that they will be glad to hear what the Minister said at the beginning of the debate, especially the Archbishop in Wales who has been concerned to communicate Welsh church anxieties to me on this issue.
Lord Prys-Davies: In the other place it seemed to me that Ministers clung to the view that the remit of the commissioner should not be extended to the non-devolved UK departments because of the terms of the settlement. I am pleased that there has been a significant shift of emphasis on the part of the Government. However, we shall have to wait to see the precise amendment. Meanwhile, for my part, I welcome the Government's decision to table an amendment, which I hope will be along the lines of Amendment No. 4.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I believe I understood the noble and learned Lord clearly this time. I dare say we shall have further illumination on Report. As I understand the position at the moment, the Government are prepared to allow the commissioner to make his representations to the Assembly about any matter that concerns him, whether that matter arises from the regulated services or anything that he may hear that comes from the non-devolved areas. Therefore he can in fact approach other departments of government or statutory bodies through the Assembly, or the Assembly will be able to do it for him.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Assembly will receive the representations from the commissioner. But I stress that the commissioner is not an elected person or body; the Assembly is. It is the Assembly therefore that ought to have the decision as to what representations to make, in what circumstances, to which department or other interested body and in what terms.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I accept what the noble and learned Lord says. However, I was asserting that the Assembly could deal with the representation, even if it related to a non-devolved area or another government department and so forth. But as we understand it now, it would be for the Assembly to decide how to deal with the commissioner's representation. We shall content ourselves with that position as we have established it and consider the matter further.

749
Of course, Amendment No. 5 asks for rather more than the Government are prepared to concede. We want the commissioner to be able to make representations to a Secretary of State, which means the head of any government department, or a statutory body, which means a local authority or any other of the bodies listed in the various schedules to this Bill. I do not believe that we shall progress much further at this stage. I shall therefore consider the matter further between now and Report. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will consider yet again the role of the commissioner as it is required, not simply by the Assembly, because they have also considered it, but also by the campaign group. Everybody in Wales who is connected with this area is anxious that the commissioner should be able to act promptly and directly if the need arises.
With those few words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
"(2) For the purpose of exercising his functions under subsection (1) above, the Commissioner shall have regard to the principles laid down in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 as ratified by Her Majesty's Government.""
The noble Lord said: As is well known, Amendment No. 5 is a "purpose clause". It amounts to an enunciation of a principle rather than a strictly legal obligation. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hooson, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Renton, for their support. I was particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Renton—who has a greater knowledge of purpose clauses than anyone else in the Chamber—supported us. He would not have put the authority of his name to this amendment if it was inappropriate in its form or intention.
Amendment No. 5 raises a point of principle which is of fundamental importance to the children's charities in Wales. It seeks to enshrine on the face of the Bill the principle that the Children's Commissioner should exercise his functions in the spirit of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I have read and re-read the report of the Health and Social Services Committee of the Welsh Assembly. It is clear to me that the intention of the report is that the commissioner should exercise his functions in the spirit of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That comes out clearly in paragraphs 19, 21 and 28 of the report, and also in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the summary. Paragraph 28 comes under the heading, Role, Remit and Functions, and reads,
"We believe that the Commissioner: should exercise his/her functions with the overarching aim of promoting and upholding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of' the Child".
However, nowhere in the Bill or in the Explanatory Notes prepared by the Welsh Office is there a single reference to the convention. That may be acceptable to the Assembly, I know not. But it was a cause of disappointment and concern to the Children in Wales campaign group.
Of course, the charities welcome Clause 3 of the Bill as it stands. But they are concerned by the omission of any reference to the convention, bearing in mind that this was a central recommendation by the Welsh Assembly. The charities are therefore looking to Parliament for a legislative framework which will encourage the Children's Commissioner at all times to work in the spirit of the UN convention. It is a modest request. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I understand that Amendment No. 8, which is in my name, is grouped with Amendment No. 5 and it may he for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to it now. I make no apology for the fact that this is an abbreviated version of an amendment introduced by Mr Win Griffiths—the Labour MP for Bridgend and a former Welsh Office Minister—during Committee stage in another place.
I shall deal first with the second part, paragraph (b), of Amendment No. 8. As I indicated during Second Reading, one of the inspirational mainsprings of the present Bill is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, which was ratified, with reservations, two years later by John Major's Government. The Health and Social Services Committee of the National Assembly for Wales and, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned., the campaigners for a child commissioner drew heavily on the convention and its effect on other countries in formulating their proposals.
There is no doubt that what the National Assembly wanted for Wales was a child commissioner whose office would meet the highest international standards. I believe that the Assembly is well aware that that is not what the Government have provided them with in this Bill.
Mr Peter Newell, the chair of the Children's Rights Alliance for England, adviser to the European Network of Ombudspeople for Children and author of Taking Children Seriously—a proposal for a children's rights commissioner has summed up his views as follows:
"This legislation does not match up to the vision of the National Assembly. It falls short of international standards and creates a commissioner who will not be on a par with existing children's ombudspeople and commissioners across Europe".
He goes on to describe the situation in Europe, stating:
"In Europe there are now at least 20 children's ombudspeople or children's rights commissioners. Some are federal; some, like the Wales Commissioner, are appointed by regional governments. But none is limited in its powers: all are empowered to monitor and report on anything which affects the human rights of children. Many are directly linked in their legislation to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and have specific duties to maintain contact with children and promote respect for children's views. The Children's Commissioner for Wales will not be on a par with these institutions or have comparably wide powers unless the Bill is amended".
Mr Newell describes the situation under the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission which was established as part of the Good Friday agreement and includes children within its general remit. Its first

751
major investigation has been into the juvenile justice system in Northern Ireland, which, I understand, is a non-devolved matter. Mr Newell asks:
"Why should the Children's Commissioner for Wales not have powers to investigate and report on the juvenile justice system in Wales?"
We all know the answer to that question. He is not allowed to deal with the non-devolved areas.
A fair point is that no one suggests that the commissioner should have decision-making powers. His basic powers are to monitor, to review and to report publicly. There is no justification for limiting those powers to devolved matters. Allowing the commissioner to monitor, to review and to report on all matters that may affect the human rights of children in Wales does not conflict with the devolution settlement.
The first part of the amendment requires the commissioner to,
"maintain direct contact with children and children's organisations".
All who have been involved with the Bill are aware of the active role played by the children's organisations that I named in relation to a previous amendment, and which have campaigned for this office. We have all acknowledged our indebtedness to them. Those organisations know a great deal about the children with whom they come into contact. Time and time again they stress the prime importance of direct contact with them at the highest level. A later amendment deals with the commissioner's right of access to children. For the moment, I am content to say that the case for the commissioner to have regard to the need for contact is so strong as to merit its inclusion on the face of the Bill.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson: The genesis of Amendment No. 5 was, as I recollect, a round-table discussion in the Bishop's Bar between the four signatories to the amendment. All four of us discovered that we were great believers in having a purpose clause. We were also great believers in making legislation as simple as possible but that certain guiding principles should illuminate any interpretation of the Bill when it becomes a statute.
The heading to Clause 2 is,
"Principal aim of the Commissioner".
The clause creates what will be Section 72A of the Care Standards Act 2000 and states:
"The principal aim of the Commissioner in exercising his functions is to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children to whom this Part applies".
That is a subjective test for the commissioner. According to his views, he must follow that principal aim. However, the amendment adds to that and provides objective tests. The amendment reads:
"For the purpose of exercising his functions under subsection (1) above, the Commissioner shall have regard to the principles laid down in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 as ratified by Her Majesty's Government".
752
He must always have that in the back of his mind when carrying out his functions. Whatever his subjective aim may be, an objective background should be borne in mind when making decisions or when the Assembly considers his report or whatever. Therefore, the four signatories to this amendment believe that is of vital importance.
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney General has been extremely co-operative and has provided great guidance on the Bill. We are all anxious to achieve an Act of Parliament that will be of great help to children in Wales and perhaps be a guiding light for other legislation. However, I believe that this particular clause, shorn of all regard to have to consult with various people, contains a set of guiding principles that are now universally accepted with certain modifications, and that is so important.
Previously there was pressure on the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, perhaps due to a lack of time, that meant that we did not consider in depth the need for a purpose clause of this kind. Now that that pressure has been removed I am sure that he will agree that there is great value in a purpose clause of this kind. The House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for drafting the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, correctly pointed out, Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 go together although they are not exactly the same. The first amendment, which was the product of late-night deliberations and which was signed by four noble Lords—none of whom has resiled—in effect directs the commissioner to have regard to the principles laid down in the United Nations convention. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is right in saying that the second amendment is different. In that case, the commissioner's functions are to have regard to the need to promote compliance, which is slightly different, and to,
"maintain direct contact with children and children's organisations",
although he put them the other way round.
The United Nations convention, of course, is not part of domestic law. I sympathise with what has been said and I think I can assist, not by accepting the amendment because it is not necessary, but simply by pointing out what has happened so far. The advertisement for the commissioner, who has already been in post for a little while, was not drafted by me. I am sorry to use these inelegant words. It reads:
"The job purpose: the Commissioner will promote the rights and welfare of children and young persons, and people who are in receipt of services regulated under the Care Standards Act".
Essentially one is referring there, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, to Clause 72A as it will become, but it is important to go further. I will, if I may, read the basis on which the commissioner is appointed:
"It is envisaged that the principles in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child will he one of the matters to which the commissioner will have regard in the exercise of his functions".

753
So it is there. That is the job purpose. As regards person specification—again I did not write this—the essential requirements include the ability, first, to apply the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; secondly, the Human Rights Act 1998, secondly, and the principles of equal opportunities across the range of activities encompassed in his office. Therefore he is in post on those bases.
The other aspect of Amendment No. 8 is also dealt with in that same document which was the basis of the appointment; namely:
"To advise appropriate statutory and non-statutory organisations that complement the functions of the Children's Commissioner, including local authorities and health services, Childline, Samaritans, Citizen's Advice Bureaux and local advocacy schemes".
That was specifically included in the advertisement which led to the appointment of Mr. Clarke. To bring the matter even more up to date, my understanding is that the Assembly has already gone out to consultation on proposals for regulations, including the first part of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, relating to the commissioner's contact and consultation with children and young people.
I do not think there is really anything between us, but I simply say that the UN convention is not part of domestic legislation. It would be decidedly odd to find it in this Bill and in no other.
Lord Hooson: Is the noble and learned Lord really saying that the second part of an advertisement for a commissioner's job will satisfy those who think that the purpose clause in this Bill should have the effect of drawing the attention of the commissioner, whoever he may be, in the future, perhaps when the advertisement may have been changed?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not think it will satisfy those people who are wedded to purpose clauses. I am not myself wedded to them, but I sympathise with the stance that has been adopted. The commissioner is working on the basis that these are indeed his obligations. I find it inconceivable that any subsequent commissioner—because this is a seven-year non-renewable term—could possibly be appointed on less onerous terms. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I do not suppose it will satisfy those who like to have purpose clauses. My only point was to try to be helpful by showing that this is how the man is working at the moment. It is part of the basis on which he was appointed.
Lord Renton: I must apologise to your Lordships for not having been here when the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, moved Amendment No. 5, to which my name is attached. Not having been here for the whole of the discussion on Amendments Nos. 5 and 8, I may have missed a point. However, I should like to point out that Clause 2 as it stands states that the principal aim of the commissioner should be to promote the rights and welfare of children.
That therefore will become part of the law. But I suggest that any indirect obligations placed upon the commissioner, but not included in this Bill, would not
754
have the same effect as a statement in Clause 2, which would become part of the law and therefore a direct obligation, such as is proposed in these two Amendments Nos. 5 and 8.
I am not asking the noble and learned Lord for an immediate reply on this, but I assume that he would wish to consider this important matter further between now and Report stage. I would ask him to consider the need—not merely the desirability—to have in the Bill a clear statement setting out the rights of the child.
Lord Northbourne: Perhaps I may intervene at this particular moment to speak against the amendment. It seems to me that the wording, as set out in Clause 2, is wider than it would be if it were restricted by the amendment. I suppose it is unthinkable that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child should by any chance be wrong. If we say that we have got to obey it, then we have to obey the detail of it. Surely it is important for the commissioner to have a general obligation to promote the rights and welfare of the child. He will follow the Charter, provided he is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the child.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, not for the first time, has put it more elegantly than I managed to do. I sought to say that he has his contractual obligations on the basis of what I have read out There is no benefit to be had from the amendments that have been put forward, because we all recognise that these are his obligations. The description of the principal aim in Section 72A, as I hope it will become, is absolutely appropriate for our present purposes.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his comments on both the purpose clause put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and his co-signatories and on the amendment that I have put forward. I am certainly impressed by the fact that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, although ratified by Her Majesty's Government, is not in fact part of our domestic law. I should have thought, with due respect to your Lordships, bearing in mind that I am not myself a lawyer, that if we were to accept the UN convention into domestic law, we would wish to discuss it in considerable detail.
Having read the convention, I know that it is a very substantial document. If I were to be pushed on my amendment and asked to choose between the particular form of words used in Amendment No. 8—namely, that the commissioner should have regard to the need to promote compliance with the UN convention—or the version chosen by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, to have regard to the principles, I think that the objective of having regard to the principles would lie more easily with the fact that this convention is not part of our domestic law, and would furthermore involve the commissioner in rather less onerous, indeed burdensome, duties than promoting compliance with the convention would involve.
I am also reassured by the fact that there was reference to the convention in the advertisement for the post of commissioner. Clearly, there are echoes of

