Sitting of 6 December 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Public Service Agreements
    Mr. Mark Francois: What work his Department has carried out to date on the public service agreements that will form part of the 2002 spending review. [18682]
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What work his Department has carried out to date on the public service agreements that will form part of the 2002 spending review. [18691]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Cabinet Committee on Public Services and Public Expenditure, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, monitors Departments' performance against their public service agreements. Departments will propose a new set of PSAs covering the period 2004 to 2006 as part of the 2002 spending review decisions, which will be published at the end of the review.
    Mr. Francois: The Chancellor's PSAs cover a wide range of Departments, including the Department of Health. From his perspective, can he or one of his Ministers please explain why, if the Treasury's claims that it is putting ever more money into the health service are correct, waiting times in accident and emergency units are going up instead of down?
    Mr. Smith: The progress that we are making on the national health service in implementing our public service agreements and targets is evidenced by the fact that, as we said we would, we cut waiting lists by 100,000 and have increased the number of nurses by 17,000 and the number of doctors by 6,700. Also, some 600,000 more operations are taking place in the NHS and we have the biggest hospital-building programme in its history. This Government and this party would not follow the advice of the shadow Chancellor, who describes the NHS as a "Stalinist creation" and wants to bring in charges.
    Mr. Robathan: May I quote from objective 1 for the Cabinet Office in the public service agreements for 2001 to 2004? That objective is
    "to work with No. 10, Departments and others to secure…information age government."
    Given all the fine words that we get from the Government about freedom of information, as they are the only Government who have ever refused to comply with the findings of the parliamentary ombudsman on the code of practice on access to Government information, are not these public service agreements yet another example of fine words but absolutely no substance in reality?
    Mr. Smith: Not at all. We are complying with the public service agreements and our requirements under the relevant codes. The evidence is there in the extra investment and extra quality of services that the people of this country are seeing.
    Mr. John McFall: I welcome this innovative feature of the spending review, which was introduced in 1998. However, we are aware that not all the money allocated last year was spent. Indeed, I think that £7 billion had to be spent. Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that the public service agreements will help that money to be spent, so that we can get delivery on the ground? There was also a plethora of targets. Can he assure us that we have targets not merely for the sake of targets, but for delivery at the end of the day?
    Mr. Smith: On the architecture of the public service agreements, I echo what my hon. Friend says in welcoming this innovation, as did the National Audit Office, which described the introduction of public service agreement targets and, in particular, the move to outcome-focused targets as
    "an ambitious programme of change which puts the United Kingdom among the leaders in performance measurement practice."
    I also agree with him that it is delivery on the ground that matters. That is why we realigned the targets more closely with the key priorities in the last spending review and are working with the delivery unit in No. 10 and with the Departments to ensure that promises made are promises kept.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: What prospect would there be of delivery on any single one of these public service agreements if it were Government policy to get public spending down to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product?
    Mr. Smith: There would be no prospect of such progress. Of course, that is the policy of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
    Mr. Michael Howard: How astonishing it is, in view of the importance of the question, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should run away from it and leave it to the Chief Secretary to answer. In relation to achieving the aim of the public service agreement on health, what importance do the Government attach to their policy of raising spending on health care to the European average by 2005?
    Mr. Smith: It is very important indeed. That is why that policy was set out by my right hon. Friend the

    447
    Prime Minister in Question Time last Wednesday and yesterday, and by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in Monday's debate on public services. It is the Government's policy.
    Mr. Howard: In that case, will the Chief Secretary answer one of the questions that I asked the Chancellor on Monday, namely, does that mean the European average as it was in 2000, as it is in 2001 or as it will be in 2005?
    Mr. Smith: If I recall correctly, the most recent figure for the European average is from 1998, when it was 7.9 per cent. The Prime Minister committed us yesterday to achieving 8 per cent. in 2005. We shall achieve that target.
    Mr. Howard: Is that the sum of the Government's ambition—to reach by 2005 the European average as it was in 1998? Does not that show the utter confusion at the heart of the Government's policy on health? Is not it extraordinary that they make a song and dance about that target when people in this country are dying from illnesses that they would survive if they lived elsewhere? Is not the meddlesome Chancellor at the heart of the mess?
    Mr. Smith: I think that the shadow Chancellor is trying to rerun Monday's debate when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) comprehensively demolished him. When challenged on whether he would keep the NHS free at the point of need, he would not confirm that. He remains committed, as he said in the last Parliament,
    "to reduce the proportion of national output taken by the state towards 35 per cent."
    That would inflict incalculable damage on our national health service, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman described as a "Stalinist creation".

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Mr. Huw Edwards: How many people in Wales receive the working families tax credit. [18683]
    Harry Cohen: What assessment he has made of the impact on child poverty in (a) London and (b) other parts of the United Kingdom of the working families tax credit; and if he will make a statement. [18688]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Seventy-six thousand families in Wales and 95,000 families in London are among the 1.3 million United Kingdom families who benefit from the working families tax credit. Together with other policies, it has taken 1.2 million children out of poverty.
    On Monday, the House will debate the Tax Credits Bill, which will create from 2003 the working tax credit and the child tax credit. Final decisions on that will be announced in the Budget. I can confirm that tax credits will disregard maintenance payments for the working tax credit, and that therefore work will pay even more.
    Mr. Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the WFTC has been a valuable instrument in enabling
    448
    people to get off benefit and into work, and an important measure against child poverty, for which the Government have not had the credit that they deserve?
    Some small employers, who employ two or three people, have approached me. They are conscious of the problem of administering the WFTC and believe that it might discourage some small employers from taking on, for example, single parents. Will my right hon. Friend consider the administration problems for small employers?
    Mr. Brown: That is precisely why the new integrated child credit will streamline the procedures. On my hon. Friend's first point about the success of the WFTC, not only have we taken 1 million children out of poverty, but it is our target to take another million out of poverty in this Parliament. We also aim to ensure that work pays for people who take up jobs.
    There are 170,000 more single parents in work and many more people have been able to take up work because they know that it will pay more than social security benefits. Other countries around the world are considering the policy to ascertain whether they should adapt the same policy.
    I am surprised that the Conservative party, which opposed the minimum wage and the new deal, also opposes the WFTC. After all, Ronald Reagan said of a similar system in the United States:
    "It was the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family and the best job creation measure."
    Mr. Speaker: I call Harry Cohen
    Hon. Members: Where is he?
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Gibb.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: What is the Chancellor's assessment of the burden on small businesses of paying the benefit through the payroll system? Would not it be better to pay it directly to the homes of those entitled to it?
    Mr. Brown: The regulatory impact survey has been applied to the benefit. The hon. Gentleman should take into account the fact that the measure benefits businesses, which are thereby able to get people to take jobs that they would otherwise not accept. It backs up the minimum wage and makes work pay. It pushes up the wages and take-home pay of the employees especially of small businesses, which might not otherwise be able to attract people. Like the earned income tax credit in the United States, the WFTC has widespread support. Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain are considering the WFTC and France has already introduced a version of it. It is the modern way of combining efficiency in business with fairness for business. It is time that the Conservative party, which opposed the minimum wage and the new deal, started supporting the WFTC.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Chancellor admit that 43 per cent. of children in London are living in poverty, that London has a higher percentage of families living in poverty than any other region, and that the initial analysis of the impact of the working

    449
    families tax credit on households in receipt of housing benefit shows that families in London receive less benefit from his policy than families in other regions? As he considers the new policy of an integrated child credit, will he ensure that families and children in London do not lose out?
    Mr. Brown: It is true that a report is being prepared on the situation in London. There are 95,000 families in London receiving the working families tax credit, which is a smaller proportion of the population than in the rest of the country. We are examining how to develop the integrated child credit and the employment credit in the future, but the fact is that 95,000 families in London are better off than they would otherwise have been because there is a Labour Government who have adopted the working families tax credit.

    Barnett Formula
    Hywel Williams: What plans he has to review the method of calculating the Barnett formula. [18684]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Government's spending plans have been agreed for the years through to 2004, including allocations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those allocations are governed by the statement of funding policy incorporating the Barnett formula, and that remains the Government's policy.
    Hywel Williams: Lord Barnett has said recently, in evidence to the Treasury Committee and in a debate in another place, that the Barnett formula should be replaced by
    "the Barnett Formula Mark II"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 Nov 2001; Vol. 628, c. 228.]
    based on an assessment of need. Will the Chancellor accept that, in the eyes of the people of Wales, the legitimacy of the present formula will continue to decline so long as it is based not on actual need but on an historical assessment of need?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that, as well as the increase of almost £2 billion that the National Assembly for Wales received under its Barnett formula allocation, Wales received nearly £100 million a year extra in support of its objective 1 status, which was secured thanks to the efforts of this Government. That is proof of the Government's commitment to Wales. In addition, over the spending review period, Wales shared in the £44 billion increase in non-devolved spending areas such as the police, defence and welfare to work. So, Wales has had a good deal from the spending review, unemployment has fallen there, and we are getting more people into jobs.
    Roger Casale: When my right hon. Friend has a chance to look again at the Barnett formula, will he take special account of the needs of areas such as London, where even constituencies such as mine have pockets of deprivation and a need for further measures to overcome social exclusion, especially among the ethnic minority community? What my constituents will notice this year, however, is that, despite a global recession,
    450
    the Government have been able to deliver a 5.1 per cent. increase in the local government grant. That will help Merton council to keep the streets clean, to work better with the community and to keep the council tax down, in stark contrast to the years in which there were cuts and more cuts under the Tories.
    Mr. Smith: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. When we discuss these matters, it is important to remember that, as well as the allocations covered by the Barnett formula, there are other measures that the Government have in place, such as the new deal, the working families tax credit, the child tax credit, the pension credit and the recently announced stamp duty exemptions, all of which help to target extra assistance on the most disadvantaged people in the most disadvantaged areas. My hon. Friend's constituents who are in particular need will benefit from that programme of tax credits, and from the Government's resolve to tackle poverty and get another million children out of poverty.

    Manufacturing
    Mr. Hugo Swire: If he will make a statement on his latest assessment of the state of UK manufacturing. [18685]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The Government's latest assessment of developments in the manufacturing sector was published in detail in the pre-Budget report. To support manufacturing, not only are interest rates the lowest for 40 years but on Tuesday we published our proposals for a research and development tax credit, and yesterday the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced a new best practice initiative involving £20 million. That follows our announcement of further cuts in small corporation taxation, and cuts in capital gains tax, which match the lowest corporation tax rates that this country has seen.
    Mr. Swire: Three hundred and fifty thousand manufacturing jobs have already been lost since the right hon. Gentleman became Chancellor. Given that manufacturing investment fell in the last quarter at the fastest rate since the 1970s, how many more jobs does he expect to be lost in manufacturing under his chancellorship?
    Mr. Brown: We are doing everything in our power to work with manufacturing industry, and I must remind the hon. Gentleman that more than 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost at the beginning of the 1990s, during the recession in which the shadow Chancellor was Employment Secretary and presiding over 15 per cent. interest rates.
    Around the world, as the hon. Gentleman understands, United States manufacturing output has been cut by 6 per cent. There has been an 11 per cent. cut in Japan and cuts of approaching 20 per cent. in Singapore and the Asian economies, which are big manufacturing economies. Here, according to the figures published this morning, there has been a 3 per cent. reduction for manufacturing.
    The difference between us is that we are prepared to take action to achieve what we can with the research and development tax credit, permanent capital allowances,

    451
    the work of the regional development agencies, the new regional venture capital funds that are being set up and our sponsorship of the new manufacturing apprenticeships in manufacturing industry.
    The division between the two sides here is that we are prepared to take the necessary action. Unfortunately, under the shadow Chancellor's plans the Conservatives would cut public expenditure by £50 billion, so they would be unable to help with training, investment, the regional venture capital funds and the permanent capital allowances.
    Mr. Bill Olner: My right hon. Friend is right not to take any lessons from the Conservative party on cuts in manufacturing jobs, having suffered the Thatcher years, but may I remind him that there are some short-term manufacturing difficulties post-11 September, particularly in the British aerospace industry? Can he give some short-term moneys to those companies to help them through what I am sure is a blip? There is no doubt that there are difficulties at the moment and they need to be addressed.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a keen interest in the fortunes of manufacturing industry in his constituency and his region. Yes, we accept that we need to do more to help the aviation industry because of the events of 11 September. Yes, we have given extra assistance to companies in the aerospace industry. The new orders announced for some aerospace companies, including that from the Lockheed Martin consortium, will bring new jobs and new work to those areas, which is important for the long term.
    I must tell my hon. Friend that output in food and drink, chemicals, cars and transport is up—>our big problem is the information technology and computer sector, where there have been falls of nearly 20 per cent. in America and other countries, and also in Britain—>so the manufacturing picture is not as bleak for some sectors as it is presented from the other side of the House.
    It is important that we do what we can to help manufacturing industry and one way we have been able to help is getting interest rates down seven times this year. They are now 4 per cent., but 10 years ago, in a similar world slowdown, they stood at 15 per cent. under the shadow Chancellor's policies.
    Matthew Taylor: The Chancellor is somewhat selective with his figures. Is not it a fact that the internationally exposed sectors are all in trouble in this country and have been since well before 11 September, that engineering and allied industries are experiencing a fall in output of nearly 10 per cent. compared with just a year ago and that nearly 400,000 people have lost their jobs in those sectors since 1997? He has said on at least a couple of occasions, but not in this place, that he believes that the fundamentals do not justify the current exchange rate. Does he still take that view and is not that the real background to many problems in manufacturing?
    Mr. Brown: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, yes. In answer to the second part, a number of problems affect manufacturing industry, as he describes. We are dealing with world trade, which rose
    452
    by 12 per cent. last year, but is rising by only 1 per cent. this year. It is hardly surprising that what he calls internationally exposed industries are affected by a slowdown in world trade.
    I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, although the IT sector in particular has been hit because of what has happened to the American IT industry, car output and that of the transport sector in Britain have been going up. Over the past year, the increase for cars is 7 per cent. That is a means by which we not only sell to the rest of the world but provide for the domestic market.
    The question is, do we have a Government who are prepared to take action where they can to help those industries that are in difficulty? The answer is that we are doing everything we can with permanent capital allowances, help for new investment, help for training and the work of the regional development agencies, which, as Conservative Members have acknowledged, help in individual industries. Where there are redundancies, the rapid reaction forces are moving in to help. People get jobs as quickly as possible. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) laughs at the rapid reaction forces. Of course, under the Conservative party there would be no help for people who are made redundant. He wants to abolish the new deal; he thinks it is a waste of money.
    The Conservatives would not have implemented the minimum wage or the working families tax credit and the hon. Gentleman would do nothing to help those people faced with redundancy. The difference between us is clear: we are on the side of people facing difficulty, but the Conservatives would do nothing to help.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in less than three weeks there will be a real opportunity for British manufacturers to export across Europe? A single eurozone will make it very easy for small and medium-sized as well as large enterprises to export in a single currency.
    Is it not a shame that yesterday, when the euro preparations group discussed preparations for the euro in the House with manufacturing leaders from the south-west, London and Northern Ireland, the Conservatives again refused to take their place at the table?
    Mr. Brown: Given that 50 per cent. of our trade is with the euro area, it is important for us to maximise the advantages. That is one of the reasons why more than a million business leaflets have been produced to help small businesses prepare for the introduction of the euro. We will continue to do what we can to work with business during the preparations.
    I agree with my hon. Friend that it is unfortunate that every political party in the House, from the smallest to the largest, has been prepared to join our euro preparations committee—an all-party committee of the House—except one. The one party that refused—I see an Opposition Member nodding, thinking about why it should have joined—is the Conservative party.
    That is because the Conservative party appears to oppose the euro in principle. When the shadow Chancellor was Foreign Secretary, he said he would never say never; but when he was standing for the leadership of the Conservative party, he said that his position on a single currency was that he was opposed to it "in principle".