755
both amendments in that advertisement, despite the fact that its wording is not as facile as the noble and learned Lord the Attorney General would wish. Nevertheless, the point is that the convention is covered in that job advertisement. That pleases me and I cannot see how the Government can accept either amendment without the convention being part of domestic law. Surely, its adoption into domestic law should come first.
I am also pleased to hear that the Assembly is consulting on subsection (a) of my Amendment No. 8, which requires the commissioner to,
"have regard to the need to … maintain direct contact with children and children's organisations".
I am sure your Lordships would agree that the campaign group and its members are familiar with the problems of children. It has contributed significantly to the demand for the Bill and the office of the commissioner. It has stressed the need for direct contact with children at all levels and we shall return to that point when we discuss later amendments.
5 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am moved to say that the reference to the convention not being part of English law seems irrelevant. All the amendments seek to do is to lay upon the commissioner the duty to have regard to the principles in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, or to promote compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
If the wording was that the commissioner shall "promote the principles of the Ten Commandments" or have regard to their compliance, that would be perfectly all right. There is no reason why one should not state in such a way some form of aspiration or objective rule, as my noble friend Lord Hooson said.
An objective standard is being called for in these amendments and I support them.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have spoken in favour of the amendment and I shall comment on the arguments advanced against it by my noble and learned friend the Attorney General.
First, he suggested that as the UN convention has not been incorporated in UK law, the amendment would be inappropriate. With all due deference to my noble and learned friend, I am not sure that that is correct. I recall that the Welsh Assembly was placed under a duty to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights before the convention was in force as part of UK domestic law. Therefore, I should like to reflect on that point.
Secondly, my noble and learned friend suggested that as the United Nations is mentioned in the advertisement for the post of commissioner, we should be content. That merely reflects the thinking of the Assembly at this point in time. That may not necessarily be the thinking of the Assembly in the future. The amendment recognises the fact that the
756
principle should be an enduring one and therefore should be incorporated in the legislation and not merely left to an advertisement or administrative arrangement which can be altered to meet changing conditions and circumstances. Therefore, I do not find my noble and learned friend's reply to my amendment convincing.
Thirdly, there is a distinction between this amendment and that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. Amendment No. 5 is clearly intended to be no more than a purpose clause setting out an objective and principle and not seeking to enact a binding commitment.
For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but I may return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 14. at end insert—
"(2) In exercising his functions, the Commissioner shall have particular regard to the rights and responsibilities of any parents or guardians of children to whom this Part applies.""
The noble Baroness said: I regret that I was unable to be present at the Second Reading of the Bill. Unfortunately, a long-standing commitment meant that I could not be here. I support the principles of the Bill. On reading the Second Reading debate, I recognised that not only does it have the support of the Welsh Assembly but that it was given a warm welcome by all noble Lords who spoke in that debate.
I am pleased that the Government have accepted the important recommendation contained in the important report of Sir Ronald Waterhouse, in particular in respect of the events in North Wales.
My amendment is not in any way difficult to understand but it is an important point to make. I would like to believe that the importance of parents is common ground among Members of the Committee. No piece of evidence on any subject connected with social or domestic affairs does not stress the importance of parents and their role.
I am conscious that the issues which Sir Ronald Waterhouse largely addressed related to children who were removed from their parents and were in care. Nevertheless, the fact that there is no reference in the Bill to parents should be put right. In talking about parents, I am talking about "good enough" parents. Often when one talks about parents people believe that one must be talking about the most saintly individuals who never make a mistake. I expect that all of us here today are parents. All of us know that we have done things which on reflection and with hindsight we believe we could have done better. However, I am speaking of the "good enough" parents who should not be excluded.
The point about parents was raised at Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy and by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity. It was also raised in another place by my honourable friend Gerald Howarth. All stressed the point about parents,

757
and my noble friend Lord Roberts drew attention in particular to children in the Orkney Islands and in Cleveland who were removed from their parents.
I have carefully re-read what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, in winding up the debate at Second Reading and what was said in another place. I regret that in neither House of Parliament did any Government Minister refer to parents.
I also looked to see what was said in the Welsh Assembly. I understand that on 7th June 2000, when the recommendations of the Health and Social Services Committee were accepted by the Assembly, Jane Hutt, Secretary for Health and Social Services, said:
"Children's rights of participation should be key to the commissioner's role. The commissioner's agenda should be determined by children and young people themselves, rather than the providers of services. That is why we envisage a role for children and young people from the outset with the appointment procedure. That role should continue in terms of letting the commissioner know of children and young people's priorities and concerns".
She went on to say:
"Finally, the commissioner should have an impact on the full range of provision affecting all children in Wales, through raising the profile, and taking an overview, of the impact of policies, procedures and services on children. The commissioner will be able to produce reports and recommendations in the exercise of her or his functions, including an annual report to the Assembly on the position of children in Wales. She or he will be a constant reminder, including to the Assembly, of the need to give children's services the priority that they deserve".
Once again, there is no mention of parents.
We live in a world in which the old philosophies that govern parents are being questioned. In the past—perhaps before the Convention on the Rights of the Child—the main justification for protecting children was that they were different from adults because they were immature and vulnerable. It was, therefore, accepted that they required parental protection, education and supervision to ensure that they developed in such a way that when they grew up and became adults they would be able to exercise their autonomy responsibly. Today, there is a switch away from the role of parents to a theory based on the assumption that children should, as much as possible, be free to exercise choice and self-determination in all important areas of their lives. That is the other side of the coin.
I shall not open up a great debate as to which side is right. However, it is unfortunate to leave out parents in all this if the commissioner's remit under this legislation, which I support and regard as important, is to extend to all children. We are all too well aware of some cases in which social workers remove children from their parents which subsequently proves to be a mistake, and other cases in which they should be rather more assiduous and remove the children but fail to do so. I believe that in this very difficult area where we are dealing with many different cases in which the child has parents—sometimes not—it is a mistake for the Bill to make no mention of their role.
As the Committee is aware, I believe profoundly in the importance of marriage, the family and the support of parents. One of the great dangers in society today is
758
the breakdown of marriage and the break-up of families. Where one has such important legislation one should constantly underpin and strengthen families rather than weaken them. I would have thought that that was a matter on which we could all agree. That is the principle which lies behind the amendment. I have very much at heart the best interests of all children. I cannot believe that their best interests will be served by omitting from the Bill any reference to parents. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: It is not often in the course of the past 10 years that I have been able to support the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in amendments that she has tabled and Bills she has introduced. On this occasion I rejoice with exceeding great joy that I am able and eager to do so. I support her lock, stock and barrel; hook, line and sinker; horse, foot and guns. It is obvious that the form of words of the amendment gives rise to tricky moments. It would be rather difficult to define in law,
"the rights and responsibilities of any parents",
but we all know what we mean. In many cases the parents might be unknown or untraceable. I was relieved to find in the amendment the word "any". That allows one to bypass almost all causes of contention, even in the wording of the amendment itself. I hope that my noble and learned friend is able to welcome the amendment and give it a fair wind.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: I, too, rise to support Amendment No. 6 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. No one in this House has a greater reputation as a lighter for the rights of parents and the importance of the position of the family in society than the noble Baroness. Although we may have disagreed about other matters, I, too, rejoice and agree with her on this matter. It is widely accepted by those who are concerned with child protection that, wherever possible, the best setting in which a child can grow up is the family where it is looked after by the parents. Parents have a unique role. However, there are circumstances in which parents cannot carry out their usual responsibilities. When that happens parents should not also forfeit their right to have their views considered. For that reason I believe it is desirable that reference should be made on the face of the Bill to the need for the commissioner to have particular regard to parents' rights and responsibilities.
Although families vary in type and parents do not own their children they should not be left out of the picture when the fate of their children is at stake, and I should like to be reassured that they never will be by the children's commissioner for Wales.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I, too, support this amendment. Casting my mind back to the Orkney abuse cases, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred, and the Ayrshire abuse cases which occurred at about the same time in Scotland, the trouble was that there was no commissioner for children and nobody to whom the parents could turn.

759
In one case in Ayrshire the mother of children who had been removed on the flimsiest excuse by social workers contacted Members of Parliament, me and all kinds of people. There was very little that we could do about it. I believe that if at that time there had been a commissioner for children in Scotland things would not have gone as badly wrong as they did, or at least they would have been put right rather quicker. I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord will give this amendment favourable consideration.
Lord Renton: I support this amendment. I refer briefly to the use of the expression "the rights and responsibilities". We all have a broad idea of what that means, but when it comes to contesting it at law those who are challenged may very well try to place a narrow definition on those words. If at Report stage it is possible perhaps to include a cross-reference in other legislation as to what these rights and responsibilities are it will make the effect of the amendment much firmer.
The Earl of Listowel: I should also like to speak in support of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Before doing so, like many other Members of the Committee I welcome the news that the formal power of the commissioner is to be extended to all children in Wales. Most child abuse occurs in families. I believe that there is a danger of going from one extreme to another—from ignoring the voice of the child to believing that only the child can speak with any authority.
It is normally artificial to think of children's welfare in isolation from their families. It is a principle of Chinese medicine that if a child is ill it is usually best to treat the mother. If a family is living in overcrowded and damp accommodation or, perhaps more to the point, parents are worried about delays in receiving housing benefit, that does not affect the child but it worries the parents, which will impact adversely on the well-being of the child. There is at least one country in the world that has a commissioner for the family rather than for children. It is important to bear that in mind. Of course, the interests of the child and family are on occasion very divergent but, normally, supporting the family is important in supporting the child.
Lord Northbourne: I should like to support the amendment. As I know so well the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, I suspect that he will either accept the amendment or will have a jolly good reason for not doing so. Therefore, I would rather listen to what he has to say.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: It may be superfluous, but I should like briefly to support the amendment. As I believe the noble and learned Lord knows, my experience in this field comes from defending the rights, if they can be called that, of mentally handicapped people in this country, where it appears that the pendulum has swung too far in favour of officialdom and the decisions of the Home Office and
760
others and where sufficient attention has not been paid over recent years to the rights and interests of families and parents. In that respect, I take the opportunity to congratulate the Government on their White Paper, Valuing People, produced under the auspices of Mr Hutton in another place.
I have not had a great deal to do with the Bill. However, I can recognise when the pendulum has swung too far in favour of the decisions of officialdom when I come to read the Bill and the Explanatory Notes, which do not actually mention the word "parents". I feel sure that my noble friend Lady Young is on to something here and I very much hope that the Government can accept the spirit of her amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to support the amendment. We should all remember that parents have the great responsibility of bringing up the next generation. It is upon the proper upbringing of the next generation that the welfare of the country as a whole stands. It is important that they should have as much support and guidance as possible. We all make mistakes. We all need help as parents and some need more help than others. I hope that in his functions the commissioner will do all he can to help parents to bring up their children properly.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My noble friend Lady Young was quite right in saying that I drew attention to this area of possible concern during our Second Reading debate on 19th February when I said:
"Some may feel a little uncomfortable with the possible implications here. There is the threat of an overweening bureaucracy, thrusting confusedly in all kinds of directions and interfering unnecessarily in all kinds of areas, including normal family life and normal child-parent relationships".
I went on to talk about the Orkney children scandal of 1991 and the Cleveland fiasco, as I called it. I concluded by quoting the hope expressed by Sir William Utting that,
"the rights of children and the rights and responsibilities of parents prove mutually supportive".—[Official Report. 19/2/01; col. 545.]
That is very much our fervent hope. But there have been occasions when officials have ridden roughshod over parental rights and responsibilities.
It is clearly important that those rights and responsibilities should always be considered. Indeed, they should be in the forefront, especially when a child is taken from his or her parents' care and placed elsewhere. There is a tendency for society to regard those in authority in social services as near infallible and their provision for children as infinitely superior to the provision previously made for them at home. Social workers and their judgment are trusted implicitly. I have a good deal of sympathy with what was said by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. Sometimes parents do not know to whom to turn. We know to our cost that there have been failures which the Government and the Bill seek to prevent from recurring.
Therefore, in this context, I should have thought that my noble friend's amendment would certainly not be too onerous an addition. It simply requires the

761
commissioner to have regard to the rights and responsibilities of parents or guardians. The Government may well say, "Of course he will have such regard'', to which we should say, "Why not place the amendment on the face of the Bill? It would remind the commissioner of its importance". What we want is an effective commissioner who does not supplant the role of parents. It must be someone in whom the parents have confidence.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will forgive me if I start with a personal response. There can be no time at which I am more aware of the role and responsibility of parents than at this moment and on this day, as we wait for one of our sons and our daughter-in-law to have their first child. I can assure the noble Baroness that the only problem she may have later in our proceedings is if I suddenly leap up and shout in a very disrespectful way "yippee".
There is common ground between us about the importance of parents and the role that they play. We have no doubt about that. We intend to bring forward an amendment on Report that will enable the commissioner to make representations to the Assembly about aspects of family life that may affect children's rights or their welfare. I want to say a few words about that welfare aspect. The expectation is that, in exercising any of his functions, the commissioner would find it impossible to perform the function of looking to the welfare of children without taking a proper and balanced view of all aspects and all relevant issues.
As the Conservative Assembly member, David Melding, has clarified, a fully effective Children's Commissioner will offer great support to parents without undermining the responsibility of the family in any way. The Bill will enable that to happen. In the Assembly debate on 7th June last year it was accepted that it was not the intention that the commissioner should exercise functions in respect of families, such as investigation, although it might be appropriate for the commissioner to comment on aspects of family life that affect children.
Perhaps I may turn to the contributions made during the debate. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Roberts of Conwy, referred to individual cases. It is very important indeed not to see the role of the Children's Commissioner in isolation from the other improvements being made to the system; namely, it becomes a part of the whole. It is therefore vital that the role of the Children's Commissioner is not seen as a role in which parents will present individual cases, in particular during a process of review that will take its proper course through the legal system, in order to seek the commissioner to intervene on an individual basis.
Having said that, it is quite clearly the case, from what has been said previously, that we intend that the commissioner should be able to comment on the broad strategy framework and policy in which those decisions take place. I hope that I have managed to
762
separate and distinguish the two functions because it would be a mistake for noble Lords to envisage the role of the Children's Commissioner as one in which he would intervene in individual cases. That would then go against the interests not only of the children concerned but also of the parents because it would muddy the waters and could adversely affect a proper decision being reached through the due legal process.
It has never been the intention of the Government that the commissioner should interfere in family life. He will have no investigative, review or monitoring powers in respect of parents or guardians. He is there to promote and safeguard the rights—a point to which noble Lords have referred when speaking to other amendments—and the welfare of children.
I hope that, in the light of this response, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will not wish to press her amendment because we do not consider that it is appropriate. However, we fully recognise that, in performing his tasks, the commissioner will have to have regard to the unity of family life when examining the welfare of children in their families.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying what a pleasure it is to be able to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and to thank him for his congratulations on the Government's White Paper.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she give the Committee an assurance that the forthcoming government amendment will refer, in terms, to what she has just said about the unity of family life?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In bringing forward the amendment, we shall want to ensure that the commissioner is able to make representations about aspects of family life that may affect children's rights and welfare. Obviously the context of "family life" and the welfare of children within families is indistinguishable from that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: This could be a very big day for the noble Baroness. I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in hoping that all goes well for her family.
We welcome the prospect of a government amendment dealing with the position of parents and their rights and responsibilities. We shall have to wait to see exactly how the amendment is drafted before we can comment any further on it.
The matter that seems to have emerged in the course of our debate on this amendment is the question of parents who have been falsely accused of something and who then feel powerless to object to it. That lies behind many of the comments made by noble Lords. It puts a new slant on the rights and responsibilities of parents that I did not fully appreciate when the amendment was first moved. I hope that, when they come to draft their amendment, the Government will