    453
    Even if the economic benefits were proven, the shadow Chancellor would be opposed to the euro in principle. That is the state into which the Conservative party has fallen.
    Mr. Howard Flight: The Financial Secretary has confirmed something that I raised on 19 July—that, in addition to the direct costs to industry of the climate change levy, there will be VAT windfall gains of £30 million per annum which will not be recycled in national insurance.
    Is the Chancellor satisfied that effectively bribing industry with about two thirds of its own money and the token appointment of yet another tsar are the right policies for the industry in the face of a 4.2 per cent. fall in output over the past year—not a 3 per cent. fall; the latest statistics show a 4.2 per cent. Slump—and the worst recession for industry since 1991?
    Mr. Brown: I was wondering when the hon. Gentleman would appear. The Flight memorandum that we discussed on Monday had to be discussed without his being able to play a part.
    The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that when we announced the climate change levy we cut employers' national insurance contributions in every company in the country. We therefore recycled the revenues gained from the levy: there is no gain to the Treasury. We have also set up a renewables fund to help people progress to more energy-efficient industry.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's general position and his expression of concern about manufacturing industry, we must remember that his is the party which not only brought us 15 per cent. interest rates and lost us a million manufacturing jobs, but would refuse to do anything—through public expenditure or public investment—to help manufacturing industry. And as for the policy on Europe and helping manufacturing industry—(Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think we will move on now.

    Tax Credits
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: If he will make a statement on how integrated tax credits will support families. [18686]
    The Paymaster General(Dawn Primarolo): In 2003, the Government will be introducing a new credit for families with children, the child tax credit. It will provide a seamless stream of support for families, integrating the income-related elements of support for children, paid directly to the main carer. The child tax credit will be paid to families with children, whether the adults in the family are in work or not. It will build on the foundation of child benefit.
    Mr. McCabe:Does my hon. Friend agree that integrated tax credits represent the single greatest advance for ordinary people since the introduction of family allowance itself? Is this not the essence of Labour in action—a Government who believe that those who can work should work, that their children should enjoy the fruits of their honest toil, and that all children have the right to grow up free from the scourge of poverty?
    454
    Are not those who seek to frustrate such measures committing a direct assault on the interests of ordinary people and their children?
    Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right and I am sure that he would be surprised if I did not agree with him. The Opposition presided over a massive growth in child poverty and unemployment, and the key aspects of the Government's policy in tackling poverty are, first, to deal with low pay; secondly, to deal with the problem of workless households; and thirdly, investment in education and health, which will tackle all the elements of poverty in our society and ensure that children and their families are lifted out of that poverty.
    Mr. David Laws: Does the Minister agree with Andrew Dilnott of the Institute for Fiscal Studies that it is remarkable that the Treasury has yet to publish estimates of its two new tax credits, even though in a previous precedent it did publish estimates of the cost of the new tax credits? Why has it failed to do so in that case?
    Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with the gentleman he mentioned. The Tax Credits Bill, which will be debated by the House on Monday, will put in place the framework for a clear, simple, transparent method of delivering income to families, especially those in greatest need. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, the question of rates and tapers will be a subject for the Budget statement.
    Jane Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend aware that in areas such as my constituency, where the cost of living is high and unemployment is low, families who struggle on low incomes have a harder time of it than those in many other parts of the country? Does she agree that the seamless and common framework of assessment for the new credit will remove the stigma attached to receiving benefits that does exist, especially in such areas as Reading, East?
    Dawn Primarolo: The child credit will be paid to families with children regardless of whether the adult is in or out of work, thus removing the stigma. It will also ensure that those families have one point of application for those payments. It will be precisely calculated to ensure that those with the lowest incomes will get the maximum benefit. It is strange that on such an important change to the system of support for families, especially those with children, the official Opposition apparently do not have any views.
    John Robertson: My hon. Friend will be aware that my constituents welcome the child tax credit, but I am concerned by the shadow Chancellor's view that £50 billion could be wiped off—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister will not be able to answer that point.
    Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the House has noted that in the cuts that the shadow Chancellor wishes to see, both in the public sector and in benefits—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.

    Railtrack (Successor Company)
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Whether the borrowings of the successor company to Railtrack will be accounted for as public borrowing. [18687]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury(Mr. Andrew Smith): I see no prospect of such an outcome.
    Mr. Beith: Is it not a condition of Treasury agreement that that borrowing should be off the Government's books? How, then, could the permanent secretary go around the City telling people that the successor company would have a BBB star rating? Is not that an implicit guarantee?
    Mr. Smith: As public sector net borrowing is, as it says, borrowing by the public sector, and as we do not foresee the successor company—whatever it is—being in the public sector, I see no prospect of the outcome being counted as public sector borrowing.
    Mr. John Bercow: So far as the impact of the dismantling of Railtrack on public borrowing is concerned, the Chief Secretary oozes smug complacency. Given that the Confederation of British Industry, the Ernst and Young ITEM Club, Franklin Mutual, Legal and General, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the state of Wisconsin, to name but six, have all warned that the Railtrack fiasco will make it more expensive to attract private capital, why does he not now accept that present policies risk the possibility of financial famine and the virtual certainty of increased borrowing, higher taxes and further damage to a transport system which is already described by the Government's own advisers as the worst in the European Union?
    Mr. Smith: On smug complacency, the hon. Gentleman would do well to look in the mirror. As for the impact of what has happened at Railtrack on credit ratings, I shall quote the view of a leading credit rating agency. Standard and Poor published a document on 23 October that dealt with precisely these matters, in which it stated that
    "the Railtrack situation had no direct credit implications for rated PFI projects".
    Moreover, the Government are attracting private investment into public-private partnerships and private finance initiative projects of all types. That includes our commitment to invest in our railways, in line with the 10-year plan that the Government have set out.
    Mr. Michael Jack: If Railtrack's credit rating is so good, why did the Minister for Transport recently suggest that the Government are considering reducing expenditure on the roads programme to subsidise expenditure on rail? Is that correct? If it is, by how much will expenditure on roads be reduced, and what will be the damage to the roads programme?
    Mr. Smith: I am confident that our plans for rail can and will be financed within the 10-year plan that we have already set out, and out of the £180 billion that the Government have committed to transport. In contrast,
    456
    the Conservative party and the shadow Chancellor at the time of the general election explicitly refused to match our commitment on transport investment.

    Manufacturing
    Paul Holmes: What representations he has received on the change in output in manufacturing industry over the last year. [18692]
    Mr. Mark Field: What recent representations he has received from United Kingdom manufacturing exporters; and if he will make a statement. [18694]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): The Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers frequently receive representations from manufacturers and all areas of business on a wide range of economic issues. We listen carefully and value their insights—as we did, for instance, at yesterday's manufacturing summit.
    Paul Holmes: At meetings with union representatives and managers in my constituency of Chesterfield, I receive representations regarding the destruction of manufacturing industry. This year alone, three major traditional manufacturers—Sterling Tubes, Chesterfield Cylinders and Dema Glass—have either gone into administration or been closed down altogether. Those firms have told me that the overvalued pound against the euro cripples exports. Managers from Toyota at Derby have said that they can see no point in expanding that successful plant while there is no prospect of Britain entering the eurozone. The people to whom I have spoken want to know when the Chancellor will do something about ending the pound's ludicrous overvaluation compared with the euro.
    Ruth Kelly: The Government's policy on the euro is clear. The most important thing that we can do for manufacturing is to provide a stable economic climate. By making the Bank of England independent and putting in place tough new fiscal rules, we have taken the necessary measures to ensure that. Artificially to manipulate the exchange rate of the pound as the hon. Gentleman suggests would be ludicrous. Quick fixes are not the solution for manufacturing—the solution is a stable economic climate. The Government are prepared to take the action that manufacturers so desperately need. That is why we held the manufacturing summit yesterday, at which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions announced a further £20 million to help spread best practice within manufacturing.
    Mr. Field: The Chancellor assured us last week that we could expect overall growth in the economy to be 2.25 per cent. in 2001. However, after four consecutive quarters of technical recession in the manufacturing sector, will the Economic Secretary say what level of growth in that sector she anticipates in the forthcoming year?
    Ruth Kelly: As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, we gave those figures in the pre-Budget report. We are expecting an increase in manufacturing output during next

    457
    year. Of course, an open economy like the UK's cannot insulate itself from a global slowdown, especially when that slowdown affects countries such as the US, Japan and Europe. However, this country is better placed than any other in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to weather that international storm. That is why we are confident that manufacturing will continue to prosper in the future, and why we are taking measures now to ensure that manufacturing productivity and growth increase.
    Mr. Nigel Beard: Does my hon. Friend agree that the future of manufacturing depends, crucially, on the rate of innovation? In that context, what responses have been received from business and industry for the proposed research and development tax credit for larger companies?
    Ruth Kelly: The research and development tax credit, which the pre-Budget report announced would go out to further consultation, has been widely welcomed, particularly by the Confederation of British Industry. Digby Jones has said that it will make a very useful contribution. Of course, innovation is vital in raising productivity, particularly in the manufacturing sector. That is why we propose to extend the research and development tax credit throughout industry, with big companies benefiting as well as small and medium-sized enterprises. It is why we put in place 40 per cent. first year capital allowances for investment in plant and machinery. It is also why we are giving 100 per cent. capital allowances to all small firms that invest in information technology. The only way to enhance our productivity and close the productivity gap with our European and United States neighbours is through innovation and skills.
    Mr. David Kidney: At the strategic level, does my hon. Friend accept that all the many welcome measures taken by the Treasury over the past four years to help small and medium-sized manufacturers may have sidelined the big companies which, after all, provide the growth and activity for those smaller companies? Does she therefore agree that the proposal for the new research and development tax credit for larger companies is a very welcome sign of a more inclusive approach to what I call the whole manufacturing family?
    Ruth Kelly: Certainly, the extension of the research and development tax credits to all companies, large or small, will be welcomed across industry, and has already been welcomed by the CBI. Furthermore, our corporation tax reforms, which have been taking place over the five Budgets since the Government came to power in 1997, have slashed the corporation tax bills of manufacturers across the board. We now have the lowest corporation tax rates in the history of the United Kingdom. Overall, the United Kingdom has the lowest corporation tax rate of any major industrialised country. That is good news for manufacturers, big or small.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Economic Secretary will know that aerospace is an important part of our manufacturing base and has, historically, made a massive contribution to exports. She will be aware that, sadly, in recent months there have been about 40,000
    458
    redundancies in the industry, in firms such as Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems. Do the Government have any plans to assist the industry during its current problems so that it will have a skilled work force when there is an upturn?
    Ruth Kelly: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government are committed to the future of the aerospace industry and have been helping the sector through direct assistance and also by means of the rapid response taskforce, which assists people who become unemployed. Of course, the aerospace industry has been particularly hard hit following the events of 11 September. We must now ensure that it has an environment in which it can restructure and develop. We are committed to working towards that. It is not all gloom and doom on the aerospace front, however. Recent contracts that have been won, such as the Lockheed Martin contract, will bring some welcome help to the employees and the company involved.

    Environmental Protection
    Paddy Tipping: If he will make a statement on the measures in his pre-Budget report which enhance and protect the environment. [186931]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury(Mr. Paul Boateng): In keeping with the Government's commitment for taxation to reflect environmental impacts, the Chancellor announced in his pre-Budget report a series of environmentally based measures and consultations designed to protect and enhance our environment.
    Paddy Tipping: The pre-Budget report contains important measures for moving towards a more sustainable energy policy, but will my right hon. Friend tell us when the long-awaited report on combined heat and power will be published so that the agreed targets can be met? Will he look closely at proposals put to him on coal mine methane development? If we could harness that we really would be in a win-win situation.
    Mr. Boateng: We are considering carefully with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what support might be offered on combined heat and power. DEFRA will be publishing a CHP strategy in the coming months. We are committed to CHP, which has an important role to play. We shall certainly also take into account the outcome of the performance and innovation unit's energy review.
    On coal mine methane, we await a response from the industry to our request for information on the potential environmental benefits of that form of power. Also important is energy from coppicing, in which Members on both sides of the House have a particular interest, and we believe that the climate change levy exemption and the renewables obligation will provide a significant stimulus to that renewable form of energy.
    Tim Loughton: If the Minister is so pleased with the Government's green record, can he explain why last week the Government's own greening government report, produced the day before the pre-Budget Report, revealed that all Departments had signally failed to reduce greenhouse emissions? The increase in energy was as great as 77 per cent. in

    459
    the Department of Health, while the Minister's own Department has increased energy consumption during the past year by as much as 23 per cent., as well as failing to reduce hardwood usage and failing on recycling targets. Is it not time that the Government put their own house in order, rather than preaching to others and piling millions of ill-targeted taxes on to businesses?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman is plain wrong in his view of the impact of those taxes on businesses. He knows—as do Members on both sides of the House—that the climate change levy was devised and crafted with the closest co-operation of business. He also knows of the real benefits that have been gained by business as a result of the climate change levy, but he is absolutely right to point out that Departments should take a lead in this area. We are determined to do better. There is no room for complacency. This is a challenge we all face together.

    World Development Goals
    Helen Jones: What recent discussions he has had with other Finance Ministers on progress towards a meeting the 2015 world development goals. [18696]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer(Mr. Gordon Brown): I used recent international meetings to push for greater efforts to achieve the 2015 goals. We have proposed a $50 billion international development fund under a new compact between developed and developing countries, and I hope that our proposal will engender an all-party consensus in the House.
    Helen Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the personal interest that he has taken in the matter—it is a refreshing change from the previous Administration. My right hon. Friend will accept that achieving many of those targets will depend on an increase in aid, among other things. Can he tell me when he expects this country's aid budget to reach the target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product? That is something that many of my constituents, even in the poorest areas, would like to see, as a sign of our commitment to the worst-off people in the world.
    Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend. I know that she takes a tremendous personal interest in both the debt relief campaign and the work on international development led by churches and others in her constituency. When we came into power the development aid budget was 0.27 per cent. Under this spending round, it is rising to 0.33 per cent. In the pre-Budget statement, I said that we envisaged a substantial increase in overseas development in the next spending round and a rise in the proportion of aid in our national income. That is why we made the proposal for an international development fund involving $50 billion. Its aim would be to halve poverty between now and 2015; to cut infant mortality by two thirds; and to ensure that every child in the world enjoyed primary schooling by 2015, instead of the present situation in which, this morning, 120 million children were not able to attend school.
    460
    We are asking other countries to join us in that. Negotiations will take place in the run-up to the finance for development conference. That goes hand in hand with our proposals on debt relief, where 24 countries now enjoy up to $50 billion of debt relief.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer support the views of the senior management of the International Monetary Fund, especially Ann Kruger, the vice-president, who argued last week that seriously indebted developing countries should enter the equivalent of bankruptcy proceedings to facilitate a rapid write-off of commercial and official debt? Do the British Government agree with her?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two debates that are taking place. One is about whether, in our crisis prevention and crisis resolution measures, we as an international community look to a new system of international bankruptcy proceedings. The managing director of the IMF, Hans Kohler, has suggested that we need to consider that issue in far more detail because our crisis resolution measures are not good enough.
    How we can help those countries that do not have a sustainable exit from debt relief is a separate issue. The answer is that other countries should follow what we have done, which is to provide 100 per cent. debt relief for debts that were incurred in the past, and that we do more through the international institutions to reduce debt. That is how we expect to proceed. Twenty-four countries now have debt relief. Perhaps another 10 could receive debt relief if they moved out of conflict. Under our proposals, it is possible for $100 billion in debt relief to be provided.
    Mr. Andy Reed: I welcome the Chancellor's commitment to reducing debt. However, is he aware of my concern and those of other debt campaigners that the problem for those countries that are currently going through the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, and those that would wish to do so in the near future, is that even the World Bank has suggested that their future economic sustainability may mean that they will not be able to meet their current targets? Will he ensure that that issue is raised in future discussions with other Finance Ministers? Will he use his influence with the IMF and the World Bank to ensure that those programmes work for the poorest?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is chairman of the all-party committee on such matters. The work that has been done by all hon. Members is much appreciated. We agreed at Ottawa that there would be greater flexibility in the award of debt relief to countries, especially taking into account the fall in commodity prices that has affected Africa in particular. We therefore agreed that, at the point of completion, there will be more flexibility to enable countries to get a sustainable exit from the debts that they have incurred.
    The fact of the matter is that four years ago only one country was likely to receive debt relief; now, as a result of a decision made on another African country last week, 24 have got debt relief. The next stage is for post-conflict countries to get the debt relief that they are due, which would mean that we would achieve our target of $100 billion in debt relief. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, that more will have to be done if we are to have

    461
    a virtuous circle of debt reduction, poverty reduction and sustainable development, and that is why the focus must now also be on the 2015 development targets.

    Euro
    Mr. Ian Taylor: What are the latest estimates of Treasury expenditure on business euro preparations for the 2001–02 financial year. [186971]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Some £10 billion—[Interruption]—£10 million, and the Opposition will be happy to note this, has already been spent on business euro preparations. Some £23 million has been spent to adopt euro-compatible systems in the Inland Revenue and the Department for Work and Pensions. A copy of the Treasury's fifth report on euro preparations, which was published on 4 November, has been deposited in the Library.
    Mr. Taylor: The Chancellor may overspend if he put £10 billion into the problem, but £10 million is too little. Does he agree that there will be a real competitive challenge to industry and traders in this country on 1 January—that 80 per cent. of the single European market, which is the home market for British business, will have one currency? There are 13 million visitors from the eurozone to this country. It is urgent that British companies not only accept notes and coins in euro denominations, but look at their marketing strategy and prepare themselves for what will be the dominant currency in our home market.
    Mr. Brown: That is precisely why, in the most practical way, we have done what we can to help British businesses to prepare. We have published 425,000 fact sheets on euro preparation for businesses; we have written to 1.5 million small firms to inform them about the needs that will arise from the euro; we have published more than 50 business case studies showing how the euro can be adapted; and we have issued a euro preparations leaflet to 1.6 million small businesses. In addition, a leaflet is being distributed at ports and airports explaining to travellers to and from the United Kingdom how the euro will work.
    We are working with all the sectoral bodies in our euro preparations committee—which includes the Bank of England, the chambers of commerce, the Confederation of British Industry and many other organisations—to produce material for clients in different sectors. In addition, there is a telephone helpline available for businesses inquiring about Europe.
    I may add that we are encouraging people who have old coins and notes in foreign currencies that will be converted into the euro to give them to charity, if they are prepared to do so, and we are giving tax relief for that.
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Retailers, banks, manufacturers and exporters are already having to spend huge amounts of money to get ready for the introduction of euro coins and notes. However, the real advantage to those businesses will occur only if we are in the eurozone and have the advantage of lower interest rates and still lower costs to business. Should not real
    462
    preparations be made now to build up the campaign to explain to the British people and to British business the full advantages of joining the euro?
    Mr. Brown: It is precisely to inquire about all the advantages of the euro that the five tests will be applied. The technical and preliminary work that is being undertaken in the Treasury will lead to an assessment within the first two years. The issues that must be examined and on which an objective assessment must be made include the effects on employment; the effects on investment; the effects on the flexibility of our economy; the effects on different sectors, including financial services; and whether there is sustainable and durable convergence. I believe that most businesses think that these are the right tests to make.
    It would be wrong to do what the Opposition do and rule out the euro on principle as a matter of economic dogma even if it were found to be in the national economic interest to join. The shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), shakes his head, but in 1997 he said that he was against the single currency "in principle". Does he still hold that view?

    Productivity
    Mr. Win Griffiths: What steps he is taking to encourage businesses to raise productivity levels. [18699]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The creation of a sustainable, stable macro-economic framework since 1997 has provided the foundation for productivity growth in UK firms. We have a long-term ambition to ensure that Britain achieves a faster rate of productivity growth than its main competitors, thereby closing the productivity gap. The Chancellor's pre-Budget report takes us a step nearer that ambition.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. When he considers the efforts of small and medium-sized companies to increase their productivity, will he examine the issues surrounding the charges for authorisations under integrated pollution control? A small company in my constituency, Abril Waxes, has found that it has to pay £7,000 for its authorisation, which might be the same as that paid by a company such as BP. Will he consider a system of sliding scales based on output for such charges?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend takes a very close interest in these matters and I am grateful for his support for our objectives. He makes a fair point and I will ensure that officials consider his proposal and get back to him on our likely capacity to be able to introduce such a measure.
    The pre-Budget report sought to help small businesses through the simplification of VAT and by further reforms to the business tax system. I hope that they will assist the sort of firm that he rightly said has particular concerns about compliance costs.

    Child Poverty
    James Purnell: What measures he is taking to tackle child poverty. [18700]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The Government are committed to abolishing child poverty within a generation and halving it by 2010. As a result of tax and benefit changes announced in the last Parliament, there are now 1.2 million fewer children in poverty than there would otherwise have been. In addition, the Government have put extra funds into services specifically available for children, such as sure start, neighbourhood renewal and the children's fund.
    James Purnell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that ending child poverty also depends on making work pay? Does she remember the shadow Chancellor campaigning relentlessly against the minimum wage in the 1992 election and claiming that it would cost
    464
    up to 2 million jobs? Does that not show the essentially right-wing instincts of the Conservative party and the fact that it cannot ever be trusted on child poverty or—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but Opposition policy has nothing to do with the Paymaster General.
    Dawn Primarolo: Poverty is complex and multidimensional, as my hon. Friend will realise. To tackle child poverty, it is necessary to deal with low incomes through the minimum wage and the tax and benefit changes that the Government have introduced. We need to tackle the problem of workless households by ensuring that people can get into work, stay in work and keep more of the money that they earn. The working families tax credit is an example of how we do that. We must also invest in public services—in particular, education and health—to give the best start to our children and to ensure that they are able to develop their potential without the scar of poverty destroying their lives.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Tax Credits Bill.
TUESDAY 11 DECEMBER—Estimates Day [1st Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the staging of the world athletics championships in the United Kingdom followed by a debate on waste management policy.
Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
WEDNESDAY 12 DECEMBER—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
A debate on International Terrorism on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.
THURSDAY 13 DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Animal Health Bill.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
FRIDAY 14 DECEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the International Development Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 18 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 19 DECEMBER—Motion to approve a statutory instrument. Details to be announced.
Motion on the Christmas recess Adjournment debate.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the next five weeks will be:
THURSDAY 13 DECEMBER—Debate on the report from the Health Committee on public health.
THURSDAY 10 JANUARY—Debate cm the report from the Science and Technology Committee on wave and tidal energy.
THURSDAY 17 JANUARY—Debate on child health and maternity.
THURSDAY 24 JANUARY—Debate ion the report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on walking in towns and cities.
THURSDAY 31 JANUARY—Debate on Gibraltar.
The House will wish to know that on Monday 10 December there will be a debate relating to the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states in European Standing Committee B. This rearranges the debate adjourned last Monday
466
[Monday 10 December 2001:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union Document: 13425/01, European Arrest Warrant. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 152-vii (2001–02) and HC 152-viii (2001–02).]
[Tuesday 11 December
Winter supplementary summary request for supply (HC 392). Vote on Account (House of Commons) (HC393). Vote on Account (National Audit Office)
(HC394). Vote on Account (Electoral Commission) (HC 395)]
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for next week and beyond. On his last point, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in response to points of order raised by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), at column 185 of Hansard on 4 December you helpfully invited the hon. Lady in particular to follow up the important constitutional issue that arose following what my hon. Friend called "a shambles" in the European Standing Committee last Monday? Based on what that Committee said—or, strictly speaking, was not able to say; it has yet to reach a decision—and what was said in the equivalent Committee in another place, the Government are surely unable to take a position on European arrest warrants in the Council of Ministers, which is meeting even as we speak.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give an absolute undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will make no commitment on that matter until the proper parliamentary process has been completed. As the Committee will not meet again until next Monday, I hope that he will say categorically that the Government will not take a position on behalf of this country in that Council of Ministers before the Committee concludes its deliberations and the parliamentary process is completed. It is an important matter, and I am sure the Leader of the House, with his well-known respect for the parliamentary process, will readily be able to give that guarantee.
The Leader of the House has so far shared his views on what he chooses to call the modernisation of the House of Commons only, we are told, with the parliamentary Labour party. Before he shares his views with the rest of us—I do not know when that will be—will he guarantee that his proposals will strengthen the House of Commons and Parliament vis-à-vis the Government and reduce the Government's stranglehold on our parliamentary process, which they are seeking to tighten? Moreover, will he guarantee that nothing that he does will give Members of Parliament the opportunity to reduce their role in this place, or allow them to bunk off rather than be here fulfilling their parliamentary duties? Those undertakings will be very important when we all come to consider the proposals, as I hope we will eventually be given the chance to do.
Finally, may I draw the Leader's attention to early-day motion No. 529?
[That this House is deeply concerned by the contents of the Press release entitled 'Labour Thugs Attack MP', issued by the Labour honourable Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham on 4th December, in which he complains of 'an intimidatory move' by the Labour honourable Member for Bradford South, 'prodding in the back' by the Labour honourable Member for Lewisham West,

467
and 'expletive name-calling' by the Labour honourable Metnber for Harwich; agrees with the Labour honourable Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham that 'It is tune that New Labour was exposed for its Stalinist tendencies and desperate methods of trying to intimidate its own MPs'; and whilst, not sharing the honourable Member's view on Afghanistan, calls upon the Government Chief Whip to discipline those members of her office who have infringed acceptable methods of dealing with one of their own back bench colleagues.]
I am sure that the Leader has memorised it, but while he is waiting for his Parliamentary Private Secretary to give him a copy, I can tell him that it concerns a press release entitled, "Labour thugs attack MP". [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no."] Yes, this is a very serious allegation, which must worry you, Mr. Speaker, as it does the rest of us. The MP concerned is the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), and he has made serious allegations about which we are all most concerned. He says that he has been both verbally and physically attacked by members of the Government.
It is one thing for the Government to hold the House in contempt; we have almost got used to that. But it is quite another if the Government are now so desperate that their Ministers—Whips, after all, are on the payroll and have ministerial boxes and cars—are now physically and verbally attacking an independent-minded Member simply because he takes a view that is different from, and independent of, that of the Government. If the House of Commons is about anything, it is the ability of Members to take an independent view and to be accountable to their electorate and no one else. Here we have another direct threat against Members' independence, and I hope that you agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is urgent that we debate the matter. Let us have it out in the open and hear what the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham has to say, and then let us decide how we, the House of Commons, can protect Labour MPs from their own Government.
Mr. Cook: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, may I say, Mr. Speaker, that I read with care your words inviting my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) to raise the matter with me this morning? I was delighted to see her in her place when I entered the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman has slightly stolen her thunder, but since he has asked the question, I may say to him that there is no question of those matters being agreed by Her Majesty's Government in any meeting in Brussels until the meeting on Monday 10 December. In practice, we anticipate that the issues will be resolved at Laeken, not at the Justice and Home Affairs Council, and the Laeken meeting will take place after 10 December.
The forthcoming paper on the modernisation of the House will be circulated to members of the Modernisation Committee this weekend, and discussed at meetings of the Committee next Tuesday and Wednesday. I hope that it will be available to all Members of the House next Wednesday.
Mr. Forth: Will the Leader of the House guarantee that?
Mr. Cook: I certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that guarantee. However, I also want to point out that before the Modernisation Committee takes forward that
468
programme of work, it is important that it has before it the views of all Members of the House, which is why it is important that the document should be shared with all Members.
I am very pleased to give the right hon. Gentleman the guarantees that he asked for. The whole purpose of the exercise is to make sure that Parliament is able to do its job more effectively and able to scrutinise legislation more effectively, and that it has Select Committees that can scrutinise the Executive more effectively. It is important that we get across the message that the modernisation of Parliament is not about making life easier for MPs; it is about making the job of the MP more effective and more rewarding. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear, and I look forward to his support in this matter, that the total impact of my proposals on the sitting hours of the House will be to increase, not diminish, them. I know that he personally will fully support me on that.
On the other matter that the right hon. Gentleman raises, I accept responsibility for many things, but not for what happens in the Strangers Bar at 3 am. My rare experience of being in the Strangers Bar at 3 am is that it is a place for robust exchange of views, and I should not have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be surprised or dismayed by that, but there is a categorical denial of any physical violence.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am delighted to hear that European Standing Committee B will have an opportunity to look again at the very important European arrest warrant. Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is an extremely far-reaching measure? It is not simply a matter of a small adjustment; it will affect many aspects of British law. Before we accept the right of a foreign Administration to issue a demand for arrest on matters as wide as crimes of homosexuality and abortion, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should debate the consequences and the implications on the Floor of the House of Commons, where all hon. Members can be aware of what we are being committed to?
Mr. Cook: I am quite sure that all hon. Members are well aware of the proposals of the Justice and Home Affairs Council. They have, after all, been debated during the passage of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, and will no doubt be debated again when we consider statutory instruments under that Bill when it becomes an Act. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her welcome for the fact that there will be a debate in the Standing Committee. That debate will be timely, before any decision is taken. I would not disagree with her that important and serious issues are involved. It is precisely because of the need for co-operation across Europe and with our immediate neighbours to defeat terrorism that we are taking the measure.
Mr. Paul Tyler: In the context of the improved scrutiny that the House should undertake, does the Leader of the House recall the infamous memo from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), in which he advised his colleagues to "bunk off'—to use his own expression—on a regular basis? Does the Leader of the House also recall that late on