763
consider the concerns that have been voiced on this. We shall then be able to discuss the issue more fully on Report.
Baroness Young: First, I thank all noble Lords who have most kindly supported me on this amendment, and of course I offer my warmest congratulations and good wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. We shall compete in the numbers of our grandchildren and discuss that outside the Chamber. I am delighted for her and I hope that all goes well.
I was particularly pleased to gain support from all sides of the Committee because that support demonstrates a recognition of what I believe to be a very serious issue. I take entirely the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Indeed, the same point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, as well as by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, particularly in relation to the case in the Orkneys. The parents affected did not feel that there was anyone to whom they could turn to seek redress when their children were taken away from them. That is an extremely important point.
The cases over recent years where children have been wrongly removed from their parents have become very well known because they caused a great deal of controversy and concern. However, I was not considering only those cases, but those of other parents who encounter difficulties long before they have reached the position where the police or social workers arrive in the early hours of the morning to remove their children; namely, cases perhaps less serious than those which took place in the Orkneys, in north-east England and, I believe, in Ayrshire. Other cases do not reach that point; I am thinking here of parents who are good enough, but are perhaps thought to be inadequate by social workers. In the context of such circumstances, parents need to have their views considered.
That is all I am asking for in this amendment. It is difficult to give an account of what might happen in such cases, but I am sure that all noble Lords can imagine how, in this important but difficult world, situations may arise where the needs of the parents need to be taken into account.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for giving way. I hope that it will be helpful to the Committee if I say now that I would not like to have given any impression at all that the role of the Children's Commissioner would be to intervene in individual cases, but rather to give advice on the policy framework in which individual judgments and cases take place.
Baroness Young: I thank the noble Baroness for making the position absolutely clear. However, when one reads exactly what is set out in Clause 2 as regards the role of the commissioner, it states the following:
"The principal aim of the Commissioner in exercising his functions is to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children to whom this Part applies".
764
There is no mention of parents.
I accept that my amendment may not be drafted properly; in my experience amendments seldom are, whether in government or in opposition. I would withdraw the amendment if I thought that I could be given an undertaking from the noble Baroness that she would take it away and redraft it so that it would meet the concerns of the Government. While I accept that I may not have understood the detail of the argument, I must say to her in all honesty that the government amendment on children's rights and welfare to be brought forward at the next stage and then to go on to the Welsh Assembly—I may have misunderstood her on this last point—does not seem to meet the case.
The noble Baroness came far closer to meeting my amendment in her final remarks when she said that the commissioner will have to have regard to the "unity of family life". I am at a loss to understand why we cannot use the word "parents", which would be understood by everyone concerned. It is because I am uncertain about the Government's position on this that I should like to hear from the noble Baroness whether, were I to withdraw my amendment, she would bring back an amendment redrafted so as to include parents.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I can give an undertaking to take away the noble Baroness's amendment and read it carefully; but I cannot give an undertaking to include the word "parents" in the government amendment, simply because the ultimate responsibility of the commissioner is to have paramount concern for the welfare of children. I hope I have made it absolutely clear that, in considering the welfare of children, it is obvious that consideration must also be given to the needs and welfare of children in the family. The noble Baroness is pressing me a little too far and I should not like to be misleading. I do not think that there is much between us. I would be extremely happy to talk to the noble Baroness between now and Report stage.
Baroness Young: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. I am sorry, I simply do not understand how one can consider the rights and welfare of children without, in some cases, considering the position of parents. It does not add up.
In view of the offer made by the noble Baroness, I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I must be quite clear that if a suitable amendment which does include parents is not brought forward, I shall re-table my amendment at Report stage. I am quite certain that the noble Baroness—and, I hope very much, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams—will take account of the fact that everyone who has spoken to the amendment has supported it. Even if the wording is not quite right—and I can accept that—there is general support throughout the House for including something about parents. It seems to me that, apart from anyone else, we owe it to the parents of Wales. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Review of exercise of functions of Assembly and other persons]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 22, at end insert "primary or"
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 7 is quite clear: it is to enable the Commissioner to comment on primary as well as secondary legislation as it may affect children in Wales.
As I suggested at Second Reading, it struck me as singularly odd that, as things stand, the Commissioner could not comment on this Bill, except, of course, through the Assembly. The Assembly has an opportunity to comment on the Government's legislative programme at the start of a parliamentary session, but that opportunity is primarily for the benefit of Assembly members. If past experience is anything to go by, the programme as outlined by the Secretary of State after the Queen's Speech is very much in draft form with very little detail available.
As I see it, the commissioner will have an interest in many Bills relating to his areas of overview and supervision—local government Bills, education Bills, health Bills and so on. As I understand it, he will not be able to give his views on such Bills direct to Ministers as he and they may wish him to do; they will have to be filtered through the Assembly.
I have read the draft protocol on the Assembly's proposals for primary legislation, which was published in February last year but is still not agreed. The Secretary of State, Mr Paul Murphy, said that it was "very close to completion" on 16th January this year, but it is still not finalised.
The protocol is not very illuminating on this issue, except that the introduction makes clear that references to the Assembly mean references to its officials as well. I take it from earlier proceedings today that the commissioner is, of course, an official or an officer of the Assembly. So I assume that the commissioner may have an input into primary legislation at various stages, but acting through the Assembly.
However, this is not clear because the Bill refers specifically to subordinate legislation only. The commissioner, therefore, if he puts forward comments on primary legislative proposals, may well be told that consideration of primary legislation is beyond his remit.
One is tempted to ask for the Government's view on this and whether the commissioner can comment on Green Papers and White Papers—or will he be expected to do that through the Assembly? I cannot see any good reason for limiting the commissioner to subordinate legislation specifically as proposed in the Bill. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Sharp eyes in BBC Wales drew to my attention at lunchtime the press release
766
issued today by the Wales Office, in which Mr David Hanson, the Wales Office Minister, is quoted as saying,
"we intend asking Parliament to amend the Bill to empower the Commissioner to consider and make representations to the Assembly about any matter that affects the rights or welfare of children in Wales"—
the very point made by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in opening.
The press release also refers to the new function as being "potentially very wide". It seems to me that that wording can certainly cover the concerns outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. If it is potentially very wide, any matter must include the right to comment on primary legislation.
Lord Prys-Davies: As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, pointed out, it is noteworthy that the subsection refers to the making of subordinate legislation but nowhere does it refer to primary legislation. This is in contrast to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which has the right to propose any measures which it feels ought to be taken to protect the human rights of children. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has raised an important question which deserves sympathetic consideration by the Government.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I agree that the question is important, but the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is correct on two grounds. First, the rubric on Clause 3, at page 2 of the Bill, is:
"Review of exercise of functions of Assembly and other persons".
If we go to Section 72B—the amendment is concerned with line 22—we see:
"The Commissioner may review the effect on children to whom this Part applies of—
(a) the exercise or proposed exercise by the Assembly of any function".
The Assembly has no function in passing primary legislation; it can deal only with secondary legislation.
I come back to the analysis of the noble Lord. Lord Thomas. If the Committee agrees, we will put the empowering clause into the Bill on Report. This will empower the commissioner to consider and make representations to the Assembly about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children in Wales. That would plainly entitle the commissioner to make representations to the Assembly about the effect of primary legislation on Wales. But, of course, the lawmaking body for primary legislation under the Government of Wales Act remains with this Parliament in Westminster. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is absolutely right.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord about his comment on the function of the Assembly—or, rather, the lack of function—in relation to primary legislation. The Assembly does have the function of listening to the Government's legislative programme, which is usually outlined by the Secretary of State; it can also—as clearly has happened

767
with this Bill—be considered in a plenary session of the Assembly; and it can be considered by a committee of the Assembly. Although the Assembly does not have the power to make primary legislation—that power belongs to Westminster—such a committee could have a considerable input into the process. The protocol relating to the Assembly's proposals for primary legislation is still in draft form; nevertheless, it anticipates involving subject committees of the Assembly in amendments to Bills and so on. So, although there may not be a function so far as primary legislation is concerned, the Assembly has its role in the preparation of primary legislation on occasion, and indeed in amending primary legislation.
We are dealing with a particular Welsh Bill at the moment, but clearly the commissioner will have an interest in Bills relating to local government, education and other areas where he has an overview. The commissioner may well express his views through the Assembly and the Assembly may then transmit those views to Ministers and those preparing legislation that will affect the Children's Commissioner's field of supervision and overview. Is not that the case? If it is, why is the Bill so specific in stating that the commissioner's function is limited to subordinate legislation only?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Because that is the only power that the Assembly has. The answer to the noble Lord's question can be seen if we consider how the subparagraph would read were his amendment to be successful; namely,
"The commissioner may review the effect on children to whom this Part applies of … the exercise or proposed exercise by the Assembly of any function, including the making or proposed making of",
"any primary",
"or subordinate legislation".
The Assembly has no function to make or propose to make any primary legislation.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: The noble and learned Lord realises that I must answer: "But, of course, Westminster has". The commissioner will be dealing with the contents of legislation passed in this Parliament in relation to Wales and as it affects children in Wales. Surely that will be the position.
The obverse of that particular coin is that the commissioner can comment on subordinate legislation—the legislative sphere of the Assembly, which funds and appoints the commissioner—but by using the phrase "subordinate legislation" we appear to be debarring the commissioner from commenting on primary legislation that may well affect him and the children of Wales.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I return to the analysis by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas: there is no function of the Assembly that can include or comprehend the making of primary legislation. The amendment, were it to be passed, would not be consistent with the Government of Wales Act. However, the amendment
768
that we have discussed and are bringing forward will entitle the commissioner, if he so wishes, to make representations to the Assembly about the effect on children in Wales of primary legislation.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that last sentence in particular. It clarifies the situation and the main point that I sought to make. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, and beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, leave out lines 37 and 38.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 15 and 16.
I knew that things were going along far too cosily between the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and myself. At this point I must differ on the primary legislative power of the Assembly. This first Bill relating entirely to Wales gives primary legislative power to the Assembly in the sense that, under proposed new Section 72B(2), the Assembly can amend the primary legislation that is already in place.
This is a Henry VIII provision, but is subject to all kinds of limitations. Under subsection (2) the Assembly may by order (by subsidiary legislation) amend proposed new Section 72B—primary legislation—or proposed new Schedule 2A, which is also primary legislation, in the ways that are set out in the subsection. The same power to amend primary legislation is mirrored in Clause 4(9).
That power having been granted, all kinds of conditions, qualifications and limitations are placed upon it, and are set out in Clause 3(3). In relation to an order adding a person to proposed new Schedule 2A, such amendment can happen only if,
"some or all of the person's functions are in a field in which the Assembly has functions".
Subsection (6) states:
"The Assembly may not make an order under subsection (2) if the result would be that the Commissioner could review the effect of the exercise or proposed exercise of a person's function in a field in which the Assembly does not have functions".
These qualifications and limitations very much constrain and constrict the power of the Assembly to amend, by order, the principal statute.
I am left in something of a quandary in relation to these amendments as we now have the promise of further amendments being brought forward which will change the position drastically. So the limitation in the provision,
"the person's functions are in a field in which the Assembly has functions",
will presumably go.
The purpose of my amendments both to Clause 3 and to Clause 4 is to simplify the limitations placed on the Assembly by subsections (3) to (6) and those placed on it in proposed new subsections (5B) to (5E) in Clause 4. I do not know how far I can press the

769
amendment at this stage because I have not seen the amendments promised by the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was right when he identified areas of division. However, he did not identify them all. I believe that there is quite a wide division between the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, in terms of the role of the Assembly.
My noble and learned friend referred to the fact that, having considered issues raised in another place, we shall bring forward an amendment to the Bill which will empower the commissioner to consider and make representations to the Assembly about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children in Wales. I hope that when Members of the Committee see the amendment, they will agree that its spirit reflects that requirement. The new function will allow the commissioner to make representations in connection with any person or body, whether or not the Assembly has devolved responsibility for it.
Although the new clause will allow representations to be made about non-devolved issues, we remain of the view that it is appropriate for the Assembly's power in regard to secondary legislation to be exercised unilaterally only in respect of those bodies for which it has a clear responsibility—local government being a case in point. But that does not prevent other bodies being added; it merely means that, quite properly, the Assembly must first consult the Secretary of State when it has only a minority interest. Here again, we have a point upon which there are different opinions in the Committee as regards the state of affairs—or, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the desirable state of affairs—in relation to powers conferred on the Assembly.
However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is right to say that he will need to have sight of the amendment that the Government propose. I should be delighted to offer an opportunity for discussions to take place in the light of the noble Lord having had the benefit of seeing proposed government amendments between now and the Report stage.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Who could refuse such an invitation! In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 2, leave out "at least half" and insert "a proportion"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14. The amendment relates specifically to the power of the Assembly to add to the bodies in Schedule 2A. Those are the bodies that will be subject to review as to the effect of their activities on children. One wonders
770
precisely what bodies the Government have in mind as possible additions. There is a host of voluntary organisations, ranging from Scouts and Girl Guides to the Welsh League of Youth, with its 50,000 members. In passing, I am bound to say that the air has been remarkably free of scandal over the years.
Those organisations were supported by the Welsh Office for many years, and latterly by the Assembly—perhaps not as to "half' of the expenditure regarding their functions as specified in Clause 3(3), but substantially. I should have thought that there was an argument for including them in the commissioner's remit. If that argument stands, we should not have the hurdle of establishing that "half" of their expenditure is being met by the Assembly. If the organisation is supported by taxpayers through the Welsh Office, as it used to be, and now by the Assembly, that should be enough.
There are also other organisations dealing with children that have a charitable or a statutory basis; for example, the Churches, which have not always been beyond reproach in the area. The troubles of the Roman Catholic Church and the archdiocese of Cardiff will be known to some noble Lords. I shall say no more about them. Other bodies have extensive dealings with children in Wales. I have in mind the broadcasting organisations—the BBC, HT V and S4C—which are surprisingly absent from the schedule. I hope that the Government will comment on that aspect, as well as on the key point that "half" the finances of such organisations need not necessarily be derived from government or Assembly sources.
Amendment No. 14 is a replica of the preceding section in the Bill. It would give the power to amend this section or Schedule 2B to the Secretary of State, as well as the Assembly. The "Secretary of State" here means any Secretary of State, including the Secretary of State for Wales. The purpose of the amendment is to deal with cross-border issues. I hope that it will prove to be a helpful amendment. Some children who are in Wales do not easily fall into the category of "ordinarily resident in Wales". Therefore, if the Secretary of State who is responsible for providing them with services so desires it, they can he brought under the arrangements of the Children's Commissioner. Again, I cast my mind back to that particular home that I visited in Powys during my ministerial days which contained children who came predominantly from Birmingham.
As time passes, it is possible that children in non-devolved areas of government may clearly need to be brought under the commissioner's remit. I note, for example, that the Government are planning to provide some 400 additional secure training centre places for young people in custody. If any of those places are in Wales, the Government may well wish the Children's Commissioner to have a role. I shall remind the noble and learned Lord of the words in the White Paper. I quote from paragraph 2.14 at page 32, which says:
"We also plan over the next five years to build 400 additional secure training centre places, providing intensive supervision and high quality programmes for young people in custody. As far as