469
Tuesday night we missed the right hon. Gentleman in the Chamber, when he, too, seemed to have bunked off at an early hour?
With regard to modernisation, does the Leader of the House recognise that we have a problem? Members of the Select Committee have been sworn to secrecy about the ideas that we are currently discussing, yet the briefing which emerged from the meeting of the parliamentary Labour party last night, most of which seemed to be erroneous, puts us in the awkward position of not knowing whether we are allowed to discuss those matters with our colleagues or with the media. Can the Leader of the House release members of the Select Committee from that vow of secrecy? We recall that on many occasions in this place, members of Select Committees have been strongly criticised for disclosing matters that were being considered by their Committees.
In particular, can the Leader of the House give an undertaking that, as part of his proposals, he will examine the vexed issue of the rationalisation and regularisation of the allocation of Opposition Supply days and the way in which subjects for debate on those days are chosen? He will recall that over the past week or so, considerable confusion resulted from the failure to give us information in good time so that we could prepare for those debates.
Mr. Cook: I hope that the paper on modernisation will be circulated to members of the Modernisation Committee in the course of today and that it will be available for the weekend. The normal rule to which the hon. Gentleman refers is correct. A Select Committee would be expected to proceed with its papers on the basis of discussion only within the Committee.
We must be mature and recognise that if we are to discuss the modernisation of Parliament, changes in the working practices of our colleagues, and the right of the House to carry out effective scrutiny of legislation, we cannot do that in conditions of secrecy. It is important that we share that with colleagues, and that they can offer their own input. That is why we intend to release the document after it has been discussed in the Committee next week. I leave it to the discretion and good faith of members of the Committee as to whom they consult and the conditions on which they consult them before we meet to discuss the paper next week.
On the views that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) expressed to the Conservative party, I well recall his proposal that Conservative Members should divide themselves into teams, each of which would turn up on one day of the week.
Mr. Forth: It never happened.
Mr. Cook: Yes, I regret to say that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal failed to be implemented. The rest of us were rather looking forward to the outcome, with only a fifth of Conservative Members turning up on any one day.
David Winnick: On an issue not raised by the two Opposition parties today, should not there be a statement in the House next week about why the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards did not have the opportunity of having her contract renewed, like her predecessor? Is it not clear that her successor, whoever
470
that may be, will be under tremendous pressure, rather like Mrs. Filkin has been? If her successor carries out his or her duties in the same conscientious and honourable way as Mrs. Filkin, the feeling may be that that successor will not have his or her contract renewed. Is there not a case for the appointment to be made by an outside body, not by us? That form of self-regulation is almost becoming a farce. Why should not the Committee on Standards in Public Life do the appointing? I must tell my right hon. Friend that the whole shabby business is regrettable and has reflected no credit on the House of Commons.
Mr. Cook: I cheerfully say to my hon. Friend that I am open to bids from other Committees to take that burden upon themselves. I am certainly not fighting to keep it for the Committee on which I serve.
David Winnick: Outside bodies.
Mr. Cook: The Standards and Privileges Committee is not an outside body. I remind my hon. Friend that the procedures of the House are clear; when an appointment is proposed, the nomination will come before the whole House of Commons on the Floor of the House and it will be for the whole House to approve or reject it. I think that I am correct in saying that it will be an amendable motion, so it will be open to my hon. Friend at that stage to table an amendment to test the opinion of the House on whether the present commissioner should be reappointed.
I do not think that it will help my hon. Friend's cause of ensuring proper inviligation of the standards and conducts of Members of Parliament if he starts a campaign to decry the process of appointment. It is in the interests of everybody in the House to attract a quality field and approach the task of finding the best possible candidate to become commissioner.
Mr. Paul Goodman: Will the Leader of the House find an opportunity for an early debate on health so that we can ask the Government whether they support a hypothecated health tax, like the Secretary of State for Health, or whether they oppose such a tax, like his very best friend the Chancellor?
Mr. Cook: I have no doubt that the House will have the ingenuity to ask those questions on many future occasions.
Mr. Eric Illsley: Will my right hon. Friend find time soon to debate the guidelines currently followed by Customs and Excise on personal imports of tobacco and alcohol? Under the guidelines, my right hon. Friend will be aware, Customs and Excise have not only made large seizures of alcohol and tobacco, but impounded motor vehicles, which are then sold. The European Commission has declared those guidelines unlawful. May we therefore have a debate or statement to clarify the position on the validity of those guidelines?
Mr. Cook: I remind my hon. Friend that everything that Customs and Excise does is done under United Kingdom law, with the authority of the House and, indeed, the elected Government. Of course, I appreciate that the matter is of concern to people who have been stopped by Customs and Excise and had property

471
confiscated, but the country faces a major problem of tobacco smuggling. It is important for all of us in the House to send a strong message to Customs and Excise that we welcome its vigilance against illegal smuggling.
Sir George Young: The consultation period on the Government's proposals to reform the House of Lords runs out at the end of January. May we have an assurance that there will be a full day's debate on them before that period expires?
Mr. Cook: I am pleased to give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I anticipate that that debate will be held in the first week after the recess, subject to progress on business.
Mr. Harry Barnes: After more than 14 years of persistent rebellion in the House, never once have I had any physical or verbal abuse from the Whips. I am wondering whether I do not go to Strangers Bar enough or whether people are not taking me seriously.
My question to my right hon. Friend refers to early-day motion 532, which deals with a mineral planning guidance note:
[That this House welcomes the gains made in the revised version of Mineral Planning Guidance Note 3 (MPG3) which can and should be used by planning authorities to prevent dangerous forms of open cast mining; is disturbed that these gains stand to be lost entirely by favoured changes which are due to take place to MPG ll, which itself is supposed to mitigate the environmental effects of mineral extractions, including open cast mining; notes that the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions is currently placing an entirely unjustified reliance upon a deeply flawed survey from Newcastle University which restricted its examination of the effects of dust particulates to PM 10 size, measured within the limited distance of l km of mineral extraction operations, when the professionals conducting the survey must have been aware that fine particulates travel exceptional distances and that PM 2ߝ5 particulates could easily have been measured at no additional costs to their study; is disturbed to discover that such an inept and incompetent study is being used for the benefit of open cast mining interests, although many reputable alternative surveys have reached different conclusions; and calls upon the Government to commission its own detailed and rigorous research into such matters before the revised MPG 11 is adopted and published, so that environmental, health and communal interests are placed to the fore.]
Improvements proposed by mineral planning guidance note 3 have made it much more difficult for opencast mining applications to be granted. Currently, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is investigating MPG 11, which is supposed to mitigate the environmental effects of mineral extraction. However, from correspondence that I have had with the Department, it appears to be taking too much into account a survey conducted by Newcastle university, which was published in 1999 by the Department of Health and does not take seriously the impact of coal dust on young people. It is clear that, at some point, we shall have a
472
statement on new MPG 11. Can representations be made to ensure that that is not dumped on us, thereby undermining the situation achieved by MPG 3?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Far be it from me to bully the hon. Gentleman, but I think that that question went on a bit too long.
Mr. Cook: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) for confirming what I have long supposed: that the Government Whips treat Labour Members with respect to their person if not always with respect to their opinions.
My hon. Friend is correct that the Department is conducting a review of planning guidance on opencast mining. The review can reflect the evidence to which he referred and can also take full account of the early-day motion that he and others have tabled.
Peter Bottomley: Can the Leader of the House remember on which day he was quoted referring to the whispering campaign against the current Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards? If he cannot remember, it was on 20 August, on page 3 of the Financial Times. The Leader has also told the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) that he wants to have a quality field of candidates for the next term of office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Will he therefore, perhaps in next week's debate, follow up on those remarks by saying whether he remembers his words of 28 June 2001, when he said that the current Parliamentary Commissioner is "zealous…extremely zealous"?
Is the Leader trying to ensure that the field is less zealous by associating himself with a cut in the commissioner's days of service per week from four to three, in the mistaken belief that Sir Gordon Downey worked three days rather than four days per week? Will he please also give the House an opportunity as soon as possible to debate and vote on early-day motion 513, which states:
[That this House has confidence in the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and invites Elizabeth Filkin to accept reappointment on the terms of the initial contract working four days a week.]
As I understand it, such a debate and vote are the only way in which the House can offer reappointment to the commissioner on the terms that she is currently on and that Sir Gordon Downey was on.
Mr. Cook: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I remind him that Mrs. Filkin applied for a job and that the job description said that it would be for three days; that is the basis on which she was chosen. Subsequently, it was negotiated that she should be paid and employed for four days. It has always been open to her to pursue that course, and it has always been open to any candidate who has been appointed to secure an extension of the three days. That is precisely what we did last time.
The hon. Gentleman is correct that Sir Gordon Downey was employed for four days a week. It is also the case that, before he retired, he wrote to the authorities indicating that, in his view, the job merited three days a week, not four. The job description for his successor was drawn up on that basis.

473
I have of course studied the early-day motion with care; I always pay respect to early-day motions. Quite often, they provide a useful expression of a weight of opinion in the House and often attract a very large number of signatures. I noted with care that the hon. Gentleman's early-day motion has been signed so far by 18 hon. Members, and therefore does not attract the priority for debate that many others do that demonstrate a much larger body of opinion behind them in the House.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Hon. Members on both sides of the House were very grateful that, yesterday, you, Mr. Speaker, were able to take a private notice question on the middle east from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). However, given the very serious nature of events in the area, will the Leader of the House try to find time as soon as possible for a full debate, in Government time, on the situation in the middle east, particularly in relation to the west bank and Gaza? Although hon. Members have been able to address those issues in debates on international terrorism, I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that we deserve time to debate Palestine and the problems there outside of that context. I do not think that we have had such a debate in the past year.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises an issue that is of deep concern to many hon. Members. He is also quite correct that there is an opportunity to raise those issues in the course of our exchanges on international terrorism. There will be another full day's debate on that subject next week, which will be the sixth such full day's debate since 11 September. There have therefore been many opportunities for hon. Members to raise those issues of concern. I underline the Government's deep anxiety about the present situation in the middle east and our appeal to both sides for restraint and a return to the negotiating table. I know that this is a matter of deep concern and priority for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I am sure that he and his team will continue to do all that they can to ensure that Britain and the European Union play their part in trying to bring both parties back from the brink.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Leader of the House accept that the House of Commons Commission is not an all-party body, as it was described by the Prime Minister yesterday—a number of parties in the House are not represented on it? Will he ask the Prime Minister not to describe it as such in future? As I understand it, the Leader of the House said earlier that we could have a debate on the Floor of the House about the appointment of the next Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Should not we have a debate on what happened to our current commissioner before we have a debate on the next one, either through early-day motion 513 or by some other means? How many signatures does he require that motion to have before he will agree to the democratic aspect of a debate on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is correct: his party and the other minority parties do not have direct representation on the House of Commons Commission. However, the Commission embraces representatives of the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. The right hon. Member for Bromley
474
yand Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) serves on the Commission—indeed, I think that he did so even before he held his present position—although I must confess that it was not entirely clear to me in respect of some of the questions asked during Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday whether it was understood in his party that he is a member of the Commission and has played a full part in all the decisions that we have taken.
I do not believe that the issue has lacked adequate ventilation in Parliament or the press. There is no question of the matter being dealt with secretly. After all, the advert itself is a public document by definition. I urge everybody now to focus on the important task ahead of us, which is to ensure that we get a person of calibre, ability and commitment to carry out the job properly.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend put paid to the nonsense that is being circulated today to the effect that any people other than hon. Members can come into the Chamber when the House is sitting or into Committees when they are doing business? Should not he be introducing measures that encourage hon. Members to be here more as legislators, instead of encouraging them to be back in their constituencies acting as social workers and parish council mayors? Can he give me an assurance that when these matters come before the House, they will, as House matters, be decided as usual by free vote? Will he put them forward separately and not as a full package?
Mr. Cook: I rather thought that my hon. Friend's earlier observations sounded a little bit like an editorial in The Guardian. I was rather surprised that he should express himself in such terms, as I know how much he values his constituency work, having visited him there. It is important that the House should strike the right balance. We are indeed here to legislate and scrutinise Government, but we are here also to represent our constituents. We cannot carry out that proper job of legislating and scrutinising Government if we do not have adequate contact with our constituents and pay adequate attention to their views. I know that he does that, so I am rather surprised by his comments. As to when and how the House considers the issues to which he refers, we are still some months away and I agree that the matter is one for the Modernisation Committee to resolve. I do not imagine that there will be one composite portmanteau or resolution. Even if we dealt with the matter on one day, I imagine that a number of different issues would have to be addressed.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the Leader of the House provide some Government time to review the progress that they are making on their policy on planning? In particular, are the Government considering the impact on national heritage sites, where planning appears to be confused? In my constituency, between Hampton Court station and Hampton Court palace, there is a site that provides scandalous evidence of the failure of both owners and planners to come to any terms. As a result, the public constantly see the mess that is on the site when they leave the station to visit one of the finest palaces in this country. It would be useful to know what the Government are thinking about how to get proper planning quickly on such sites.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman raises an important planning issue. I hesitate to express an off-the-cuff

475
opinion about such an historic site, which he has the distinction of representing. I shall draw the matter to the attention of the Minister in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who is responsible for planning.
Roger Casale: I am mindful of my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). However, despite the good progress in shaping an inclusive, post-conflict Government for the people of Afghanistan, does he agree that the prospects for renewing or retrieving the middle east peace process have become very bleak this week? Does he also agree that it is essential for Europe, the United States and the international community to show the same determination as they displayed in Afghanistan in putting pressure on both sides in the middle east conflict to come back to the negotiating table? We are in danger not only of losing the possibility of a long-term settlement, but of not finding a way back to the peace process at all.
Mr. Cook: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. The Government will endeavour to achieve the outcome that he seeks. However, I would take a step back from the suggestion of putting pressure on either side. It is important to lobby, to try to bring both sides together and encourage them to reach agreement. It is also important to recognise that what we ask of them is in their interests. We are not asking them to do something as a favour to world opinion; we are asking them to return to the negotiating table and exercise restraint on violence for the sake of their people. The only way in which to secure a permanent peace in the middle east is through a negotiated agreement. It will not be achieved by helicopter gunships on one side and suicide bombers on the other.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Each time a Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, confusion reigns about when the Government will implement their election pledge to increase national health spending to the European average. Earlier, the Chief Secretary, aided and abetted by a nodding Chancellor of the Exchequer, suggested that we would achieve the European average of 1998 in 2005. Is not it time that the Leader of the House asked the Prime Minister to make a statement on health? The Prime Minister pledged that he would take personal responsibility for the NHS; he should therefore answer questions on it exclusively.
Mr. Cook: I can only remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister answers questions in the House every week and that he has answered that specific question twice in the past two weeks.
Mr. David Kidney: A few weeks ago, I asked my right hon. Friend whether he would arrange a debate on the Auld report's recommendations for the reform of the criminal justice system. He gave me a sympathetic, but non-committal reply. Has he any firm proposals for such a debate during the consultation period, which ends at the end of January next year?
Mr. Cook: I cannot commit myself to a debate by the end of January. We have already made one commitment
476
for January, when there will be a heavy volume of legislation to tackle. However, we attach great importance to the Auld recommendations, and hon. Members will have to consider them in future in the context of legislation. If the opportunity arises, it would be appropriate for the House to express its view on the matter.
Mrs. Angela Browning: When the Leader of the House presents the Modernisation Committee recommendations next week, I hope that he will not use "family friendly" as a smoke screen for changes that the press suggest are geared towards clockwatching earth mothers. He knows that if hon. Members clock off at 5 pm, only very few will go home to the bosom of their family. Most of us live many hours' journey from our families. Will he bear it in mind that many hon. Members would be footloose and fancy free in the city from 5 pm onwards? I cannot believe that that is in the family's interest.
Mr. Cook: Nor do I imagine that London would welcome clockwatching earth mothers being footloose in the city. Let me repeat my comments of last week. The idea that the House can ever agree to hours of 10 am to 5 pm is garbage. I never proposed that, although the newspaper that suggested that I had done so reported last weekend that I had withdrawn the proposal in the face of criticism. I am wearily reconciled to the ways of the press, and I am happy to bear an allegation that I withdrew an idea that I never proposed.
We need to find hours that will enable the House to be effective. Much of the debate about the hours of the House focuses too much on the end of the evening, when we go home. There is a much stronger case for focusing on the earlier part of the day when we do not sit, and for asking why we do not begin our proceedings until 2.30 pm, three days a week.
Rob Marris: As the Leader of the House may be aware, Dovecotes primary school in Pendeford in my constituency is this year one of the 20 most improved primary schools in the country. I am sure that he will agree that the hard-working staff, head teacher, pupils and parents of Dovecotes primary school deserve the House's warm congratulations on their magnificent achievement. Does he also agree that the latest statistics are a welcome step towards a more sophisticated analysis of work and achievement in our education system, and represent a move away from the simplistic raw tables of bare results? Will he find time for the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to make a statement to the House next week on the achievements of so many schools around the country, including Dovecotes?
Mr. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having a primary school in his constituency that is in the top 20 in Britain. That must be a source of satisfaction to him as a Member of Parliament, and a source of pride to his constituents and to the head teacher.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence on what has been dubbed "operation homework", in which the Ministry of Defence supplied information to one Master