771
possible, these places will be near to offenders' home areas so that effective links can he made with education and other services which will deal with them after release".
Surely it would make sense in such cases for the Children's Commissioner to have some oversight while children are in those secure training centre places, which may well be local authority establishments. He would then be in a better position to talk about their lives and the services available to them thereafter. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the noble Lord pointed out, Amendment No. 11 would allow the Assembly to subject additional bodies in the future to the function of review by the commissioner. That would occur without the Secretary of State's consent, provided that at least some funding—however minuscule—came from the Assembly, and even though the relevant body's involvement in the areas of devolved responsibility might also be negligible. We do not find that proposal acceptable. At present, the order-making power to add bodies requires the Secretary of State's consent if less than half the body's funding is provided by the Assembly. I believe that we are dealing with a difference of approach. Our policy is that the commissioner's main field of jurisdiction should be in respect of bodies that have functions within the Assembly's devolved fields of responsibility. That is my objection to Amendment No. 11.
Amendment No. 14 would give the Secretary of State power to amend, add to or delete from the list of bodies subject to review and to monitoring arrangements without reference to the Assembly and without having to satisfy any criteria. Again, I do not believe that that can be right. If carried, the amendment would not be consistent with giving the Assembly maximum autonomy and discretion in secondary legislation. It would be a recipe for confusion. Under the amendment, the Secretary of State might make changes with which the Assembly disagreed—or, indeed, vice versa—and each might try to overturn the changes introduced by the other.
I do not believe that Amendments Nos. 11 and 14 represent the way forward. I appreciate that these amendments were tabled before I made the announcement earlier this afternoon; namely, that, if our amendment is accepted, the commissioner would be able in the future to consider and make representations to the Assembly about any matter affecting children in Wales. Therefore, he would have the wider locus, but not one that followed the route proposed by these amendments.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's comments. As regards Amendment No. 11, I was trying to be as helpful as I possibly could. It seems to me that the Assembly would have to investigate a body's finances and even establish that half its expenditure was supported by the Assembly. However, I propose simply that if taxpayers' money is allocated to an organisation via the Assembly, it should be allocated to those bodies that are subject to review by the Children's
772
Commissioner. However, the Government are content with their proposition and do not consider that my proposal improves it.
As regards Amendment No. 14, I seek to deal with cross-border issues where they arise and where it might be the wish of a Secretary of State to place particular children in Wales within the jurisdiction of the Children's Commissioner.
I mentioned the situation with regard to secure training places for young people in custody. It is not inconceivable that as that proposal develops—it involves education, training and other matters, all areas in which the commissioner is involved—a Secretary of State, rather than the Assembly, might wish the commissioner to have oversight of such young people in Wales. Nevertheless, I hear what the Government say and clearly my views are not acceptable to them. I am not minded to press them at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 12, leave out "by members of the public"
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. I think that I know what the Government are anxious to avoid; namely, an overlap between the commissioner and local government and health ombudsmen. I agree that that would be regrettable. I note that the police are excluded from the measure. There is no possibility of the Assembly adding them to the schedule.
The noble and learned Lord will be aware from his reading of the Waterhouse report, Lost in Care, and from other knowledge that when abuse occurs on a significant scale no one is above suspicion. Rumours abound. Even the police and the inspectorate may be alleged to be implicated. The question remains: how best is the matter dealt with? How do the commissioner and the Assembly deal with it? I am not at all certain that the best course is necessarily to exclude investigators and supervisors from the commissioner's overview. There is need for constant vigilance in this sphere. One is left with the question: quis custodet ipsos Custodes? I am sure that the commissioner fulfils that brief well. He should certainly not be excluded from it. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord is right as regards our thinking on this aspect. The Bill as it stands prevents the commissioner from reviewing the activities of other bodies set up to deal with complaints by members of the public or from monitoring investigations by such bodies. There is a very similar provision in Schedule 9 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 which relates to the Welsh Administration Ombudsman. It is sensible that there should not be confusion between the roles of broadly similar bodies.
However, on the wide-ranging—in terms of consequence—amendment to which I have already spoken, the commissioner will be able to consider and make representations to the Assembly about other

773
investigative bodies in so far as they may be involved in matters that affect the rights or welfare of children in Wales. I believe that that would meet the noble Lord's point; namely, that, where appropriate, representations could be made to the Assembly but that there would not be a duplication of function. I believe that both he and I seek to avoid that.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's comments. As I said, this is a probing amendment. I dare say that the new amendments that we shall see on Report will deal with the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, leave out lines 16 to 19.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 13, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 17. The amendment concentrates on the major issue of why the commissioner is confined to devolved areas and cannot operate in non-devolved areas of government. We have been given a considerable amount of enlightenment this afternoon on this issue but we still await the tabling of the Government's amendments on Report.
At present there are substantial areas where children are involved which the commissioner cannot touch. I quote front subsection (6) of Clause 3 which the amendment seeks to remove. The Assembly cannot add to Schedule 2A by order,
"if the result would be that the Commissioner could review the effect of the exercise or proposed exercise of a person's function in a field in which the Assembly does not have functions".
A similar provision is contained in Clause 4 which prohibits the Assembly making orders as regards Schedule 2B.
We are all familiar with the consequences. Arrangements made by the Home Office, for example, to deal with young offenders in custody may not come within the commissioner's purview. As I said earlier, this is an important area and is likely to become more so as the Government plan for 400 secure training places in addition to those in current use.
I note the case of the 13 year-old persistent offender on page 31 of the White Paper, Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead. The boy was detained in a local authority secure unit. If that case had occurred in Wales, I assume that the commissioner would have had some oversight of it in view of his local authority responsibilities. We are concerned about young offenders. I am sure that reports such as that of the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, on Brinsford YOI are very much on our minds. I need hardly remind the Minister of Sir David's words,
"Brinsford's regime, with all the indicators we found of self-harm, fear for safety and bullying, puts most of its juvenile population at risk of harm".
It would seem peculiar if that kind of situation were to occur in Wales at some time in the future and the Children's Commissioner had no role to play. Other
774
departments of state which deal with children are the DSS, through the CSA and the benefits system, and the Ministry of Defence through the cadet forces.
We understood that it was government policy to confine the commissioner to the devolved areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, made that clear on Second Reading. She said:
"The issue of whether there is in principle any reason why the Government should not legislate for the commissioner to have a role in respect of non-devolved services is one of policy rather than constitution".—[0fficial Report, 19/2/01: col. 570.]
Why have the Government adopted that policy? I pointed out at Second Reading that Section 7 of the Welsh Language Act 1993 empowers the Welsh Language Board to give notice of its requirement to any public body operating in Wales, whether devolved or not. The commissioner could have been similarly empowered, but he has not been. Reference has also been made to Section 68 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which creates the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The legal opinion obtained by the campaign group is that the function of that commissioner is in no way limited to transferred powers alone or even to transferred and reserved powers. It is a powerful body whose first target is the juvenile justice system, which is a reserved area.
There is no doubt that the Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee had such a powerful commissioner in mind. It said as much in its report. As we have not quoted the report very much this evening, I think that paragraph 29 merits inclusion in the record. It says:
"We have given consideration as to whether the Commissioner's remit should include policy and services that affect children in Wales but for which responsibility has not been devolved to the Assembly, such as the benefit system. We believe that such jurisdiction would he desirable to promote the rights and welfare of children in Wales. The widest possible functions in respect of non-devolved policies and services should be explored and, as a minimum, the Commissioner should be able to consider and make representations in respect of any non-devolved matters affecting children in Wales in a way similar to the Assembly's right under section 33 of the Government of Wales Act, which is an exercise in respect of non-devolved functions. However, we recognise that such a proposal would be subject to negotiation with the UK Government".
That negotiation has clearly been going on and the Government appear to have listened. There are all sorts of possibilities ahead. We do not know how generous the proposed amendment will be, but we have had a reasonable outline of it today. I detect that the Government's view is that, as the commissioner is an Assembly appointee and funded by the Assembly, he must be confined to the Assembly's areas of responsibility. He can make informal representations and what he says will be given every consideration, but he will not have power to demand information, let alone interfere in non-departmental affairs. We hope that that position has changed slightly. As the Government's amendment is not yet available to us, I beg to move the amendment in the hope of hearing further comment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I believe that I can help the noble Lord. His example of children placed in

775
local authority secure units would obviously fall directly within the devolved functions, so there would not be the problem that he envisages.
I repeat. The amendment that the Government will table to empower the commissioner to consider and make representations to the Assembly about any matter affecting children in Wales will allow him a locus in respect of bodies that have no functions within the Assembly's devolved fields of responsibility. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that the commissioner's ability to make representations will not be confined to the Assembly's areas of devolved responsibility.
I appreciate that there may still be some nuances between us on the subject, but I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurance.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister. The more that we hear about the proposed amendment on Report, the higher our expectations become. Knowing the ministerial team, I trust that they will not disappoint us. It sounds as though the Government have advanced their thinking considerably, but I shall wait to see it all in black and white. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Review and monitoring of arrangements]:
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 17 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"EXAMINATION OF CASES
In section 74(3) of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14) (examination of cases) before paragraph (a) insert——
"(za) requiring persons to allow the Commissioner access to institutions which include children to whom this Part applies:"."
The noble Lord said: Section 74 of the Care Standards Act 2000 deals with the commissioner's power to examine particular cases and provides for regulations to assist him. Notable by its absence is any power for the commissioner to gain access to institutions that include children. The amendment would remedy that.
The Government seek to explain the situation by saying that they do not want the commissioner to become too involved in individual cases, except when there is a principle involved. They say that things have moved on since the Waterhouse report. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, stressed that point in a letter to those of us who spoke on Second Reading. We are told that there are new officers and procedures in place. In short, there is no need for the commissioner or his staff to carry out spot checks at institutions.
I should like an update on the current position of the implementation of the Care Standards Act. Is the inspectorate in place? The situation is worrying. Of
776
course things are changing and will change. Many of the homes in which abuse took place have been closed and only 10 per cent of children in care are in institutional homes. The majority are now fostered. However, I am bound to warn Ministers that the confidence that we see developing these days prevailed in the 1980s as well. We all know where that got us. Courts put children into the care of local authorities convinced that they would be safer there than in the conditions in which they were found. There was complacency all round, which is frightening in retrospect.
I know that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has studied Sir Ronald's report. He will be aware of the extent of the corruption that invaded certain homes and authorities. It was the nearest thing to an Internet virus in present day terms, and it affected everyone one way or another. Suspicion paralysed those in authority who should have known what was going on but did not.
Therefore, it is not surprising that one children's organisation, the NSPCC, which is very close to children, is urging Peers to amend the Bill in order to allow the commissioner an express right to visit and have access to institutions, such as residential children's homes, in cases of alleged institutional abuse. It is also urging that the commissioner should be able to require bodies or persons to provide information. The NSPCC says that that would have been of great assistance when concerns were first raised about cases of child abuse in North Wales in the 1990s. I believe that the concern started even before then.
Of course, assurances were given by Mr David Hanson in the other place about the way in which individual cases would be dealt with. The NSPCC considered those assurances and found them insufficient. It said:
"We appreciate that in the majority of cases access to institutions would not be denied but experience has shown that in the small number of cases where parties are obstructive that the greatest risk to children exists. The right of access to institutions is a common feature among many Children's Commissioners and Ombudsmen in Europe. By definition, Children's Commissioners should have oversight of child protection systems but would not be involved in the work of such inspectorates as a matter of course, only in the case of an alleged failure".
It is that last clause that really concerns us. We accept the point that it will not be the normal duty of the Children's Commissioner to visit homes and institutions but we believe that he should have the power to do so.
I have said this before and I shall say it again: I cannot see how the commissioner can do his job properly if he does not have the right of access to the children who ultimately are his responsibility, wherever they may be. How can he listen to them—a point much stressed by the Assembly committee—if he cannot gain access to them? The lesson of Waterhouse is that one can establish whatever system one likes but none is perfect, none is foolproof, and its operation must be checked again and again.
Finally, the commissioner must be able to check his findings when he examines a particular case which involves a matter of principle. He must be able to check his findings and recommendations against what is happening on the ground; otherwise, his conclusions will be in danger of being too theoretical and detached from reality. I believe that it is inconceivable, particularly in Wales, that a children's commissioner should not have the power to visit children's homes. I repeat: it is inconceivable.
I believe that the Government are making very heavy weather of this point. Ministers in the Assembly, as well as, I am sure, Ministers in the Welsh Office, were able to visit such homes. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government will think again about the whole problem of access by the Children's Commissioner to children when a genuine case concerns him. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I very much support this amendment, to which my name is attached. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, for taking us back to Section 74 of the principal Act. During discussions on this Bill we have been told many times that the role of the Children's Commissioner is to have a large oversee and not to become involved in the detail. However, Section 74—no amendment to that section is proposed in the current Bill—lays down that regulations must be put in place for the examination by the commissioner of the cases of particular children. Therefore, it is intended that the commissioner will look at individual cases.
The regulations are to set out the types of cases to be examined, the circumstances in which an examination may be made, the procedure for conducting an examination, and the publication of reports. Extensive powers are given to the commissioner to enable him to require witnesses to come forward and give evidence. Indeed, in respect of the attendance and examination of witnesses and the provision of information, the commissioner has the same powers as the High Court. Such powers are enforced by the certifying of an offence to the High Court. Thus, a person who so offends may be dealt with as though he had committed an offence which would be dealt with in the High Court.
Those powers are considerable—to summon and hear witnesses and to look at papers. What is missing? The power to enter premises and to have a look, or, as we lawyers would say, to have a view. Therefore, it appears that there is a positive lacuna in the principal Act in relation to the powers of the commissioner. He can look at individual cases and he can summon witnesses and call for papers. Surely he should be able to look inside the institution where the problem has arisen.
The answer we were given at Second Reading was, "Oh well, under the Care Standards Act there is now an inspectorate which will carry out detailed inspections of institutions, and the commissioner will have an oversight of what it does". But how can the commissioner have an oversight of his inspectors if he cannot see the premises which they have inspected?
778
Surely, he must be able to have a look at an institution which is the subject of a report so that he may come to his own conclusion and make his own judgments.
The example of the Chief Inspector of Prisons has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. Mention was made of a penal institution which the chief inspector condemned. Today, he gave a star to another institution. He has the right to inspect and other people are able to carry out inspections of prisons on his behalf. Why should not the Children's Commissioner have a similar right? I support the amendment.
The Earl of Listowel: I also support the amendment. I find the arguments put forward by noble Lords who support the amendment compelling. I do not believe that in the course of his work a commissioner should feel inhibited from getting in touch with the grass roots. I am not sure how successful a commissioner could be if he relied on reports to make judgments about the type of institution that we are discussing. The noble and learned Lord may reply that, of course, the commissioner is able to visit institutions, and normally institutions would agree to such visits. However, I am not sure that the right message will be sent to the commissioner if he does not have the right to enter institutions freely.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that part of the difference between the respective views that have been expressed and those that I shall mention arises out of a difference in view about what the commissioner is there to achieve. Fundamentally, Sir Ronald Waterhouse's recommendation was not that the commissioner should be engaged in law enforcement or inspection. One understands the reason for that because the care standards inspectorate will soon be about its work. I shall come to that in a little more detail in a moment. Sir Ronald's view was that essentially the commissioner's role should be one of strategic overview and monitoring. That is what the Bill is concerned with; namely, the,
"Review of exercise of functions of Assembly and other persons",
and with the,
"Review and monitoring of arrangements".
There is a serious danger in this context of confusing the roles that were identified by Sir Ronald—namely, strategic overview and monitoring—with those of law enforcement or inspection. Many agencies are engaged in law enforcement and some agencies are engaged in inspection.
Apart from Sir Ronald's view, which I believe I have represented fairly, it is worth examining the Assembly's consultation paper on this matter, which followed the committee's report. Paragraph 27 on page 9 states the relevant aim:
"To reflect the recommendation in the Committee's report in respect of the Commissioner's examination function, we propose that the Commissioner should examine the cases of particular children only where he considers they raise matters of principle which have a more general application or relevance to the rights and welfare of children than those in the particular case at issue".