477
Euan Blair on the arguments in favour of the nuclear deterrent? If the Secretary of State has more important things to do, may Conservative Members, in the spirit of Christmas, offer free tuition to Euan on the merits of nuclear deterrence? We would be quite happy to teach him about that subject now, just as we had to teach his father about it 15 or 20 years ago.
Mr. Cook: I expressed admiration for the hon. Gentleman at the last business statement, and he subsequently rebuked me for undermining his status and street cred among hon. Members on his own side. This week, for balance, I must tell him that I cannot think of anything more sad than those who have lives so empty that they worry about such trivia.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware of the concern throughout the House about the continuing use of the Barnett formula. Would it be possible to have a debate on that in the near future? In the context of Northern Ireland, while we appreciate the extra money that has been coming forth at different levels throughout the nation, we are concerned that, according to the Executive in Northern Ireland, the health service there will get worse if we continue to use that formula.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are providing substantial additional resources for the health service for the whole of the United Kingdom, and that embraces Northern Ireland. I assure him that I follow closely the Barnett formula, and we shall ensure that it applies in a way that reflects the principles behind it, and the changing population statistics, which undoubtedly have a legitimate impact on the arithmetic involved. Our wish is to ensure that health standards across the whole of the United Kingdom are raised, whatever an area's allocation may be under the Barnett formula.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: May I press the Leader of the House a little more about the European arrest warrant? He helpfully said earlier that this would not be agreed before the European Standing Committee had reconvened on Monday. However, in yesterday's debate on the European Union, the Minister for Europe said:
"Already we have agreed that there will be a common European arrest warrant."—[Official Report, 5 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 388.]
That conflicts with a motion passed by the House on 17 November 1998, which clearly states:
"No Minister of the Crown should give agreement…to any proposal for European Community legislation or for a common strategy, joint action or"
political agreement before the scrutiny process is completed. Will the Leader of the House give an absolute assurance that the letter of this resolution of the Commons will be adhered to in full, particularly as Ministers are always boasting that the House is to become more involved in European Union matters?
Mr. Cook: I have already given an undertaking to the House, on the authority of the Home Office, that that matter will not be agreed to until we have had our debate in Standing Committee on Monday, because it will be resolved at the Laeken summit, not at the Justice and
478
Home Affairs Council, although it has been discussed there. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that fact and that there is broad agreement that there should be a Europe-wide arrest warrant so that we can expedite and make more efficient our own action against terrorists who pose a common threat to each of us. That has been well reported and extensively debated in the House, but the technical steps to put the matter into effect will not be agreed to until after Monday.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Has the Leader of the House had a chance during his busy week to read the report of the excellent debate in the other place on clause 110 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill? In the work that the Modernisation Committee is doing, will he bear in mind that that clause, which will have a fundamental effect on British criminal law, was not even discussed under the terms of the guillotine in this House? Will he ensure that that never happens again?
Mr. Cook: Following 11 September, I very much hope that the House does not find itself in such a position ever again. This is emergency legislation. It is important to show our constituents that we can scrutinise legislation adequately and thoroughly, and that we can act expeditiously when that is necessary for the safety of our constituents. That is why we want the Bill to become an Act before the end of the year. Three months after 11 September, the hon. Gentleman's constituents would find it odd if the House of Commons had not provided a legislative response to that danger to ensure that they are safer.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern at the way in which the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards undertook her duties. Equally, other right hon. and hon. Members have expressed their support for her reappointment. In answer to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the Leader of the House said that the matter has been ventilated widely in the press and in this place. That is true of the press, but not very true of this place, and most of us have no information apart from that which we can gather either from the press or from our colleagues.
Would not it help the House to publish in full the allegations made by the parliamentary commissioner and the reasons for the House of Commons Commission choosing to readvertise the post rather than reappoint her, so that we can have a debate based on fact, not backstairs rumour and gossip?
Mr. Cook: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's closing point. Mrs. Filkin made general observations that excited much comment in the press, but when she was interviewed on radio yesterday and asked to provide chapter and verse for the allegations, I was struck by the fact that she produced none and said that she was referring to stories told to her by journalists.
I welcome the statement made yesterday by the Speaker and I look forward to Mrs. Filkin's response detailing the allegations that she has made. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I and the other members of the House of Commons Commission are not clear about what she may have been alluding to in those allegations. Having made them, I hope that she provides detail to the House, the Commission and

479
the press, because it is not fair to the civil service generally to refer to a named civil servant and then decline to name that civil servant.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Macclesfield borough council's housing officers have approached me on a serious matter that is developing as a result of the reference point rent system, which relates to housing benefit allocation. Where housing rents are high, it appears that the system does not enable sufficient housing benefit to be awarded to allow poorer people to retain their accommodation. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the appropriate Minister to make a statement so that the House may refer to the problem, which is occurring in an increasing number of constituencies?
Mr. Cook: It is indeed of serious concern to many. There is a real dilemma for all of us: we want to ensure that people can occupy the accommodation that they require irrespective of their income, but we do not want to return to past circumstances in which landlords have felt free to exploit the housing benefit system by charging unreasonable rents. A balance must be struck. I shall, however, invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: When the Prime Minister was questioned about Mrs. Filkin yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, he replied that that was a matter for the House. Will the Leader of the House grant the House a debate so that it can express its opinion? Such a debate would give us an opportunity to express the feeling of many of us that this is a job not for a civil servant or, indeed, a self-publicist, but for a judge.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman characteristically provides a new angle on the search for a successor to Mrs.
480
Filkin, and the House of Commons Commission will take his proposal on board. It seems to me, however, that the logical next step in the process is for Mrs. Filkin to reply to the letter sent to her by Mr. Speaker inviting her to explain the allegations that she has chosen to put in the public domain. When that has been done, Mr. Speaker and the Commission must consider what is the next appropriate step; but I look forward to the reply.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Leader of the House will be aware that on Tuesday I presented the Health (Patients' Rights) Bill. The gist of it was that patients who had been waiting too long for treatment in the NHS should have a right to treatment overseas, or in the private sector.
I was delighted to see the Secretary of State for Health on the airwaves this morning, apparently adopting my proposal as Government policy. I am always happy to be as helpful as possible to the Secretary of State. Could the Leader of the House bring forward my Bill's Second Reading, scheduled for 18 January, to next week? We could then have a debate in Government time, and the Secretary of State, instead of merely saying that he wants to offer patients that right, would be able to give them a statutory right to treatment within a maximum period.
Mr. Cook: I would not wish to withdraw from the hon. Gentleman the satisfaction he evidently feels about the fact that what he proposed one day became Government policy the next. I know, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been working on the matter for some time. His announcement was one of a series made by the Department of Health about the need for us to ensure that patients have a right to operations and, when those operations are cancelled, a right for them to be replaced within 28 days. We will continue to work on that within the targets of the national plan, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to support and encourage us as we proceed towards our joint goals.

Health Authority Resource Allocations
1.18 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the resources that will be available to local health services in all parts of England next year. Today I am allocating revenue resources to local health authorities for the financial year beginning April 2002. I have written to all Members today, giving information about the health authorities in their constituencies.
The national health service is currently the fastest growing health care system in any major European country. Under this Labour Government, it is growing twice as fast as it grew under the last Conservative Government. With the additional resources announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, it will grow by a further 6.8 per cent. in real terms next year.
As the House knows, however, that follows decades of underfunding. No one should believe that a few years of extra investment, even on this scale, can put right decades of underinvestment. The NHS plan that we published last year is, rightly, a 10-year programme of investment and reform.
Major problems remain in the health service, of course, but there is progress too. Last year there were almost 5,000 extra heart operations, and waiting times for treatment are falling. Because prevention is as important as treatment, the number of cholesterol-lowering drugs being prescribed has risen by a third in just one year. Nine out of 10 cancer patients are now being seen within two weeks; many used to have to wait for months. The maximum waiting time for any hospital operation is already down from 18 to 15 months in three quarters of NHS trusts, and all trusts will be in that position by next spring.
This is the first year in 30 in which the number of general and acute beds in our hospitals is rising rather than falling. Ten new hospitals are already open, as part of the biggest hospital-building programme that the NHS has ever seen. Most important of all, the NHS today has 17,000 more nurses and 7,000 more doctors than it had when we came to office, with thousands more to come.
There is a long way to go, but the people working in the NHS are doing a great job to improve services for patients. Now we can build on the progress that they are making.
Last year at this time, I indicated that all health authorities could expect to receive a minimum revenue increase of 6 per cent. in 2002–03. That 6 per cent. is more than health authorities received in four of the last five years under the Conservatives. In fact, I am now able to go further than I was planning to do at this time last year. Rather than growth of a minimum of 6 per cent. next year, I can tell the House that no health authority will receive less than 9.3 per cent. growth next year.
The next financial year will be the last under the existing formula for deciding how NHS resources are distributed to local health services. From the following year, there will be a new formula and, subject to Parliament, resources will go directly to locally run primary care trusts for the first time, as part of the Government's wider programme to devolve ever more power and resources to the NHS front line.
482
The resources that I am allocating today for 2002–03 are being distributed according to the existing formula. As the House is aware, that formula has been widely criticised for failing to get health services to the areas of greatest health need. It has also been criticised for failing to reflect fully the additional costs that the NHS has to bear in those parts of the country where labour market and housing costs are highest. Last year, I announced two major changes better to reflect health needs on the one hand and labour market costs on the other. I am building on those changes for the year ahead.
First, health inequalities scar our nation. Poverty and deprivation bring not only excess morbidity and mortality, but extra costs to local health services. Next year, for the first time, I have reflected in the formula the costs associated with tackling high rates of infant mortality alongside the costs associated with conditions such as cancer and heart disease. The resources to tackle health inequalities within health authority budgets will therefore rise next year by 14 per cent. The £148 million that we are making available to recognise the areas of greatest health need will benefit towns and cities in the north and midlands as well as the poorer parts of the south of England.
Secondly, I am increasing the resources available within health authority budgets to help the local NHS in those parts of England where living costs are highest. This year, for the first time, we introduced cost of living supplements for 100,000 qualified nurses, midwives, health visitors, therapists and radiographers who work in the highest cost parts of the country. In London, staff receive up to £1,000 a year on top of their salaries and London weightings. Elsewhere, they receive up to £600 a year more. Those cost of living payments are already helping the NHS to recruit and retain staff.
I have received a number of representations from right hon. and hon. Members, and from local health services, from areas where the supplements are not yet available. I have decided, first, to increase to more than £100 million the resources allocated to fund the cost of living supplements. They will continue to be paid to the areas currently receiving them. However, I have decided that from next year, in addition, the scheme will be extended to cover East and West Kent, North and South Essex—[Interruption.] I am glad to see that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is pleased for once—Northamptonshire and East Sussex, Brighton and Hove. Every health authority in London and the south will now receive extra resources in recognition of the higher costs that they face.
Every part of the country will benefit from the significant increases in funding for health authorities that I am announcing today. The average health authority budget will rise by £39 million or just under 10 per cent. Health authorities will be expected to work with local primary care trusts on deciding how best those resources are spent. Within those allocations there are extra funds for cancer, heart disease and mental health services alongside new resources for information technology and for primary care.
In addition, more than £400 million will be available to secure extra capacity to treat more NHS patients. It will be for local health services to decide how best to spend those resources, but they may be spent in NHS hospitals, in the private and voluntary sectors, and in community and social services.