779
The noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Roberts, rightly took us back to Section 74 of the Care Standards Act. There is no lacuna in this context if one understands the commissioner's work because, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, rightly said, the regulations will include provisions about the types of cases that may be examined, the circumstances in which an examination may be made and the procedure for conducting an examination and the publication of reports. Provisions requiring persons to provide the commissioner with information—they might well apply to those working for social services or a local authority—could impose an obligation on care standards inspectors to provide information. Also relevant in that context is the production of information for the purposes of an examination or for the purposes of determining whether a recommendation in a report has been complied with.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, rightly said that witnesses can be obliged to attend—the same mechanism operates in relation to the High Court—and to give evidence. There are rules and regulations about the protection of those who may have to attend.
Those considerations do not point to a gap or a lacuna; they point to a consistent approach in relation to what the commissioner's job really is. I sympathise with the comments of Members of the Committee—I agree that it is attractive to say, "Ah, but the commissioner should be able to go and investigate an individual child from a particular home by calling in unannounced". However, that is not envisaged in the Bill and it was not envisaged by the Assembly. I repeat that paragraph 27 of the Assembly's report stated that only when a matter of principle was raised of a more general application or relevance should the commissioner,
"examine the cases of particular children".
That is what the Assembly wished and it is what Sir Ronald recommended.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, asked me to give an update on where we were with regard to the care standards inspectorate. Planning is well under way and the information that I have is that the care standards inspectorate will be fully operative in a year's time. That inspectorate has various obligations and statutory duties but so do the 19 area child protection committees, most of which cover the same areas as unitary authorities; the police; the NSPCC; and the National Assembly's committee that is responsible for child protection and which has representatives from various divisions. It is unduly simplistic to say that the commissioner cannot do his job without a right of access. That begs the question about the true description of the commissioner's role.
With great respect, I repeat that that role involves strategic overview and monitoring; it does not involve the job that Sir David Ramsbotham carried out. He is a prisons inspector and he has to go and inspect in order to carry out his duties and to meet his remit. However, the duties and remit of the Children's Commissioner are not analogous to those of a prison
780
inspector or those of an inspector involved with care standards or with the inspection of schools. I sympathise with the good motive that lies behind the proposal but I respectfully suggest that it is not properly conceived.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have to take issue with the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. Section 73 of the Care Standards Act is entitled:
"Review and monitoring of arrangements".
That deals with the review and monitoring function of the commissioner. Section 74 is entitled, "Examination of cases". It does not refer to the principle that lies behind the cases. It states:
"Regulations may make provision for the examination by the Commissioner of the cases of particular children".
It refers not to a class of children but to "particular children". Section 76, which is entitled, "Further functions", makes it even more apparent that the commissioner deals with individual children. It states:
"Regulations may confer power on the Commissioner to assist a child to whom this Part applies"—
I stress that it refers not to a class of children but to "a child"—
"in making a complaint or representation to or in respect of a provider of regulated children's services… or… in any prescribed proceedings".
Subsection (3) states:
"The Commissioner may … give advice and information to any person".
He may even give financial assistance to an individual child.
It is not right to say that the Children's Commissioner is concerned only with the broad picture and with broad functions. A number of functions are outlined in the principal Act; they range from general review and monitoring, through the more specific section that deals with children and extend to the giving of advice and assistance, including financial assistance, to a single child. Let us not crimp the style of the Children's Commissioner and say, "You are going to swan around Wales looking at institutions or councils in a broad manner". His job includes looking at the individual child. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will take that point on board and consider it carefully before the Bill's next stage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall certainly do that; we have genuinely tried to pay attention and to be helpful. I take the citations that were given by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. However, his point does not deal with my citation from the Assembly report, which stated,
"we propose that the Commissioner should examine the cases of particular children only where he considers they raise matters of principle which have a more general application or relevance to the rights and welfare of children than those in the particular case at issue".

781
That is what the Assembly is asking for and what we are currently providing. Members of the Committee may be of the view that the Assembly should have asked for something different: my point is that it is being given what it asked for.
The Earl of Listowel: Before the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General concludes, I ask him for elucidation on a point that is slightly distinct from those made so far. If the commissioner has no experience of institutions in which children receive residential care—he may come from an entirely different background—how will he be able to make informed judgments on the performance of institutions that provide residential care unless he frequently visits such institutions and speaks with the children and the staff who work there? My support for the amendment stems from the sense that having a right to enter will make it clear to the commissioner that he is expected to familiarise himself deeply with the situation, even if his main job is to comment on the strategy for monitoring children in such circumstances.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Earl is not describing what the commissioner is supposed to be doing. That is what the care standards inspectorate, which, as I said, will be set up and operating fully by this time next year, will do. I understand the noble Earl's concern but the inspectorate will carry out regular checks of, for example, children's homes. It can react quickly to allegations of wrongdoing and make urgent, unannounced visits. The commissioner will liaise with the inspectorate. I stress that the commissioner exists to carry out strategic overview and monitoring.
The Assembly did not ask for these powers. It does not want the commissioner to be second-guessing the care standards inspectorate, which is what would happen. The care standards inspectorate was not present, even as a concept, when Sir Ronald was reporting. Time has moved on. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Roberts, that no one who knows anything about the North Wales and the South Wales child care scandals wants to be complacent. And not wanting to be complacent or to drive us to duplication of effort, to give the commissioner work which neither the Assembly nor Sir Ronald Waterhouse recommended and which is not really the job description at hand is not inappropriate.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I thank, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his support and Members of the Committee who have participated in this debate. I find it very difficult to see the Minister's point of view entirely. He told us that it is not part of the commissioner's job description—that it is not the work envisaged—for him to seek access to children's homes. On the other hand, we know that he has a plethora of duties and protection bodies with which to deal, including the inspectorate.
782
How can the commissioner take a strategic overview when he cannot go into a children's home or visit a child in hospital? How can he take a strategic overview if he cannot secure experience of what is happening on the ground? I find it a very difficult question to answer. It may not be the work envisaged for him, but it can be part of it as he examines a particular case involving a matter of principle. It may be that the principle involved makes him inquire as to whether there are other cases apart from that particular one which gave rise to this particular principle. He will need to secure such information. Of course, there are other bodies from which he can secure such information.
At the end of the day, surely we are not going to deny him, either in the contents of the strategic overview or the examination of particular cases involving a matter or principle, the right of access to a child in specific circumstances.allowed to play on the course. What sort of membership is that? I do not want to carry that parallel too far.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: What springs to my mind is that one can go to the golf club but not to play rugby.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I shall not quibble with the noble and learned Lord. There is something here which gives us considerable concern. We are glad to hear that the care inspectorate is on its way but it is still in the planning stages. It is quite some time since Sir Ronald Waterhouse reported and forced its set-up under the Care Standards Act 2000. Certainly things have changed. There is an area of concern here. I should like to consider the matter again and possibly return to it on Report. In the current circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment. No. 19:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"RESTRICTIONS

(1) Section 77 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (restrictions) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (I) the words ", or has been determined by." are omitted."

The noble Lord said: Section 77 of the Care Standards Act 2000 reads:
"This Part does not authorise the Commissioner to enquire into or report on any matter so far as it is the subject of legal proceedings before, or has been determined by, a court or tribunal".
The new clause—which is Amendment No. 19—proposes to leave out
"or has been determined by".
I can well understand that the commissioner should not be involved in any way with matters that are sub judice and he should not seek to re-open matters that have been dealt with by a court or tribunal. He is a statutory body with some of the powers of the High Court. However, bearing in mind his broader

783
responsibilities for children's rights and welfare, is that not a sweeping prohibition? That is what I am seeking to probe.
The matter was dealt with by Mr Jack Beatson QC in his opinion for the campaign group. He argued, with reference to the Thompson and Venables case, that had the case been heard in Wales the commissioner should have been able to comment and make representations in relation to the conditions under which the trial was conducted in so far as he perceived them to be in breach of the rights of the children in question.
The European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a breach of Article 6 on that occasion. Mr Beatson refers to recent cases concerning conviction for membership of an Internet child pornography ring. It may be thought inappropriate to comment on sentences imposed upon specific individuals. However, the commissioner's concerns with the rights of the child victims in those cases would make it appropriate for him to monitor the sentencing policy of the courts in such cases and to comment upon the effect that sentences passed may have on the underlying problem of child abuse and pornography. I am not sure that I agree entirely with those views, but I should be interested to hear the comments of the noble and learned Lord upon them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, dealt with this issue in her letter of 8th March. The thrust of the letter is that the Government must protect the integrity of court decisions in individual cases, and I wholly agree with that. The noble Baroness made reference to the Anna Climbie case; what might have happened had that case been dealt with in Wales and how the health and social services aspect could have been dealt with or looked at by the commissioner. I am mindful of the final paragraph of the letter where the noble Baroness said:
"The Commissioner may also receive representations about the effect on children in Wales of the outcome of court and tribunal decisions, which he may wish to bring to the attention of the Assembly and relevant UK Government Departments".
Does the commissioner have to wait for representations to be made to him? It sounds like taking the option of "calling a friend"—"send me a representation so I can tell the Assembly or some other department of State about it".
I know that there is a lot to be said on this issue. All I have sought to do with this amendment is to probe because many people feel that the commissioner is unduly constrained in his ability to comment on legal and tribunal cases and that the limitations on him should be curtailed. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I too support this amendment and attached my name to it. The Attorney-General's previous intervention reminds me of the last occasion I put a ball down on the first tee at Braemar Golf Club and took a swipe at it. My companion said, "I can see you have played rugby before"!
784
In a more serious vein, this morning I saw a news report concerning the aunt of Damilola Taylor in which she was complaining about the amount of compensation awarded—shades of last week's debate—under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. Under this clause the commissioner could not comment at all on such a matter, whether in principle or otherwise, because it had been determined by a tribunal. I do not see why there should be such a limitation.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that if we are dealing with matters that are sub judice, obviously no comment, review or separate report from the commissioner is called for. However, once the court has determined a matter, whether it is the Bulger case or any another, the commissioner must at least have the potential to make his views known if he considers matters require commenting on or bringing to the attention of the Assembly; for example, the conditions in which an abused child has been brought up. If the parents of such a child are taken to court and are convicted, is the commissioner unable to comment on the conditions surrounding that child or the education the child received? That cannot be right.
This is perhaps an unnecessary restriction and in the light of the amendment that we are promised by the Government, and which seems to grow the more we talk about this Bill, perhaps further consideration can be given to this point.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I start at a disadvantage, playing neither golf nor rugby.
As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, said, I commented on this issue in a letter. It is important for me to make absolutely clear for the record that the statement that the commissioner is not authorised to inquire into or report on the outcome of court or tribunal proceedings is already enshrined in Section 77(1) of Part V of the Care Standards Act. This Bill does not introduce any new provision in that respect.
The principle underpinning the existing provision is that courts and tribunals determine specific issues before them and it would not be appropriate for the commissioner to try and re-open their determinations. The proper mechanism for that is judicial appeal. We all agree that that is the due process of law.
However, as I explained in my letter, matters determined by a court or tribunal may be narrow in a specific case and issues that may be discussed or featured in court and tribunal proceedings do not necessarily form part of the matter that is determined. The experience of Members of the Committee will enable them to recognise that. But the commissioner would be perfectly justified to look into issues related to a specific case, such as the actions of an education authority or the functions and actions of a social services department.
The commissioner will be able to make representations, with the benefit of the eagerly awaited amendment, on the basis of his observations, his knowledge, his experience and his information; or he may make such representations following