483
The extra resources will need to secure improved services in the priority areas that count most for patients—better emergency care, shorter waiting times for treatment, and improvements in cancer, heart, mental health and elderly care. By the end of the next financial year, we expect nine in 10 NHS patients to be able to see a GP within 48 hours, and the maximum waiting time for a hospital operation to have fallen from 18 months today to 12 months. That is still too long, but it is the shortest maximum waiting time in the history of the NHS and a staging post towards shorter waiting times still.
Investment alone, however, will not secure the improvements in care that staff are striving to achieve and which patients rightly want to see delivered. The NHS will need to use these extra resources to drive forward the NHS plan reform programme. There are now national standards for the first time, and an independent inspection regime to assure them. There are more freedoms and more rewards for the good hospitals, alongside more help, support and—where necessary—intervention for the worst. Resources and power are being devolved to front-line services and staff, and there is now a more sensible relationship between the public and private sectors which means that we can provide more NHS care for more NHS patients.
These reforms are about putting the patients first. Our aim must be to create a more decentralised, more diverse and more responsive health service, capable of offering patients better services and greater choice.
Today, we are publishing proposals that will for the first time give patients an explicit choice over where they are treated in the NHS. As we said in our election manifesto, the investment and reforms that we are making mean that, by 2005, every patient needing hospital treatment will be helped by their GP to choose not just the date but the location of that treatment. The resources that we have now mean that we can make a start next year on introducing this new system, under which patients will be choosing the hospital, rather than hospitals choosing the patient.
We will start with those patients who have been waiting longest for treatment, and with those who have the most serious clinical conditions. Today, as the House is aware, thousands of patients have been waiting for a heart operation for more than six months. Waiting times are shortening, but they are still too long.
Therefore, I can tell the House today that, from the middle of next year, every patient in England who has waited for a heart operation for six months will be able to choose between hospitals—in the public sector or the private sector, in this country or abroad—that can do the operation more quickly. The choice will be theirs.
The initiative for heart surgery marks the start of a wider programme to improve patient choice and speed up treatment. Other pilots will be developed over time.
We will be discussing these proposals with patient, professional and health-care organisations so that the proposals can guarantee high clinical standards for patients and good value for money for taxpayers.
Many patients may choose not to exercise a choice. Many will prefer to wait at their local hospital, even if that means a slightly longer wait. Some patients will prefer to
484
travel to get faster treatment, but the point is that, for the first time, the choice will be the patient's. Moreover, that choice will no longer be between waiting longer for treatment or paying for treatment.
There are two distinct views about the future of health care in our country. The Opposition seem to believe that more and more people should have to pay for more and more treatments. In contrast, the Government say that patients should be able to choose without having to pay.
The principles of the NHS are the right principles for Britain. They are that treatment should be free at the point of use, paid for through general taxation, and supplied according to need rather than a person's ability to pay.
The investment and reforms that we are making will create a service delivering quicker, higher-quality care for millions of NHS patients. The resources that I have announced today will mark a further step towards a better and faster health service—a national health service for all the people of our country.
Dr. Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that statement, and I am glad that it was he who made it. No one was sure whether he would deliver it, or whether it would be the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it is increasingly unclear who in the Government makes health policy. However, I am not sure whether the Secretary of State's function today was to be piggy in the middle, or tethered goat.
Given the publicity from the Secretary of State this morning, people will be surprised to discover that the promises on a six-month waiting maximum and the choice to be available thereafter will apply only to heart patients. That is welcome, but it is rather different from the spin being applied this morning by Ministers and members of the press. It is more about saving Ministers' skins than patients.
In 1998, the Chancellor told us that Labour would be spending £21 billion extra over the next three years. Indeed, the Prime Minister told us in July last year that the NHS had already benefited from the biggest sustained increase in its history. Has anyone noticed any difference? Patients are waiting longer to see their general practitioner, to be seen in accident and emergency departments and to have operations. Now we are told that simply spending more money will make a difference.
In his spending statement last year, the Secretary of State said that improved co-operation between health and social services would mean
"lower rates of delayed discharges from hospitals in all parts of the country."—[Official Report, 14 November 2001; Vol. 356, c. 807.]
Yet, by the Government's own admission, the number of delayed discharges—or blocked beds—has soared. There are nearly 6,500 blocked beds in England alone. Some 15 per cent. of all beds in Birmingham are blocked, with 19 per cent. in Hampshire and 18 per cent. in Brent and Harrow.
Last year, the Secretary of State told us that the increased money would mean real progress in the Government's NHS targets. Waiting to be seen in accident and emergency departments would take an average of 75 minutes and the maximum wait for out-patient appointments would be three months. Yet the Audit Commission tells us that not only are things getting

485
worse, since 1998 they have been getting much worse. There are now 400,000 people on the waiting list for the waiting list. No progress has been made. The Labour party chairman said that, under Labour, the NHS is going backwards.
Last year, the Secretary of State said that £4 billion more would be available for front-line services. Some £3,732 million was made available. However, pay review body staff costs came to £500 million and to £250 million for non-pay review body staff. Medical price inflation was £300 million, the new pension contribution rates cost £372 million and the waiting times initiative came to £400 million. The maximum amount that was available for front-line services was £560 million. Indeed, if the national service frameworks cost more than the estimates, there may well have been a negative figure for core functions.
That is why the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said in The Guardian today of the Government's spending:
"where is the evidence it will make the difference they want and not simply be frittered away, as many will fear, on bureaucracy and burgeoning wage bills?
The government's political difficulty is that both this confidence and evidence have not been helped by a perception… that the government's response to underfunding is to say it will simply spend zillions more taxes on a system that looks as yet completely unreformed."
Can the Secretary of State answer some specific questions? How much does he estimate, in today's settlement, for the costs of change? The Bill reorganising the NHS, which is passing through the House, will cost money. How much? What estimate is in the settlement for pay effects for the next year? What estimate is there for the cost of drugs currently being approved by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence? What estimate does he make for the cost of reducing working hours for doctors? What estimate does he make for the costs of waiting time initiatives? What cost does he estimate for the national health service frameworks? How much does he estimate will be spent by the NHS in the private sector in the coming year in what he describes as a more sensible relationship with the private sector? The Prime Minister has not been very good at his sums this week. I hope that the Secretary of State will do better when he gives us answers to those questions.
We can have no longer have confidence in what the Secretary of State promises. He talks about decentralisation, yet is centralising the financial relationships. He talks about choice, yet his party abolished extra- contractual referrals and fundholding, which gave genuine choice. He talks today of more money, yet 40 per cent. of NHS hospital trusts in England are forecasting a deficit this year, with their financial position likely to worsen in 2002.
Before the Labour party came to office, it promised that things could only get better. In the NHS they are actually getting worse.
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—for what, I do not know, but at least for only a brief series of questions. I will run through the issues that he raised.
On delayed discharges and bed blocking, the hon. Gentleman is aware that we have allocated a further £300 million for social services. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government
486
and the Regions was able to announce further rises for social services for the next financial year. The interesting question for the hon. Gentleman is whether he is prepared to match those funding increases. He certainly failed to come up with the answer to that question before the election; perhaps he can do so now.
The hon. Gentleman asked where the money went during the last financial year. It has gone on paying for more staff, better wages and more buildings. An extra £300 million is being made available for new drugs for cancer and heart disease. We are making efforts to get rid of Nightingale wards in our hospitals. More operations are being carried out and waiting times are falling. There are improvements in cancer and coronary heart disease services. For the first time in 30 years, there are more hospital beds and a huge hospital building programme.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the overall costs of our programme for change—devolving power from health authorities to primary care trusts. In fact, that will save money: £100 million, which we will invest in child care services. He asks how much money we shall be committing to waiting times initiatives—as he calls them—and to building up NHS capacity in order that NHS hospitals can perform more NHS operations on more NHS patients: the amount will be about £400 million.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the role of the private sector. As he is aware, I announced at a recent meeting of the Select Committee on Health that we would be doubling the amount of money available for the NHS to contract with private sector hospitals to carry out more NHS operations. If local primary care trusts and strategic health authorities want to do more, that is a matter for them. The hon. Gentleman constantly urges devolution, so I hope that he will support it when it happens.
However, the hon. Gentleman did not express in his statement the attitude of the Conservatives towards the national health service. He did not say whether he supports the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Home Secretary who called the national health service Stalinist. Is that the hon. Gentleman's view? Does he believe that the national health service is Stalinist? I remind him what the national health service is: the national health service—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The Secretary of State should be answering the questions, not asking them.
Mr. Milburn: I have answered a load of questions put by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). I have answered the questions about NICE. I have answered the questions about how much money will be going into waiting initiatives—[Interruption.]—how much money is being invested in waiting.
The most basic question—the hon. Gentleman will not ask it because he dare not—is whether the Conservatives would match our spending plans. The answer to that question is that they would not, because they do not want to build up the national health service—they want to run it down.
Dr. Brian Iddon: The poor health of my constituents has been cited in several reports—from the time of the Black report to the present day. My right

487
hon. Friend knows that I have constantly made representations to him and his predecessor about the fact that the Wigan and Bolton health authority was second from bottom on meeting funding targets in 1997. The position has not advanced greatly since then. Can my right hon. Friend give my constituents an assurance that those gross inequalities in financing will be addressed as a result of the excellent statement that he has just made?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He has been a constant advocate of reform of the formula—rightly so. We all recognise that the current formula is far from perfect, although I suspect that it will be difficult to find a perfect formula. However, the changes that we have made mean that this year the Wigan and Bolton health authority will receive an increase in funding for local health services of 10.17 per cent.—the largest increase for any health authority in the north-west. I hope that that is a step towards addressing the concerns that my hon. Friend has constantly raised.
Dr. Evan Harris: The additional funding announced by the Secretary of State is welcome. It is right that such increases should come from general taxation and not from an increase in charging—either from new charges or an increase in existing charges. An honest approach would have been for the Government to say before the election that tax rises were needed, rather than skulking back just afterwards with that admission.
Is the right hon. Gentleman concerned that the only taxes that the Government have said that they will not put up to pay for that much-needed investment are fair taxes—direct taxes—and they will instead use indirect, regressive and stealth taxes?
I cautiously welcome the changes in the formula, because health inequalities need to be tackled and we need to ensure that living costs are recognised, but the Secretary of State seeks to have it both ways. He says that he wants to delegate more power to local primary care trusts, while taking a huge centralising decision yesterday so that all the guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman ought now to ask a question.
Dr. Evan Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman defend his statement that he is decentralising when the Minister in the House of Lords announced that the first call on all this funding will have to be to pay for the NICE guidance? Does he recognise that maximum waiting times are arbitrary and that they create clinical distortion, as they force more urgent patients to wait longer while treatment is given to the politically prioritised patients, who are embarrassing to the Government? Of course, patients should not wait long, but that should be a clinical decision, not a political one.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that giving patients choice is of limited value when they do not have quality services to choose from, when they do not have access and when it is not fair? He talks in his document about patients choosing not to choose and preferring not to travel, but he will know that some patients are too sick to take up the option of travelling that he wants to provide.
488
Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the private sector will provide value for money, when he has to pay over the odds for agency-based staff and more expensive private sector staff? Does he recognise that there are no doctors and nurses hanging around waiting to do that work in the private sector? They will be recruited from the pool of doctors and nurses serving the NHS, further limiting capacity.
Finally, at the last Health questions, I asked the right hon. Gentleman how he will guarantee the quality of treatment abroad. How will he provide for relatives to travel abroad? Who will patients sue? Who will the Government blame? How will consent be given in other languages? The document gives no answer, except that suitable arrangements will be made to enable a relative or friend to accompany the heart surgery patient abroad. That is a new kind of rationing—people can be visited by only one friend or relative.
Mr. Milburn: That was pretty tame stuff. I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's position on NICE and the financing of drugs, because I understood that the Liberal Democrats were concerned about the fact that NICE had sometimes made recommendations and not every health authority had taken them up. He is either against the lottery in care or he is not. Which is it? [Interruption.] He says that he is against the lottery in care. That is good news, so I look forward to hearing him support the Government's proposals.
On maximum waiting times, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that patients' biggest concern about the NHS today is not the quality of care that they receive when they go into hospital, or even when they go to their GP's surgery, but the wait for treatment. It is proper that we address that. Of course, the most serious and urgent conditions should come first. That is why we have taken the right step, through the choice initiative, which is to make choice available to the patients who suffer from the most serious clinical conditions: those waiting for heart operations.
In my discussions with constituents and when right hon. and hon. Members have raised the issue, I have been struck too many times by the very real dilemma faced by people who have a bit of savings. Those who have bothered to save all their lives and then realise that they need a heart operation face the awful dilemma of either having to wait for treatment or to pay for it. The only choice that they have right now to get a shorter waiting time is to opt out of the NHS.
I believe profoundly that people should have the choice of being able to stay in the NHS, rather than having to leave it. Yes, that is new, it will be difficult to do, and the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) asked about the maximum six-month wait and so on. That is what we need to achieve, but we shall start with the heart patients and test other approaches and pilot schemes in other parts of the country in due course. We have to get it right. It is right to take a cautious approach but I hope that patients will welcome our initiative, which will be introduced from the middle of next year.
The hon. Gentleman is right to ask about value for money and the private sector. The answer is that we need to negotiate a good deal on behalf of patients and taxpayers, and that is precisely what we shall do. However, I could not stand here as the Secretary of State

489
for Health and say that, for some ideological reason, we cannot use private sector capacity to treat NHS patients even if that capacity means a better deal for them. We are taking the right approach because what counts is the interests of patients. Their interests should come first.
Mr. Chris Pond: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Gravesham will certainly welcome his statement, especially his extension of the cost of living supplement to Kent? He will know that that will provide us with a real opportunity not only more properly to reward the staff who work so hard in the service, but to compete effectively with London boroughs in the recruitment and retention of staff.
My constituents will also welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has shown clearly that he sees the NHS as a service with a future that is worth investing in as a publicly funded service free at the point of use and not as a Stalinist creation to be privatised and impoverished.
Mr. Milburn: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. When I referred in my statement to the representations that I have received, I was thinking of him and Members on both sides of the House who have made representations about Kent, Essex and other places. It is right that we close the gaps in the cost of living supplement.
I represent a north-eastern constituency, and I know that the cost of living there is different from that in the south-east. I also know that there are huge inequalities in parts of the north and the midlands that do not always pertain in all parts of the south, so it is important that we get the balance right.
On my hon. Friend's more general point, there is a big debate taking place in the country and it is the right debate to have. We recognise that, for decades, the NHS has not had the resources that it needs, and we need to plug the gap. The question is how best we do that. Labour Members say that the best way is investing in the NHS and reforming it. We do that through general taxation. People will conclude that the Labour party and this Government are the party of choice for patients in the NHS while the Conservative party is the party of charging for patients.
Peter Bottomley: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to pass on to all the staff in the NHS—the ancillary, nursing and medical staff—our thanks for what they do for 365 days a year? Will he also acknowledge that the pressures on patients are also pressures on staff?
As we do not yet know the allocations for our areas, we cannot talk about them even though, given the Secretary of State's description, we await them with interest. However, we know that he is not announcing new money today, because it was announced last week by the Chancellor and in the public expenditure statements.
How soon does the Secretary of State believe that there will be a significant change in the performance of health authorities with patients waiting more than a year for treatments? I think that I am right in saying that 19 out of the 20 authorities with patients in that position are, in effect, Conservative areas. For example, in the West Sussex and West Surrey health authorities, one in 10 patients wait more than a year. However, 19 out of 20 authorities where no one waits more than a year are
490
Labour areas. I do not wish to make a party point about that, but how soon can that discrepancy be changed? It is not the politicians but the patients who suffer.
My final point is that, although we often talk about hospitals—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had more than his share of time. Before I ask the Secretary of State to reply, may I remind the House that this is a very important statement. An awful lot of Members wish to contribute and many of them will be disappointed unless everyone asks one question briefly. I hope that the answers will be brief too.
Mr. Milburn: I shall be very brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) has not yet received the letter that explains the increases for his area. In West Surrey, the increase will be 9.57 per cent. and, in West Sussex, it will be 9.58 per cent. I think that he will agree that it is a pretty large increase in funding.
The hon. Gentleman raises considerable issues about how best we distribute NHS resources. We are trying to resolve the tensions by making major changes to the formula for the next financial year, and we are undertaking a fundamental review of the existing formula as a whole. I hope that the review will be concluded later next year, so that it can be implemented from the 2003–04 financial year. The review will need to pay particular attention precisely to some of the issues that he rightly mentions, such as how we get money to the areas of health need while recognising that different parts of the country have different health costs to absorb.
Mr. Eric Illsley: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially the increased funding and the review of the formula on which it is based. He will be aware that Barnsley health authority is the lowest funded in Trent and one of the lowest funded in the country, despite our levels of need. Does he know that Barnsley faces a £2.1 million shortfall in April next year? Will he reassure me that today's settlement will allow Barnsley health authority to deal with that shortfall and have the money for the new initiatives that it wants to introduce?
Mr. Milburn: Yes, I very much hope so. In fact, Barnsley will receive an increase of 10.05 per cent., which is the second largest in the Trent region. I know that there are funding pressures on the NHS; as my hon. Friend knows, there always are. I hope that the statement, the allocation and the guidance that we will issue to the NHS will give enough room for local flexibility so that decisions can be made locally on how best to spend the considerable resources for the benefit of the community that he represents.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Can the Secretary of State tell me why he has rejected and ignored the petition presented to the House by me on behalf of thousands of health workers in Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole, which asks for the cost of living supplement to be extended to cover that part of south-east Dorset? Does he recognise that his announcement worsens