785
representations made to him, or a combination of both. However, that would not be a re-opening of the justification of either the process of law or the result that was determined by that process; nor could it at any stage intervene, say, between the result of a specific court decision and a process of appeal.
I hope that makes the position clear. We do not want to see the role of the commissioner inhibited in any way. Nor do we want the role of the commissioner to allow, however inadvertently, delay or damage to the due legal process.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her clear explanation of the situation. We have heard a great deal about what the commissioner cannot do. Now we are beginning to hear a little more about what he can do, certainly on this aspect. I for one am clearer in my mind as to the extent of his freedom to comment, receive and present representations in respect of his or someone else's experience of what has happened to them in courts or tribunals in so far as a general problem—perhaps relating to health or social services—arises from such cases. I am somewhat reassured by the words of the noble Baroness and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 5. insert the following new clause—
"POWER TO MAKE ORDERS OR REGULATIONS
After section 77 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14) (restrictions) insert—
"77A General power to make regulations
The Assembly shall, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. have power to make such orders or regulations as the Assembly thinks fit to make for the purpose of carrying into effect the purposes of Part V of this Act.""
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 20 arose in this way. I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, on 21st February and said that I had hoped that a convention would grow that where the will of the National Assembly for Wales had been expressed, then the Westminster Parliament would put the primary legislation into effect unless there was a good and stated reason to the contrary. In the absence of such a convention I could see the possibility in the future that if there were different colours of government in Cardiff and in Westminster, considerable conflict could arise. Normally the will of the National Assembly should be conveyed into primary legislation.
That was one of the matters about which I was concerned. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, was good enough to reply to me on a number of matters, but in particular she said,
"The Government is committed to giving full and fair consideration to all Assembly bids for primary legislation. The Assembly's bids are considered alongside those of UK Government departments, all of which compete for Parliamentary time".
786
We all know that there is a competition for parliamentary time. But when are the wishes of the National Assembly for Wales going to be considered?
The third strand which led to this amendment was the fact that, as I pointed out earlier today, within this Bill there are already two limited Henry VIII clauses which empower the National Assembly to alter primary legislation by adding other people to Schedule 2A or Schedule 2B.
It seems to me, putting all these matters together and bearing in mind that responsibility for primary legislation is firmly at Westminster, that it would nevertheless be a matter of great utility if Bills which concern Wales contained a power enabling the National Assembly to make minor alterations without having to queue up for primary legislative time at Westminster.
If one looks at the general power to make regulations, which is the purpose of this amendment, the Bill would provide that,
"The Assembly shall, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State"—
I shall return to that point—
"have power to make such orders or regulations as the Assembly thinks fit to make for the purpose of carrying into effect the purposes of Part V of this Act".
That is not a general power for the National Assembly to alter primary legislation. It is limited in two ways: first, the Assembly can act only intra vires if it passes secondary legislation to alter the primary legislation for the purpose of carrying into effect the purposes of Part V of the Act; and, secondly, it has to be subject to the consent of the Secretary of State; that is to say, it has to negotiate with the government of the day, of whatever colour they may be, and that government will have to agree before the kind of minor amendments that I have in mind can be brought about.
It may be that after a number of years of activity the Children's Commissioner could find that he lacks a particular power; that his remit does not run as wide as he wished that it did or as everybody thought that it did when this legislation was first enacted. Therefore, without having to come to Westminster to bid for the parliamentary time, the National Assembly could make the minor alterations with the consent of the government of the day. Westminster time would not be used up and there would be power in the National Assembly—the democratically elected body— to pass such legislation. In my respectful submission—if I may use those words—to have within each Bill or part of each Bill that is devoted to Wales such a power for the Assembly to tweak the legislation would be to the utility of the devolution settlement. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I couple with my warm support for this amendment an apology for not being present to hear the trailing of the amendment for the Report stage. I was taking part in the first part of the sitting in Cardiff this afternoon. I welcome what I believe has been trailed as an indication that the Government are moving towards the view expressed by a committee of the Assembly.

787
The principle that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has ably put forward is one that the overwhelming majority, if not all, in the National Assembly would endorse; namely, that in an area where the Assembly discovers that it may require to strengthen its powers of subordinate legislation, and where that may require changes to primary legislation, it should be able to do so without becoming part of a parliamentary log-jam.
I strongly support the need to establish a convention in the new context of devolution, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I do not believe that the National Assembly is in an analogous position to that of a Minister of the UK Government in looking for slots in the parliamentary timetable. The relationship between the UK Government, who are the body that make primary legislation for devolved matters in Wales, and the National Assembly, which is a democratic body, is slightly different. Therefore, it is important that the Government recognise that and when the constitutional committee of this House deliberates on this and other issues, particularly the relationship between devolved bodies and the UK Parliament, that issue may be considered. In the meantime, there is much merit in the amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: I support the amendment to which I have put my name. It is an eminently sensible measure that will oil the wheels of the relationship between this Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. The Welsh Assembly is, as yet, a young body and as it matures it may find that it requires additional measures for which parliamentary time cannot easily be found. This sensible amendment would oil the wheels and would allow the Assembly to have such powers.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has set out these matters and for the generous remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. The amendment to which he referred has been welcomed generally. As we discussed earlier in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, plainly the constitutional committee will have to focus on these matters because this is an evolving situation, as my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said. The increasing authority—I almost said "dominance"—of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, is an example of how things change even in an apparently changeless institution such as we all inhabit.
The consequence of the amendment would be unintended. At the moment, under Part V as it exists and under the present drafting of the Bill, the Assembly will be given specific powers to make subordinate legislation where it is required to flesh out the framework provided in the primary legislation, so there is no difficulty there. However, each power to make regulations or orders has been designed
788
separately to link with the respective provision in the Act or in the Bill. That means unpicking the provisions as they stand.
If it were prudent to do that at this time that would not be an argument against it; at least it would not be a "knock-out" argument. However, it would mean giving the Secretary of State power of approval of Assembly secondary legislation. Of course, power of approval means power of veto. The Bill contains such a provision in relation to bodies that are not wholly devolved, which one can understand, but the amendment, as drafted, would give the Secretary of State the override in matters that are wholly devolved, so it would not be consistent with the constitutional settlement. I understand what is wanted but I do not believe that this is the way to achieve it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am afraid that I disagree with what the noble and learned Lord says. I believe that the Secretary of State should have a power to override only where such secondary legislation, whether by order or by regulation, amends primary legislation that has been passed at Westminster. I cannot see that any government would countenance giving the National Assembly a free hand through secondary legislation—by order or by regulation—to amend that which Westminster has passed. It is only in those specific, unusual circumstances that the Secretary of State would have that power.
If the noble and learned Lord looks at Clauses 3 and 4, he will see that, where there is a proposal to amend primary legislation—for example, to make insertions into Schedules 2A and 2B— the consent of the Secretary of State is required. I am not adding anything new. That is already there. I do not believe that there is anything wrong in principle with that, but I believe that that useful mechanism could be inserted into every Bill that affects Wales, that relates to the National Assembly and gives it that power. It is not a power to make major alterations or to make whatever alterations they want; it is simply a power to make such alterations as the Government at Westminster agree are necessary and to put them into effect without joining the queue of parliamentary time.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand that. That is a perfectly understandable objective. I simply indicate that the mechanism produced at the moment will put more shackles on Cardiff because in relation to wholly devolved matters Cardiff will still have to come to the Secretary of State cap in hand. I believe that that is the law of unintended consequences.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I disagree. This is not the first time that I have disagreed with the noble and learned Lord. We have had many a battle. In that spirit, for the moment, and only for the moment, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Commencement, short title and extent]:
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Schedule—[Persons and arrangements subject to review]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 8, line 8, at end insert—
"Any police authority in Wales."."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment and with it speak to Amendments Nos. 23 to 26. These are indicative in the sense that they concern various bodies who have responsibilities for children and young people and those listed in Schedule 2B. I shall not go through each and every amendment, but their arrangements for dealing with complaints, disclosure and advocacy should surely be subject to review. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The amendment to be brought forward by the Government at Report will empower the commissioner to consider and make representations to the Assembly about any matter affecting the rights and welfare of children in Wales, and will allow him a locus in respect of those which have no functions within the Assembly's devolved fields of responsibility. This will of course include all those covered in this group of amendments. I hope that, in the light of this assurance, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roberts of Convey: I am delighted to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 26 not moved.]
Schedule agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlegerose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the progress being made by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in their appraisal of Beta interferons and glatiramer acetates is satisfactory.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords and the noble Minister who have agreed to take part in this debate. As your Lordships will recognise, there has been a degree of uncertainty concerning the business of the House because of concerns over the general election, and I have received a number of letters from noble Lords who are very interested in this subject but who expected the debate to be held later in the spring. I want to mention that because, although we are a select band here tonight, it is a small band and I would not like your Lordships to think that this is an issue which does not interest many people.
790
The subject of glatiramer acetates and Beta interferons, which are licensed drugs and available to very few on the NHS, has been a very long-running sore. There are 85,000 people in the United Kingdom—that is a large number—who suffer from multiple sclerosis. This is a condition which I know is well known to noble Lords, but I should like to remind the House that multiple sclerosis is a most terrible condition.
First, it is unpredictable, and unpredictable in two ways. The relapses are unpredictable. Sufferers may undergo relapses of one month's duration, or six months or two years: they never know when one is coming. The second unpredictability is the severity of the attack. It can be mild; it can be very severe, and leave lasting damage. It causes chronic pain and physical disability of frightening proportions, and not just physical disability, but memory, mood, understanding and perceptions can be affected.
The average age of diagnosis is between the late twenties to the mid-forties, and that means people of working age and young parents endeavouring to bring up a family. As a consequence of the disease, they can lose their jobs, their livelihoods, and their families are affected. The physical and, in particular, the mental effects can cause break-ups in marriages and wreck relationships. It is a disease that destroys lives and life.
The one hope that sufferers have is through the new range of therapies—Beta interferons and glatiramer acetates—which reduce the number of relapses and the severity of the disease. They delay the progression and leave people less disabled and more able to cope with life and face the future. These drugs are licensed, but only a very few people can get them on the NHS. As a consequence, some sufferers have been known to sell their houses to buy the drugs privately.
I think this is a nonsense. It is unfair, it is unethical and it is unnecessary. On 6th August 1999 the department referred glatiramer acetates and Beta interferons to NICE for appraisal. Both therapies were to be assessed separately. On 6th December last year NICE confirmed its intention to issue separate determinations early this year. Suddenly, just before Christmas, on 22nd December, NICE announced that it would couple the medicines together again and undertake further economic modelling, thereby delaying the issue of guidance for many more months.
This caused utter misery and anger among MS sufferers. They feel they are being toyed with and not taken seriously. Some of them fear that the delay will mean that their condition will have deteriorated so far as to prevent them benefiting from the drugs.
The cost-effectiveness and clinical benefits of glatiramer acetates are clear. Coupling them with Beta interferons means that some MS patients who would have benefited from this drug are being denied it. The Health Minister in another place, John Denham, was asked on 6th February why glatiramer acetate was being treated as a Beta interferon when chemically and pharmacologically it is different. It has been tested for eight years and has been shown to reduce relapses by 70 per cent. The Minister made no reply, but I hope

791
tonight that the Minister, who has had notice of this question and indeed of all the questions I am going to ask tonight, will be better briefed and give us a straight and unequivocal answer.
On 22nd December—that was the date of the bombshell announcement of further delay—the reason given for the delay was that it would allow NICE to commission, construct and evaluate new economic modelling. The results are to be considered by the appraisal committee in July. This will mean that the whole guidance process will have taken well over two years—27 months, to be exact. That is 27 months of further misery, fear and despair for MS sufferers, and for products which have been shown to be safe and clinically effective through the licensing system.
There is anger, and there is no confidence, first, that this process is at all necessary, and, secondly, that it will bring results. In fact there is a body of opinion which now labels NICE simply as a rationing body and a front for Ministers, who do not want to be seen taking responsibility for denying people their vital medication. To quote a spokesman for the Health Economics Consortium, which has been commissioned by NICE to undertake this work, the new model will still leave a "massive amount of uncertainty".
So it is not clear that NICE's appraisal committee will be better informed or more able to reach a judgment based on cost-effectiveness, since no threshold for cost-effectiveness has been discussed. Therefore I should like to ask the Minister: what is the threshold for cost-effectiveness? Is this an arbitrary measure, and who decides what it should be?
Glatiramer acetate has a known annual cost of £6,650 per patient per year. That is two-thirds of the cost of Beta interferon. Does the Minister believe that it would be reasonable for NICE to give positive guidance that at least this therapy is affordable at an additional cost to the NHS of £14 million over two years, benefiting more than 4,000 MS patients? Does he not agree that it is a drop in the ocean compared with the annual drugs budget of £5 billion to £6 billion a year and that the cost far outweighs the benefits?
The cost of treating MS patients with either drug must be offset against the cost of not treating patients with these drugs. Does NICE take into account the cost to the country of relapses and increasing disability; costs in terms of people unable to work; costs of social security, housing and unemployment benefits; and the costs of hospitalisation and so on?
The clinical efficacy of the Beta interferons and the glatiramer acetates is not in dispute, yet the new NICE process is seeking to elucidate the size of the clinical benefit. On 30th March, NICE requested the sponsors to provide raw patient data within four or five working days' notice and understandably it is concerned that this information should be used accurately and fairly in the new model. Yet no reassurance has been given to it on those counts. The request from NICE is surprising, as robust clinical data over eight years for
792
glatiramer acetate has already been submitted to NICE. This clinical experience is surely a better source than some theoretical academic model.
In 1997, the department issued an executive letter, EL(95)97, instructing health authorities to fund Beta interferon for MS pending the NICE appraisal. Glatiramer acetate was not included and repeatedly the department has been asked to re-issue an update of this executive letter. My noble friend Lord Howe pursued the matter vigorously on 6th March and tonight he may well want to revisit the subject. Why is the department not updating and re-issuing the executive letter to include glatiramer acetate? Is this an attempt to deny patients their treatment?
I am sure that that is not the case, so can the Minister give us an undertaking tonight that that will be done and the blight which now exists will be lifted—lifted for those who benefit from both Beta interferons and glatiramer acetates?
Finally, why, when the Minister stated in this House that the whole purpose of NICE is to conduct a rigorous process, is the Health Economics Consortium asking for patient data at such short notice, without being clear what it will do with it? NICE has appraised drugs for Alzheimer's disease, motor neurone disease and obesity where there is similar uncertainty about costs and they are now available to the NHS. Why has it taken such a uniquely rigid view in relation to MS drugs? Is it acting under instruction? Eighty-five thousand people and their families await the answer.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I was attracted by the subject when the MS Society pointed out to me that, although many people suffer from the disabling disease, which over time reduced their capacity to live full lives, a drug was available which will stop that. Such information leads one automatically to ask questions. We must carefully examine the situation in which people are suffering from a condition because the intervention which could prevent the suffering is being denied to them. Even though that delay may be for only a short time, we must examine the matter carefully. The idea that we can act now to stop such suffering brings me to this debate.
The first absurdity is that, although MS can be prevented by the intervention of these two drugs—and I take the noble Baroness's point that they work for different sections within the group—they are not being prescribed. The second is that if prescriptions are being withheld on grounds of cost, why are not other costs such as social security and outside support services taken into account?
NICE's memorandum of understanding states that certain concepts should be borne in mind. Paragraph 11 of that document, under the heading "Appraisal methodology and criteria", states that NICE should take into account,
"the broad balance of benefits and costs",
and,
"the effective use of available resources".

793
However, that suggestion is not explained; it is very broad. Paragraph 10.i of that document brings the matter into stark relief. I obtained a copy of the document from the Internet and was interested to read the footnote to that paragraph. It states:
"The wider benefits of treatment (such as a reduction in disability which allows continuation of employment) can be taken into account an the benefit side of the equation but should not simply be treated as an offset on the cost side".
That statement is most worrying. First, it appears to express the view, "This is our budget. We are dealing with our budget and, although we will pay attention to the budget of another part of Whitehall, we will not pay close attention to it. We will merely make sure that our column of figures adds up correctly". If that is the case, any attempt at joined-up government has crashed into a heavy obstacle because the whole picture is not being taken into account.
We are saying that someone can be allowed to deteriorate both physically and mentally—and we probably knew that that was happening—and that great damage can be done to their personal life although we can do something about it. We are also saying that the cost will not be shared between departments. Some people in full employment may be able to pay for their treatment but others will not.
There is a problem and I believe that we deserve a full answer tonight. I apologise for not having given advance notice of the quotation but, as the noble Baroness said, words of wisdom previously indicated that this debate would not take place. Furthermore, I admit that when I first read the document I had not noticed the small " 1 " indicating a footnote.
The fact has been exposed that an odd series of calculations is going on, and the process is not the clearest I have come across. Other drugs are involved, one dealing with obesity. I was attracted to that because the definition of obesity is height over weight and I am sure that I and everyone with whom I played rugby last Saturday would be entitled to its benefits. But clearly the drug can help prevent a condition becoming worse. It will help people to lose weight, which is important, because obesity is damaging.
The principle of prevention is accepted. If we cannot obtain a clear picture of what is happening in this case, we have real problems. Can the Minister give us an insight into the thinking behind the procedure, because the principle described is worrying? It seems strongly to suggest that what is associated with the cost is more important that the amount spent. I accept that there must be a degree of rationing, in that in saving one person we cannot allow thousands of others to suffer. That has always been a reality. However, if with the technology that is available we cannot easily make calculations, manoeuvre funds and take a broad view, we have a major problem.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for raising this very important issue in a short but significant debate tonight. I shall not repeat the history of the NICE
794
appraisal of either Beta interferons or glatiramer acetates which was very ably set out by the noble Baroness and amplified by my noble friend, and both put some extremely pertinent questions. We heard that the original circular is not being observed and we must wait until later this year for the NICE determination. We have also heard about how those two determinations have been put together. It is deeply depressing that here such a small proportion of MS sufferers compared with those in other western countries receive both drugs despite clear evidence of their clinical effectiveness.
Since NICE started work in 1999 some of the defects in its appraisal process, such as lack of openness on appeal, have been cured, but other core problems have not been. The key is the scientific basis of the appraisals. Nothing has fed the public's distrust of NICE more than the Beta interferon and (if I could pronounce it as easily) the glatiramer acetate affair. It feeds the belief that essentially NICE is engaged in a rationing exercise and that that approach underlies all its appraisals.
In the case of NICE, the process was acknowledged to be flawed by the appeals body. Certainly, the catalogue of the different ways in which the appeal was flawed was quite extraordinary: the ignoring of disability data; real doubts that the long-term benefits were fully considered; what was called the perverse enshrinement of inequality—the decision that it was right to allow only those who already were in receipt of the drugs to have them—and failure to give due weight to clinical need and to make a transparent comparison with alternative uses of NHS resources. The catalogue was considerable and culminated in breach of an EU transparency directive, which was no mean feat for a determination by an official body.
Quite apart from that, the Beta interferon appraisal raises fundamental questions about how NICE will accommodate access to drugs for rare diseases. In particular, concerns have been expressed to me about the appropriateness of cost economic evaluation in the treatment of low prevalence diseases. NICE appears to be in direct conflict with the so-called orphan status of the drugs involved in this case. Just as in the United States, the EU recognises the problems of patients who suffer from rare diseases.
The issue of so-called orphan products is dealt with by the Regulation on Medicinal Orphan Products which was agreed last year and the Programme for Rare Diseases agreed by the EU in 1999. The regulation underlines the need to support research into, and the development and availability of, orphan medicinal products. The criterion adopted by the EU is to accord orphan status to products which are of benefit to those who suffer from conditions which affect no more than five in 10,000 people. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, recognised the value of that approach only in September last year in his announcement of new partnerships to further the development of drugs for rare diseases. He said:
"We must get the right medicines to the right people at the right time. The regulation on orphan medicinal products is based on the principle that those suffering from rare diseases have as much

795
right to proper care as anyone else. I want to see more research and development so that rare diseases can be diagnosed, prevented and treated".
Those are excellent sentiments but the development and production of such drugs are not sufficient to ensure that people who suffer from rare diseases receive treatment. Such drugs must also be made available within the National Health Service. The problem is that the superimposition of standard cost-effectiveness criteria onto the assessment of a drug for a rare disease is not always appropriate. Are the traditional quality of life, cost-effectiveness or clinical effectiveness analyses applicable to an orphan drug? How can existing treatments be compared when the orphan designation implies that there are no satisfactory methods of prevention or treatment of the condition?
Conventional health economics techniques are based on the availability of a wide range of comprehensive data needed for the appraisal. In the case of rare disorders, often for practical, ethical and scientific reasons it is impossible to provide equivalent comprehensive data. Innovative products which treat rare diseases are often by their nature unique and cannot, therefore, be assessed by the use of traditional cost-effective assessment methods.
Is multiple sclerosis a rare disease? Are Beta interferons and glatiramer acetates orphan drugs? The total population of those who suffer from relapsing remitting MS (RRMS) is 3.8 per cent per 10,000, so clearly it falls within the EU category. In the US, MS is classified as a rare disease and Beta interferon is categorised as an orphan drug. The fact is that Beta interferon is the first orphan drug to have undergone a cost and clinical effectiveness appraisal by NICE, which has considerable implications.
Despite the EU regulation, the conclusions drawn by NICE in its appraisal contrast sharply with the conclusions reached by the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA) in its marketing authorisations for the same products. This raises the question whether NICE is dealing with orphan drugs in the appropriate fashion. EMEA is responsible for assessing the quality, safety and efficacy of drugs before authorising them to be marketed in the EU. It has established compliance with these standards 13 times in its authorisations for the marketing of Beta interferon in particular—I do not have the background information for glatiramer acetate—saying that these drugs have,
"proven useful in the treatment of multiple sclerosis, for which there is no specific treatment available so far".
In contrast to EMEA, NICE finds it virtually impossible to balance its remit to ensure the availability and effectiveness of pharmaceutical products with its requirement to have regard to affordability and cost-effectiveness by the NHS. That is particularly acute when one looks at rare diseases and effective but expensive treatments such as Beta interferon and glatiramer acetate. Clearly, we need changes to the system so there is proper recognition of the issues which surround rare diseases and orphan
796
drugs. Like the EU, we need recognition of the specific nature of rare diseases and a different appraisal system for orphan drugs such as Beta interferon and glatiramer acetate. The cost of the illness and the burden of the disease must be properly taken into account in relation to these orphan drugs.
Currently, however, precisely the contrary seems to be happening in NICE with its commissioning of additional economic modelling of the costs and benefits and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, pointed out, its call for the drug companies to release patient-specific data. In the meantime, those who want Beta interferon must come up with £11,000 to £13,000 a year, and those who want glatiramer acetate must find upwards of £6,650. They should not have to bear that cost much longer, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
7.49 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, among the many benefits to spring from a postponed general election is the survival on the Order Paper of this evening's Question, tabled by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. She has not only raised an extremely important set of issues; she has also done so in a masterly way. There is little that needs to be added by me to the powerful case that she has made.
If there is one conclusion to be drawn from what my noble friend has said, it is surely that this is a matter of shame for the Government. If it is not a matter of shame, then it certainly should be. We are in a situation that I am quite sure Ministers did not ever wish to see but which is nevertheless entirely of their own making, a situation in which, as a direct result of structures and processes that the Government have put in place, many hundreds of individuals with MS are not receiving the drugs that they need to keep their condition under control. I do not believe that that is a comfortable position ethically for Ministers to find themselves in, whatever the case may have been for establishing the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its current remit. To me, it is a worse situation, from a moral perspective, than the postcode lottery. However much the Minister and I may deplore the postcode lottery, as we both do, no one believes that Ministers of either party ever sought to engineer it.
Indeed, it was with the worthy aim of tackling the postcode lottery and speeding up access to new drugs that NICE was originally established. What could be better, the argument ran, than to have definitive and independent assessments of drugs and treatments whose clinical and cost-effectiveness were in doubt or dispute? What could be better than to set up an expert body to cut through sometimes conflicting evidence and to furnish doctors with impartial and up-to-date advice? I do not believe that anyone could argue with those aims because they are self-evidently in the interests of both patients and the NHS. It is the way that those aims have been pursued in practice that has led to all manner of difficulties—and perhaps none

797
more unfortunate than in the case of Beta interferon and glatiramer acetate or, as I find it easier to say, Copaxone.
As my noble friend said, these are licensed drugs that have a proven history of efficacy. They have been used successfully over many years throughout the world. In that sense, they are not new drugs, though it is true that Copaxone has only recently received its UK licence from the Medicines Control Agency. As we have heard, they are of benefit to perhaps half of those patients afflicted with the relapsing remitting form of MS, estimated as a group to represent about a quarter of all MS patients. Yet there is a huge variation in prescribing rates in different areas of the country. Some health authorities will not fund the drugs at all. Others will do so, if only to a limited extent. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, the UK as a whole compares unfavourably with many of our EU partners with regard to the number of patients receiving Beta interferon or Copaxone. Only 2 to 3 per cent of MS patients in this country receive either drug, compared with 12 per cent in Germany, France and Italy and as many as 21 per cent in Austria.
As I have said, there is no doubt about the efficacy of these treatments. The guidelines from the Association of British Neurologists are unequivocal. They state:
"The ABN considers the evidence that the drugs are effective in a subgroup of patients with clinically active relapsing remitting MS to be conclusive. The beneficial effects can be clinically important. and in the absence of alternative disease modifying treatments, treatment should be available to this well defined subgroup (approximately 10% of patients) in all parts of the UK … Such a provision of treatment would meet an important clinical need in a debilitating neurological disease, would represent best clinical practice based on current evidence, and would be in accordance with standard clinical practice elsewhere in the EU".
Even before those guidelines were published, the previous government took the rare step of issuing an executive letter requiring health authorities to allow Beta interferon to be prescribed to those patients who might benefit from it. Despite that letter—number 95(97)—the referral of Beta interferon and Copaxone to NICE in August 1999 had an immediate and damaging effect. Doctors stopped prescribing the drugs to new patients and those health authorities which might otherwise have been influenced to adopt a more generous policy on funding the drugs had a cast-iron excuse not to do so. That excuse was made all the stronger by, at that time, the commonly shared understanding that the NICE appraisal was likely to take only a matter of months to complete. Indeed, NICE indicated in August 1999 that it anticipated issuing guidance no later than the following August.
As we have heard, that prediction was seriously inaccurate. For a whole variety of reasons the evaluation of Beta interferon and Copaxone has turned out to be much more of a complex exercise than was originally anticipated. The issue of NICE's final appraisal determination was put back to October 2000, then to Christmas, then to January 2001. Just before Christmas NICE announced, all of a sudden, that it wished to commission an entirely new economic
798
model to inform its evaluation of the drugs' cost-effectiveness. Following that announcement, it was made clear in another place that the long-awaited guidance would not now be issued until November 2001, a full two years and three months after the appraisal process first began.
For that delay to arise for any reason is serious enough. For it to happen as a consequence of NICE perceiving the need to go through a learning process after more than a year of deliberation strikes me as appalling. I am sure that NICE will have excellent answers to that criticism, which the Minister will no doubt present to us this evening. But my bet is that they will be answers that seek to justify NICE's procedures purely within the terms of its own remit. In other words, the quest for an accurate and reliable model of cost-effectiveness will be held up as being for the greater good of all in the longer-term.
If the Minister says anything like that, as indeed he appeared to do when last we debated this matter on 7th March, then I need to put it to him that the plot has been lost. There is a human dimension to this issue. As the MS Society put it recently:
"Coping with the original timetable caused distress: doubling the length of the appraisal is causing despair among people who fear that while it goes on they may become too disabled ever to benefit from the drugs, even if NICE's eventual decision is positive".
The flaws associated with the NICE process are many, and I have not time to cover them all. But perhaps the most obvious is the unintended consequence of what is increasingly referred to as blight—the blight that is imposed on whatever treatment NICE is evaluating, pending issue of the final determination. I have spoken about the damage to patients. But we should also bear in mind the damage to the pharmaceutical industry. Increasingly, NICE is being seen by the industry as a fourth hurdle between it and the market place; a hurdle above and beyond the three established and accepted hurdles of safety, quality and efficacy on which a licensing decision by the MCA depends.
That negative view of NICE by the pharmaceutical industry and its potential consequences should not be underestimated. The "blight" imposed on a drug that is undergoing NICE appraisal extends in commercial terms far beyond the confines of the UK. It affects overseas markets for that drug and therefore worldwide revenues. To the extent that it engenders a loss of confidence in the UK as a base for foreign investment, it could well lead in the future to a decline in the UK's position as an international centre of excellence for pharmaceutical research and development. The more that the multinationals see this country as erecting barriers in the way of innovation, the less enamoured they will be about using the UK as a launch-pad for new treatments and the more they will be tempted away by the operating environments of rival countries.
I may say that that sense of frustration among pharmaceutical companies is already apparent in their criticisms of NICE, as to its perceived lack of transparency and its unwillingness to enter into any kind of dialogue with industry once an appraisal is