491
the situation in which a nurse who lives in Christchurch, where housing costs are much higher than they are in Salisbury or Southampton, has a financial incentive to work in those cities rather than at the local hospital?
Mr. Milburn: I understand the concerns of the hon. Gentleman, his constituents and NHS staff who work in his area, but we have to proceed a stage at a time. This is the first year in which we have had cost of living supplements. We have not had them before, and certainly not under the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member. We are extending them next year. They will continue to be evaluated and we will consider making further changes to them. The geographical coverage of the supplements and the professional groups who benefit from them will be extended if there is a good case for doing so.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will know that south Cheshire, as an area that has been consistently underfunded for many years, will welcome the settlement. Will he ensure that if private health care facilities are used, and support for travel and other facilities is provided, the costs will be transparent, so that taxpayers know whether they are really getting good value for money or whether that money should have been spent in NHS facilities?
Mr. Milburn: Yes, there should be transparency. I am aware of the deficits and the problems that have been long apparent in south Cheshire. That is why this year we increased next year's funding by 9.86 per cent., which is a substantial increase in resources for my hon. Friend's health authority area. I am sure that that money will be used to good effect.
On the use of the private sector, we need to ensure that we get the best value for money, but it is also worth recognising, as I am sure that my hon. Friend does, that NHS hospitals often do not have the spare capacity. As a consequence, the patient and the Government face a dilemma: should we tell patients to wait longer or say that we will use the spare capacity for the benefit of NHS patients? I think that patients will conclude that the latter course of action is the right one to take.
Mr. David Heath: I am increasingly worried by the number of letters and calls that I get from my constituents, especially those who live in the area served by the Royal United hospital of Bath, where the normal waiting time for orthopaedics is 18 months. Although the extra £400 million is extremely welcome, will the Secretary of State explain whether that is additional to the normal allocations and, if not, will it be targeted at specialisms and areas that place the greatest stress on the system? In providing the element of choice, which he suggested in his statement, how will he avoid the pitfall that occurred in the education system, with people being displaced from their local and regional hospitals in favour of people from elsewhere?
Mr. Milburn: On the amount of money that is available to tackle waiting lists and the expansion in capacity, the £400 million is embedded in health authority allocations. Each health authority will get a fair share of that and be able to make use of it. We can use that money
492
to increase capacity in a number of ways: to create additional operating theatres or beds, to employ additional staff and to make operations and treatment available outside normal working hours. There is capacity in the NHS and outside it, and it is right that we use that to carry out more NHS operations and thereby reduce waiting times.
The hon. Gentleman made a good point about choice. It is right to offer patients greater choice because, as he acknowledged, some hospitals have long waiting lists and others have short ones. The problem for patients is that they cannot exercise choice and, in effect, the hospitals choose the patients rather than the other way round. That is precisely what we want to change, and we will do so gradually, in a way that tackles precisely some of the problems and challenges that he raised.
Dr. Howard Stoate: May I tell my right hon. Friend that the so-called burgeoning wage bills mentioned by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) are, in my constituents' opinion, much-needed pay rises to improve recruitment and retention of essential staff? How is my right hon. Friend progressing with his plans to set up fast-track elective surgery units throughout the country? Does he have any plans to build one in north-west Kent to service my area?
Mr. Milburn: I knew that there would be a sting in the tail. My hon. Friend is right—we cannot have it both ways. We cannot complain about some NHS resources going into pay packets. Few right hon. and hon. Members regard NHS staff as overpaid. Most NHS staff did not enter the service to make a mint; indeed, I know of no member of staff who entered the NHS with that aim. People enter the service for other reasons, and it is right that we reward them properly. We must have a fairer pay system to make sure that rewards go to the right staff.
Diagnostic and treatment centres are very important because, as my hon. Friend is aware, they will separate elective work from emergency work so that we can protect planned operations and, indeed, emergency work. Those centres are planned for different parts of the country. We will be inviting expressions of interest, not only from the NHS but from the private sector, so that we can locate those centres in parts of the country where we know that we need to do most to reduce waiting times for treatment.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State will be aware that the statement deals particularly with England and Wales, but this is a national health service, and the principles set out in his latest publication will be applied throughout the kingdom.
I thank the Secretary of State for the extension of patient choice. Relatives have been able to travel to visit those who have had operations, and most patients who have had serious operations do not want many visitors but relaxation and rest. May I press him to consult the Chancellor and those dealing with the devolved regions about the fact that the amount of money going to health care is going down, as a percentage, under the Barnett formula?
Mr. Milburn: Those issues are properly the responsibility of the Assembly and of my right hon.

493
Friend the Chancellor. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the extension of choice. That is an important principle, and we will consult on it with patient and professional groups and the NHS to ensure that we get it right. That change will not happen immediately, but the policy will be gradually introduced from the middle of next year. It will make a fundamental difference to the relationship between patients and NHS services. The NHS is there to serve the patient, and for the first time patients will have the opportunity to choose the NHS service.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I should have thought that the statement would receive lavish praise from everyone in the House, but it should especially be praised by those of us with constituencies in east Kent. It recognises the additional costs in east Kent and even indirectly recognises the fact that many of my constituents can get to France more easily than they can get to London.
My only concern, which I would like my right hon. Friend to clarify, is that social services tell me that they do not get access to much of the funding going to health authorities, and yet it is their care for the elderly that could do most to unblock beds. Will he ensure that we strike the right balance between money going to social services and that going to the NHS?
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will know that resources for social services are to rise by 6.5 per cent. in cash terms for the next financial year, and that health services and social services now have the legal powers to pool their budgets or to form a single organisation. I would encourage more health services and local social services to do that—to pool their budgets, co-operate rather than compete with one another, and consider the possibility of forming local care trusts.
Like all of us, my hon. Friend recognises that our constituents do not care whether the funding comes from the health service or from social services. All they want is the package of care. Too often, health services and social services have been nudging resources and responsibilities backwards and forwards, when they should have been concentrating on the needs of the patient.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Although I welcome the extension of the cost of living supplement to Kent, does the Secretary of State realise that all the options for east Kent's acute hospitals involve breaking up our cancer centre? Under any of the four options, complex chemotherapy will not be possible in Canterbury, as it is now, and radiology in the brand new linear accelerator will not be provided with the kind of medical cover that is available at present. Does he intend east Kent to become the first region to have its cancer centre closed?
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman has raised such issues with me before, and he knows that they are a matter for consultation. It is inappropriate for me to comment on them now. We will await the results of consultation, he will make his representations, as will others, and Ministers will make the appropriate decision. I am glad that he welcomed the increase in funding—an increase of 9.85 per cent. He should talk to those who represent his
494
party on the Front Bench and ask whether they would be prepared to match those increases. I suspect that they would not.
Joan Ryan: First, at my local hospital, Chase Farm, there is a support group called Heart Throbs, who do fantastic work supporting people who need heart operations and their families throughout the process. The group will be extremely pleased with the news today about heart operations, as a number of its members have not survived while waiting for them.
Secondly, we often hear managers in the health service knocked, but many areas of the health service are under-managed. That prevents us from achieving the capacity necessary to provide the hospital services that our patients need. Some of the financing being made available today will rightly be spent on managing our health service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should pay tribute to the health service managers who choose to work in the NHS rather than in any other office, because they are committed to the NHS?
Mr. Milburn: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's local voluntary organisation, which is clearly doing a good job of work. She will see in the consultation paper that we issued today our plans to involve the voluntary sector—such as those organisations offering care and support for heart patients—in the new initiative to offer choice to people. If people are to exercise choice, it is important that they do so in an informed way and that the options are fully explained to them. One of the best ways of doing that is by involving the voluntary sector, not just the statutory sector.
On my hon. Friend's second point, NHS managers do a brilliant job of work, sometimes in difficult circumstances. As we delegate and devolve resources and responsibilities from Whitehall and from health authorities to local primary care trusts, it will be important that the trusts have adequate management resources to ensure that they can fulfil their responsibilities and give local communities the services that they deserve.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: What satisfaction does the Secretary of State take from the ambition expressed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the House earlier today to match by 2004 the European average health expenditure as it was two years before the end of the last century?
Mr. Milburn: I take some satisfaction from it because it is an ambition to expand the NHS, while the hon. Gentleman's policy is to contract it.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and congratulate him on securing a great deal from the Treasury; that must have been pretty difficult—[Laughter.] Opposition Members obviously have no experience of the Treasury; at any rate, they are out of touch with it.
What guarantees can my right hon. Friend give my constituents that, this time, more of the extra money going in reaches the front line? That will mean that my constituents will not have to wait, either to see a GP or for an out-patient appointment with a consultant.
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The settlement is very generous indeed and

495
the extra resources available for the next financial year will make a real difference to patients and the NHS. As he said, it is important that the resources get to the front line and make a difference. When he sees the planning guidance issued to the NHS to accompany the announcement of the resources, he will see that it is a slim document with a limited set of priorities for local health services. They should have the flexibility to concentrate on the things that matter to patients: making sure that emergency services are available for people when they need them; getting accident and emergency waiting times down; and ensuring that the waiting times to see GPs and consultants are brought down. As he knows, those are ambitious plans, but we can achieve them only if we keep investing in and reforming the NHS.
Mr. Paul Goodman: Does the Secretary of State believe, in connection with today's spending announcement and, indeed, future spending announcements, that spending on health would be better financed either wholly or partly by a hypothecated health tax?
Mr. Milburn: I am a keen supporter of funding the NHS through general taxation.
Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend's statement will be most welcome in my constituency, following the statement earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Building on capital investments in mental health, oncology, day surgery and so on in the area, today's statement is a tremendous step forward.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend about the plans for next year that he mentioned. As he is aware, in some polarised areas, the formulas that distributed money through the old standard spending assessment were hugely problematic because they dealt with averages rather than pockets of deprivation. Will he ensure that his new formula on distribution to primary care trusts does not make the same mistake as the Tories' SSA formula and addresses the needs of deprived communities?
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is important, as we put the new formula in place, that cash goes to the areas of greatest health need; we must do that. We have already made a health inequalities adjustment to the existing formula. I expect precisely the same considerations to be embedded in the new formula. It is important that health authorities, given the resources that are available to them this year, apply an appropriate pace of change policy to their local primary care trusts and the money that they get, so that we can begin to close the gap between those PCTs that are over capitation and those that are under capitation. In that way, we can get a fairer settlement, not just for health authorities but for the new PCTs.
Lawrie Quinn: Today's announcement will be welcome in North Yorkshire. Can
496
my right hon. Friend tell the many people in my constituency who have difficulty finding an NHS dentist whether it will help them, in conjunction with the new PCT that will be set up at the beginning of next April?
Mr. Milburn: Substantial extra investment is going into North Yorkshire for investment in health services; there has been an increase of 9.84 per cent. for 2002–03, which is a big sum of money. It will be for local PCTs and the strategic health authority to decide how best to deploy that money. Some of it is earmarked for national priorities which, we believe, are patients' priorities: waiting times, primary care, and investment in cancer and coronary care. But the overwhelming bulk of resources will be deployed by local PCTs and health authorities. They must address the pressing health needs of their local communities. If there is a need to invest in dentistry, they will have to look at that.
Roger Casale: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the massive cash injection that he has given to Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority, which serves my constituency. Some years ago, after years of being starved of resources by the Tories, that health authority published an annual report entitled "The River Runs Dry", simply to get its message across. He is absolutely right to say that, as we build capacity in south-west London by investing in more nurses, doctors and surgeons, it is vital that we take forward fundamental reform of the way in which the NHS identifies and responds to health care priorities and needs in our local communities.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a special responsibility on some of the new organisations that are being called into existence by his reforms within the NHS family—such as the Nelson and West Merton primary care trust in my community—to work with community health trusts, which will be wound up because of the reforms? We must ensure that the new organisations pick up the good experience and expertise within existing organisations and, at the same time, develop their own best practice and spread it to other organisations in the local health community.
Mr. Milburn: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's comments. Substantial investment—about 9.8 per cent. growth in the next financial year—is going to the local health service in his area. It is very important that that money is used wisely and well. We shall seek particularly to ensure that strengthened partnerships between local primary care trusts, local government and the private and voluntary sectors provide first-class services to patients.
The national health service cannot do it alone. As we know, health and social services are two sides of the same coin, and the work of the national health service—in conjunction with that of the private, voluntary and local government sectors—is equally important in resolving some of the health inequality and deprivation problems that exist in my hon. Friend's constituency, as they do in all hon. Members' constituencies.

Point of Order
Mr. James Wray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a complaint about the scandalous and irresponsible reporting of the BBC's "Watchdog" programme. Today, it has issued a press release naming and shaming Members of Parliament. However, I am just back from Europe, where I have been working as part of my job as a full member of the Western European Union and of the Council of Europe, addressing issues such as space application, migration and demography. We have also been dealing with the events in Chechnya, in other European countries, and in every other country where there are human rights violations and stress.
My voting record is low because I am sent to those various countries in Europe. One of the nice aspects of that work is that, every year, I receive a letter from the Prime Minister telling me that I am very hard working. The bad thing is that I am now being prevented from doing that job, which the BBC does not think is important. I am therefore resigning as a full member of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. I cannot take scandalous reports saying that I am not known in my constituency, when the fact is that I have had the second highest constituency vote in Glasgow. The scandalous reporting of the BBC's "Watchdog" is preventing me from doing my job.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but the occupant of the Chair is not responsible for controlling the behaviour of broadcasters. However, he has had the opportunity today to put his position precisely on the record.

BILL PRESENTED
  NORTHERN IRELAND ARMS DECOMMISSIONING (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Secretary Reid presented a Bill to provide for the extension of the amnesty period fixed by section 2 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday next, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 63].