799
underway. There is little confidence either that NICE contains the specialist expertise in-house appropriate to a proper understanding of each appraisal. That attitude of confusion and uncertainty contrasts markedly with what I have found to be the industry's view of the comparable system in Scotland, which is generally seen as open, transparent and consultative. I believe that there are lessons to be learnt from that comparison.
I began by saying that the regrettable situation highlighted by my noble friend's Question is, indirectly at least, of the Government's own making. As long as NICE continues to function in the manner that it does, with its existing remit, I do not see much scope for matters to improve. However, I do believe that for Beta interferon and Copaxone there is a partial remedy at hand, if Ministers choose to take it.
When we debated this issue on 7th March the Minister said in reply to a question from me that the department's executive letter 95(97) is still in circulation and the prescribing of Beta interferon should continue in line with what is stated in that letter. As I have said, there is abundant evidence that that is not actually happening—a fact that was, I believe, emphasised at a meeting last week between the Minister's right honourable colleague in another place, Mr Denham, the MS Society, the MS Research Trust and the Association of British Neurologists. Many doctors are being put in an impossible position.
I do not expect the Minister to give an undertaking to me here and now, but I would ask him seriously to consider the issue of further guidance to health authorities, reminding them that Executive Letter 95(97) still applies until such time as the NICE judgment is available. Guidance of that kind, which could also cover Copaxone, would I believe constitute an unequivocal signal from the Department of Health that the needs of MS patients should have primacy. It would also be an undoubted earnest of ministerial good faith to counter what I am bound to say have been some fairly mixed signals in recent months.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply.
8 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for having raised this issue. I suspect that all noble Lords are a little surprised to be debating this matter tonight. I agree with the noble Baroness that we have held perhaps three or four debates on NICE over the past few weeks. The matter is one of intense interest among many Members of your Lordships' House.
I should like to say in particular to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that of course I understand the human dimension behind the Question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. Equally, I am only too aware of the issues that undoubtedly have to be confronted by the unfortunate people who suffer from multiple sclerosis. However, I would have to say that many different concerns have to be considered here.
800
I believe that there are two recurring problems which the NHS has had to face over many years: first, the issue of postcode prescribing, which I believe to be increasingly unjustified and indefensible within a national service; and, secondly, the slow take-up of innovative, proven medicines and techniques. That has been a factor of the NHS going back over many years. I believe that, far from the concerns expressed tonight by noble Lords, NICE is the best way forward to ensuring that authoritative guidance is made available to the NHS on the most effective and cost-effective drugs and treatments.
I believe also that we are receiving broad support from the service in taking this approach. What is abundantly clear is that the NHS, just like any other healthcare system in the world, has to set priorities and has to make choices. The issue lies in how those choices should be made. My contention is that the establishment of NICE brings much greater certainty, clarity and confidence to that process by providing authoritative assessments of the current state of medical knowledge on particular treatments and conditions. It undertakes the very important task of helping health professionals to keep abreast of the latest knowledge as well as removing the smokescreen of scientific uncertainty that has sometimes masked arbitrary and unfair funding decisions.
I recognise that the NICE process brings many of those dynamics out into the public arena and I understand why, when faced with those dynamics, they can cause concern to individuals who perhaps would have preferred the smokescreen of postcode prescribing and the slowness of uptake of innovative medicines and treatments. But, surely, in taking the NHS forward, it is preferable to use an approach such as that adopted by NICE, which can be informed by the best evidence available, and which in turn can advise the health service on what is both effective and cost-effective. That is as relevant to MS as it is to any other disease.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, very appropriately and graphically, described the major and adverse impact—the terrible impact—that MS can have on a patient's quality of life, in particular during relapses. Of course I well understand the potential that many people see in Beta interferon and, more recently, glatiramer acetate which, as the noble Baroness pointed out, has been licensed more recently as a treatment for the disease. But we cannot ignore the ongoing debate about the identification and targeting of treatment on those patients most likely to benefit. Equally, I believe that it is important that no one should raise excessive expectations about the ability of these treatments to combat multiple sclerosis. It was because there appeared to be uncertainty about the appropriate use of Beta interferon, which was reflected in different prescribing patterns across the country, that we asked NICE to conduct an authoritative appraisal of the evidence on disease-modifying drugs for MS.
The noble Baroness asked why glatiramer acetate is treated in the same way as Beta interferon when it is chemically and pharmacologically different. She is

801
quite right to say that these two drugs are different, but what they have in common is that they are both disease-modifying treatments for MS and we think that glatiramer acetate should be subject to an appraisal by NICE. The evidence demonstrates that, for patients with the relapsing and remitting form of MS, the drug reduces relapses by around 30 per cent as compared with the placebo. In its recently issued new guidelines, the Association of British Neurologists suggested that the magnitude of the effect of both therapies on the relapse rate in the relapsing and remitting form of MS appears comparable.
The noble Baroness went on to raise the issue of costs. I should say to her that the issue here is one of cost-effectiveness, not affordability. We have NICE to advise on clinical and cost-effectiveness and to issue guidance to the NHS on which treatments have the greatest potential to improve patient care. An entirely separate set of decisions is reached by Ministers as regards the overall level of resource and affordability.
I fully accept that the process under which NICE has conducted this appraisal has not been without controversy. It is unfortunate that the leaking last year of its provisional assessment led to widespread speculation at a premature stage in the process. It is true, as noble Lords have mentioned, that appeals were submitted which were then upheld in part by NICE's appeal panel. The record of NICE's appraisal committee meeting held on 13th December details how carefully the matter had been considered. It also highlighted the dilemma faced by the committee.
On 22nd December, NICE announced that it would extend the timescale for its appraisal of these drugs to enable further research to be undertaken on their cost-effectiveness. NICE has advised that this additional work has been undertaken to resolve critical differences in the economic models supplied by manufacturers and independent researchers. The commissioning, construction and evaluation of the new modelling will take around six months. That process will be transparent and the results will be made available to the parties involved, along with the appraisal, by summer 2001. Based on that, we expect NICE to produce its authoritative guidance by November, subject to any appeals. Until NICE publishes its guidance, I cannot pre-empt what it might say.
Of course I understand the concerns of MS sufferers who are worried about the delay in the production of NICE's final guidance on those drugs, but ultimately it is vital that the integrity of the NICE process is maintained. It is critically important that NICE is able to review all the evidence and attempt to reconcile differences between the interested parties. We want the institute to do a thorough job and to produce authoritative guidance.
Surely it is understandable that NICE wishes only to issue guidance when it considers that it is able—to the best of its ability and in the light of data available to it—to address the issues upon which it was established to assist the NHS, including, as I have said, advice on both clinical and cost effectiveness.
802
I have been asked about the methodology used by NICE to make those judgments. It is a matter for NICE itself to develop its own working methods within the broad guidelines laid down by Ministers and set out in the directions and in its framework document. The directions require NICE to take account of any guidance on the resources likely to be available.
NICE has made clear that it is not committed to any single methodology but that it applies judgments to each individual appraisal topic in the light of the evidence on clinical and cost effectiveness. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that we have not indicated a threshold, either directly or otherwise, to the institute. We are committed to a review of NICE, starting this summer, and methodology is one of the issues that, no doubt, will need to be considered in that review.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised the issue of the account that NICE should take in its assessment of what one might describe as the wider costs and benefits to society. This matter was raised earlier today during the debate on a Starred Question in relation to anti-TN F drugs. As I said then, we have required NICE to assess evidence on all the other clinical and health-related benefits of treatment and to judge whether, on balance, they would represent a cost-effective use of NHS and personal social services resources.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, informed the House, NICE has recently issued more detailed guidance to manufacturers and sponsors on the way in which they should submit evidence on appraisals, and the issue raised by the noble Lord will be specifically covered. It is open to NICE to take into account a wider range of factors, and it is open to those who submit evidence to include evidence on a wider range of factors.
The noble Lord went on to raise the issue of productivity. The guidance states that changes in productivity, such as increased availability for work, may be a consequence of health gain resulting from the use of a technology. As the noble Lord said, any such monetary estimates of benefits should not be subtracted from the estimates of healthcare resource costs. However important these wider social factors are—I agree that they are important; NICE has stated that it is prepared to consider them, and it is open to people providing evidence to NICE to make submissions covering those areas—it is also important to note that it is not valid to say that the treatment in that sense is somehow cost neutral. Very often, for instance, the costs of NHS treatments are up front and very real, while the possible savings to the rest of the economy may often be downstream and speculative. There is, in practice, no mechanism—at least in the short term—for using savings elsewhere in the system to offset NHS costs.
That does not mean to say that there is not considerable force in the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. As I said, it is a factor which can be considered by NICE—and no doubt we

803
will look at the issue in the review—but it is not an easy issue to deal with. We have to be wary of being too simplistic in our arguments in that area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, asked about the difference between the way Relenza and drugs for Alzheimer's disease were treated. Again, this is a matter for NICE, but my understanding is that in those cases there was a much lesser range of uncertainty about the clinical and cost effectiveness of these drugs from the evidence available from a number of different parties. This is clearly not the case in relation to Beta interferon.
The noble Baroness asked about the requirement and request for patient data. My understanding is that NICE gave notice to the manufacturers in December last year that it would be requesting patient-level data from the clinical trials. Last Friday, members of the health economics consortium, which had been commissioned to develop the cost-effectiveness model for NICE, gave a detailed presentation of their proposed approach. The need for patient-level data and the uses to which it would be put were clearly described at the presentation.
I turn now to the suggestion that far from being a rigorous process to allow us to ensure high-level consistency and the fast introduction of proven and innovative techniques and treatments, this is a rationing tool. If that were the case, I doubt very much that Nick Timmins, in an article in the Financial Times a few months ago, would write:
"So far the view that NICE is there purely to ration is hard to sustain. Its first 15 significant decisions have saved the NHS about £70 million. However its recommendations for wider use of some treatments has boosted NHS spending by at least £205 million. Many thousands of patients should now be receiving potentially life saving treatments they were previously denied".
Surely that is the point. If NICE was simply a crude rationer, many more of the techniques and drugs that it has been asked to consider would have been ruled out. The fact is that NICE has ruled in many drugs and treatments at a cost to the National Health Service.
I turn now to the question of guidance. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, this was issued in November 1995 in EL 95(97). This was in advance of market authorisations being granted for Beta interferon drugs. At that time, Beta interferon was licensed only for relapsing remitting MS. The circular asked purchasing authorities and providers to develop and implement local arrangements to manage the entry of such drugs into the NHS, in consultation with other interests and, in particular—I stress this—if prescribing was considered appropriate for it to be undertaken through hospitals. This guidance remains in place.
In addition—this is relevant to glatiramer—the department issued health service circular 1999/176 in August 1999. This asked National Health Service bodies to continue with local arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies where guidance from NICE is not available at the time the technology first becomes available. These arrangements should involve an assessment of all the
804
available evidence. I believe that the combination of the executive letter and the substantive guidance in 1999 is all that is required to ensure that appropriate policies are agreed and implemented within the NHS.
I heard what the noble Earl said about blight. I repeat what I said earlier today: if specific cases are brought to my attention where it is clear that NHS bodies have not gone through the processes that they need to go through, I shall look into them.
The question was raised as to whether the advice issued by NICE is put into effect. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has announced that we shall introduce explicit monitoring so that we know that every health authority and trust is taking full and proper account of each NICE appraisal. I repeat: there would no point in the NICE process unless we were confident that its recommendations were being implemented by the NHS.
On the question of the pharmaceutical industry, I heard what the noble Earl said. I have had the pleasure of chairing the joint task force between the Government and the industry. I understand the issues raised by the industry in relation to NICE. I can say that after 12 months of constructive discussion it understands our viewpoint as well. We have agreed that as part of the review process we shall pick up again the issues raised by the industry. I believe that we have to balance on the one hand the concerns of the industry and on the other the clear evidence that the impact of NICE so far has been to lead to greater expenditure on drugs than would have been the case had we not brought NICE into being.
I agree that the pharmaceutical industry is a major contributor towards inward investment in the UK in terms of jobs. It is responsible for 23 per cent of all commercial R&D investment in this country. The whole purpose of the working group that we established is to ensure that the UK continues to be competitive in attracting R&D investment and other investment from the industry.
I listened with great care to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about orphan medicinal products. I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating my words of some weeks ago. I fully accept that drugs for rare conditions will tend to be more expensive than those for common conditions because the cost of research and development has to be recouped over a much smaller number of sales. On that basis it is likely that orphan drugs will tend to appear less cost-effective judged by the yardsticks that are sometimes used, such as cost per life year.
We are sympathetic to the needs of those who require orphan drugs. We must also accept that difficult choices will still have to be made between providing very expensive treatments benefiting only a few and providing effective treatments offering a substantial health gain to a larger number of patients. That is where NICE can advise us on what will always

805
be very difficult issues. But that does not mean that NICE will mechanically apply a fixed cost-effectiveness yardstick to all treatments it is asked to appraise. Equally, I do not believe that NICE can ignore the question of cost-effectiveness altogether, even for treatments for rare disease.
This has been a good debate in which a number of concerns have been raised about the operation of NICE. The review will be commencing within a relatively short time. We shall need to pick up the kinds of concerns that have been expressed during this debate. At the end of the day, I am convinced that NICE provides us with the most effective way of ensuring that the right decisions are made in relation to cost and cost-effectiveness and that this will speed
806
up the introduction of new treatments and new techniques that are found to be effective. That is far better than postcode prescribing and a situation of patchy provision throughout the NHS.

Medway Council Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the amendment to which the Lords have disagreed not insisted on.

Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eight o'clock.

  Police, Probation, Crown Prosecution and Prison Services Funding
  Police, Probation, Crown Prosecution and Prison Services Funding
  Prison Overcrowding
  Prison Overcrowding
  Trespassing
  Trespassing
  Clandestine Entrants: Civil Penalties
  Clandestine Entrants: Civil Penalties
  EC Own Resources Contributions
  EC Own Resources Contributions
  Gulf Veterans Illnesses
  Gulf Veterans Illnesses
  Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme
  Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme
  Children's Commissioner for Wales
  Children's Commissioner for Wales
  Crown Leaseholders
  Crown Leaseholders
  UK Jobs and EU Membership
  UK Jobs and EU Membership
  3G Mobile Communications
  3G Mobile Communications
  Mental Health Act Commission Report
  Mental Health Act Commission Report
  Health Professions: Regulation
  Health Professions: Regulation
  State Retirement Pension Uprating for Recipients Living Abroad
  State Retirement Pension Uprating for Recipients Living Abroad
  Al2 Trunk Road: Litter
  Al2 Trunk Road: Litter
  Bus Services
  Bus Services
  BBC Northern Ireland
  BBC Northern Ireland
  Football World Cup: Television Rights
  Football World Cup: Television Rights