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  2.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): As the House knows, it is customary to hold a fisheries debate each year before the December Council, which decides the total allowable catches and quotas for the following year. This is an important occasion that affords an opportunity for comment by all hon. Members from fisheries constituencies as well as those with a more general interest in fisheries management. I am very pleased that the House authorities have allowed us to have a full day's debate on the subject.
  I should first make it clear that this is not a scrutiny debate and that some important European Scrutiny Committee recommendations for debate in Committee remain outstanding. Therefore, although this is an opportunity for a general annual debate, there will be further opportunities in that Committee to debate other aspects of fisheries management. I am sure that hon. Members will welcome the opportunity to discuss those issues in detail.
  Before outlining the Commission's proposals for next year's TACs and quotas, I shall open the debate in the traditional way by reflecting on the dangers faced by fishermen at sea. This year, nine fishermen have lost their lives while at sea. Although that is an improvement on last year's truly appalling figure of 33 fatalities and 39 losses of vessels, it is nevertheless nine too many. I am sure that the whole House joins me in expressing sympathy to the relatives and friends of those who have been lost.
  Training can help to instil a culture of safety. I know, however, that the industry has been concerned about the cost of training courses. I have therefore taken the decision that, for the next three years, fishermen should be able to attend basic safety training courses free of charge. The courses have been free since April. The grant aid comes from our new financial instrument for fisheries guidance schemes, with funding both from the EU and the fisheries Departments in the UK. It is important that all fishermen who are eligible take advantage of those courses, and I am sure that the various fishermen's organisations will be encouraging them to do so. Fishing remains a very hazardous occupation and it is important that all within the industry work to improve the safety culture on board fishing vessels. The Government will certainly play their part in working with them.
  As for developments in the past year, the Commission has issued its Green Paper on common fisheries policy reform, about which I shall say a few words later. Additionally, the European Court of Auditors has published a detailed report on third country agreements, which I think are of some interest to hon. Members. Recovery programmes for cod and hake were also introduced.
  Following the pressure that has been applied for years in our debates, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has issued its advice earlier this year than in the past, which I think that hon. Members will find most welcome. Additionally, for the first time, I organised a press conference to make the advice public and to discuss it in detail. We and the Commission have

  499
  been pressing for the advice to be produced sooner. In previous years, it has sometimes not emerged until November; this year, it was available in October, which gave us valuable breathing space to analyse it. Unfortunately, the Commission has been late in producing its TACs and quotas, which were made available only on 4 December. Nevertheless, I am glad that they are available in time for this debate so that hon. Members can discuss them.
  We have also been able to provide the House with a document outlining the approach to the proposals, and I shall refer to what has been proposed and will listen with interest to hon. Members' comments. As hon. Members will appreciate, however, more work will have to be done in formulating the United Kingdom's response between now and the Fisheries Council on 17 and 18 December. As they will also appreciate, I shall need an opportunity to discuss the proposals in some depth with the fishing industry, to hear its views and to listen to its priorities.
  Hon. Members should also be aware that the Commission has to await the completion of various third country negotiations before it can finalise its proposals. The main case in point is the European Union-Norway fisheries agreement, which has not yet been finalised primarily because of the very difficult negotiations on the linked issue of blue whiting.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: We always enjoy the Minister's annual presentation on fish. He mentioned third country agreements. Is he concerned, as I am, about the Spanish-Moroccan agreement, which has not yet come into effect? If it does, the Spanish will want to come north rather than south.
  Mr. Morley: I was going to touch on some of those issues later. However, the Spanish-Moroccan agreement is dead. The Moroccans made it very clear that they were not prepared to agree to the negotiations or to the proposals that were on offer. I think that they want to take control of those waters and are not really interested in a deal with the Spanish. Consequently, about 300 boats that previously fished in those waters have nowhere else to go. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the North sea and the fishing areas in which our own fleets operate. However, there is no chance of those boats fishing in other waters because most of them are designed for that particular fishery, which is a predominately coastal squid fishery. Those boats will therefore be decommissioned and a financial package has been agreed for the Spanish Government to take them out of their fishing fleet. It will also mean that some thousands of fishing jobs are lost in that country.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The whole House is grateful to the Minister for securing this debate at this time. He has encountered difficulties in respect of such debates and this is a valuable opportunity. I should like to press him on something that he said about scrutiny. He is right that the Norway bilateral agreement will not be secured until the end of the month. Will he use his good offices early in the new year, when the House returns after the Christmas recess, to ensure that a European Standing Committee can debate the outcomes when they are all known? That will enable hon. Members
  500
  to consider the totality of what faces the industry next year. If he could say something encouraging about that, it would help us during this debate.
  Mr. Morley: That is a very reasonable point. I shall certainly discuss the matter with the Committee. I am very willing to participate and give hon. Members the opportunity to consider the issues.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I congratulate the Minister on securing a full day's debate. Such a debate has been a long-standing ambition for him and a number of other hon. Members, so let us give him credit where credit is due for getting it out of the powers that be in this place.
  The North sea has a number of stocks that are undergoing a strong recovery, as we know from scientific advice. It is to be hoped that the TAC that has been agreed will reflect that recovery and increase fishing opportunities. However, if the TAC for cod remains very low, it might be impossible for fishermen in a mixed fishery to take up opportunities in respect of haddock and other stocks. What thought has the Minister given to that problem and how does he see a way forward on ensuring that the maximum fishing opportunities are available to fishermen in the North sea?
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right that that is a potential problem. I shall comment on it when I deal with the Commission's proposals, its reasons for them and the reaction of the UK Government. The problem to which he refers relates to managing a fishery where some stocks are in severe trouble—there is no doubt that the cod stock is in trouble—but other stocks are not. Of course, that is in the nature of a mixed fishery, and I shall speak about the matter in a moment.
  Let me spell out the Commission's broad approach. First, with regard to stocks for which the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea recommends a recovery plan—predominantly cod and hake—the Commission proposes to treat 2002 as the first year in a long-term process of reductions in fishing mortality and TACs. The stocks approached in that way include cod in the North sea, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) mentioned, as well as cod in the Irish sea, and west of Scotland, northern hake and nephrops in southern waters. The latter is a stock in which the UK has no interest.
  A second category of stocks is subject to the same approach. These stocks are not recommended for recovery plans by ICES as they are not considered to be in a dire state, but are regarded as being fished outside safe limits and have very low biomass levels. We cannot ignore that scientific advice. Stocks that fall into this category include western channel sole, Irish sea haddock and west of Scotland whiting.
  The third category—this is the difficult one identified by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan—covers stocks that are associated with those in the first and second categories. It could include, for example, species caught with cod and hake. With regard to such stocks, the Commission proposes to reduce TACs as a complementary measure. It made an attempt to do the

  501
  same thing last year, although in that event it recommended a blanket 20 per cent. cut. We strongly argued against such a cut because we did not feel that the science justified it. The Commission then reduced that figure to 10 per cent. This year, it has adopted a more flexible approach, but many of the cuts that it is suggesting again relate to stocks that are not in difficulty, but are linked with stocks that are.
  As I think the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, the matter needs to be carefully thought through. Account must be taken of the fact that we operate in a mixed fishery and that there could be a danger of displacement if fishermen are cut off from particular stocks that are not in difficulty and then move on to other fishing. Those issues are serious and not easy to resolve. In some cases, however, I do not think that the Commission itself has thought them through clearly, and we will have to discuss them in some detail at the Fisheries Council.
  Andrew George: The Minister rightly said that the first category included stocks that are in a very severe state. In certain areas, they are on the verge of collapse and will be destroyed if we do not take the necessary measures. However, with regard to hake, for which a recovery programme is being implemented, does he accept that fishermen are concerned that catches in area 7—where hake catches are still relatively good and catch sizes are reasonably large, although not by any means acceptable—are different from juvenile hake catches in area 8? There is considerable concern about the catching of juvenile hake by fishermen in other nations. As hake is a migratory stock, such fishing will clearly have an impact in area 7, so in the area where it occurs an increase is needed in minimum mesh sizes and minimum landing sizes should be increased by up to 40 cm.
  Mr. Morley: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I concede that fishermen in the south-west are saying that there has been unacceptable juvenile mortality further south in relation to the hake fishery. It is for that reason that we agreed last year, as part of the hake recovery plan, that mesh size in the bay of Biscay would increase from 17 mm to 100 mm. That is a very big jump. It does not significantly affect our industry, which has traditionally used larger meshes, but is designed to reduce juvenile mortality. I agree that such reduction is one of the top priorities—indeed, it is probably the top priority—of the hake recovery plan.
  The total spawning biomass of hake is at dangerous levels. In that respect, we must have an eye on overall fishing mortality. That is where the impact of our own industry comes into play, even though it is catching bigger fish. Minimum landing size is an issue, but it cannot be increased unless mesh size is also increased. That is rightly being done and I set great store on it following my discussions with fishermen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  The overall picture is one of seriously diminishing opportunities for a range of stocks, although there are one or two bright spots. When the EU-Norway talks are completed, we expect some increases in a range of quotas, although that does not go all the way in mitigating what the Commission is proposing. However, we must accept that the reductions in opportunity were inevitable to some degree. We cannot ignore the stark scientific assessment of some stocks, although I must point out that I am
  502
  disappointed—the industry has already spelt out its disappointment—with some of the proposals, which seem to be inconsistent, to move away from the scientific advice that is available and to propose TAC levels without any clear basis being apparent. I have always tried to be consistent and I told the industry that when scientific advice makes it clear that we have to take action on reducing catches, we must take that action, even though it might mean difficult and painful decisions. On the other side of the coin, if proposals go beyond the scientific advice, we should question them very closely and demand justifications.
  Some of the TACs that have been proposed do not seem to take account of the difficult and painful measures that the industry has already taken in good faith. It has taken such measures in the Irish sea and deserves to be congratulated on its co-operation with us on the Irish sea cod recovery programmes. There is a call for a blanket cut on a number of stocks of real economic value, despite a lack of scientific advice, while in one or two cases scientists have recommended increases. We need to challenge such proposals and I can assure the House that that will be one of my objectives in the Fisheries Council.
  One of the prime examples of proposals that need to be considered further relates to nephrops. The Commission has proposed what seem to be inappropriate cuts that are designed to complement cod recovery. Again, the matter is linked with by-catch issues. By-catch problems are very serious—if the science and evidence exist. I am convinced neither of that nor that the Commission has understood our research, which we presented to it to back up our argument.
  Angus Robertson: Does the Minister know that Spain is in a similar position to Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom on nephrops? Is he optimistic about an opportunity to find commonality of interest between Spain and various parts of the UK on nephrops in the Council of Ministers?
  Mr. Morley: Spain has an interest, but it is in different stocks. Our interests are mainly in the Irish sea and the North sea, where Spain does not have a quota for nephrops. However, I agree that one or two other countries have a joint interest with us on such issues.
  We have always been responsible and argued on the basis of science. On last year's 10 per cent. reduction, we presented the Commission with scientific evidence to support our view that the cod by-catch in the North sea nephrops fishery was low and did not justify such cuts. We intend to challenge the Commission's scientific analysis on the basis of our considerably detailed work.
  Mrs. Joan Humble: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the Irish sea fishing communities, which have genuinely worked together. Will he consider the results for the past two years of the cod recovery programme in the Irish sea? Many Fleetwood fishermen do not believe that they have been given the time or the chance to prove its success. Instead, savage cuts have been introduced without consideration of the programme and how we can build on the past two years.
  Mr. Morley: I accept my hon. Friend's comments. The industry has been responsible and has genuinely

  503
  participated in the recovery plans, and we appreciate its input. There are encouraging signs for cod, and it would be helpful if the industry could experience some benefits from its sacrifices. We will argue for that strongly with the Commission.
  We have asked the industry for its reactions to the proposals. We will take time to examine them all in detail and consider their implications. As I have said, we intend to work with the industry and other member states to ensure that we bring about a fair, effective, reasoned and reasonable end to the negotiations, which will be difficult.
  The attitude in the Council of Ministers has changed for the better. There is a much more serious attitude towards following the science. The Commission is not in the game of bumping up figures arbitrarily so that they can be negotiated down and presented as an improvement. It will not be easy to get the Commission to move from the proposals because it is adamant that it is in the business of sustainability and protecting fish stocks. We share that ambition, but I repeat that the proposals must be based on good science, and a case has to be sound to convince the industry, which will ultimately have to make sacrifices for the recoveries. Persuading the Commission of that view will be one of our primary objectives in the negotiations.
  Deep water species and TACs are of interest to some hon. Members. Last year, we rejected the idea of quotas for a range of species, although we accept that there is serious anxiety about the state of deep water stocks. We support management that is based on effort-control regimes rather than on simply allocating quotas. We believe that the latter would encourage increased fishing to bump up track records on quotas.
  It should also be taken into account that some of the deep water fisheries are used by non-EU fleets. It would therefore be better to bring them under the control of regional fisheries organizations—the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission in the case that we are considering—to ensure proper management of the stocks.
  The Government generally support third country fisheries agreements because they maintain traditional fishing opportunities for EU distant water vessels and provide socio-economic benefits for some regions that depend on fisheries. They also allow third countries to realise the value of fisheries resources that they do not wish or are unable to exploit. However, there is an important caveat. Third country agreements should provide value for money to the Community, promote environmentally sustainable fishing, which means proper enforcement and management, and be coherent in the context of Community development objectives for third countries.
  Some agreements need to be examined closely for their benefits. We benefit from third country agreements such as the Greenland fishery agreement, which is especially important to the UK. We must ensure that the Community does not export its surplus fishing capacity to developing countries, which are often unable to monitor fishing effectively and/or do damage to marine ecosystems. For many developing countries, fish provides a substantial and vital source of protein. Fishing agreements must not jeopardise that source.
  504
  Developing countries increasingly want to develop their fishing industries, and we should support that. There are opportunities for co-operation and joint agreements between EU member states and fleets and those developing countries.
  Sir Robert Smith: I acknowledge the importance of the Minister's last point. However, if we are to have sustainable fisheries in our waters, the Government must recognise that they are part of the problem because they license more capacity than the waters can sustain. They should consider ways in which they can be part of the solution, and decommission the excess capacity so that there is a balance between our fishing fleet and sustainability.
  Mr. Morley: That is a fair point, and I shall deal with this year's decommissioning round shortly.
  The Commission has produced a Green Paper on the review of the common fisheries policy. Hon. Members are familiar with its contents. It goes a long way towards tackling many anxieties that hon. Members have expressed over the years and proposes the sort of changes to the CFP that we support. The Green Paper pulls no punches; it is a frank and well-balanced critique of the CFP. It points out its deficiencies, including poor stock conservation, the use of often inappropriate subsidies, and uneven control and enforcement, while making a strong case for a common policy on fisheries conservation, which is important in EU waters.
  Recent difficulties in fisheries management mean that I am more convinced than ever of the need for a common conservation policy. We cannot manage fish stocks unilaterally.
  Mr. Salmond: The Minister is enthusiastic about the Green Paper. I understand that because it is probably the best document from the Commission on fishing for a generation, although there is nothing much with which to compare it. None the less, his enthusiasm is noted. Is he enthusiastic about the Green Paper's reference to substantially enhanced payments not only for decommissioning but for tie-up funding? If he supports large parts of the document, will the Government consider that aspect of the Green Paper?
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman knows my views on tie-up money. Although I have an open mind about any approach, we must consider carefully the most appropriate use of public moneys, the priorities for its use and the justification for schemes. I remain to be convinced that tie-up grants are the best way forward. I suspect that the debate on that will continue.
  I want some elements of the CFP to be retained. I am sure that that applies to other hon. Members. For example, the case for the six and 12-mile limits is so overwhelming that I have argued for them to be made permanent. They are important for safeguarding the needs of the inshore fleet. We need to take its needs into account. The limits also make sense from a conservation perspective. No one supports the end of relative stability, including the Hague preference. They are important elements of the CFP, which offer security to the industry, especially in difficult

  505
  times. The Commission and other member states also support relative stability and I am confident that that will continue into 2003 and beyond.
  Andrew George: Does the Minister agree that, following the publication of the Green Paper, future debates on fishing in the House should be considerably more mature? We spent much time in the past speculating on whether we would be able to retain the six and 12-mile limits and relative stability. We can now move forward and stop wasting so much time speculating on dire scenarios.
  Mr. Morley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are far too many scare stories about what is going to happen after 2002. I suspect that, when we reach agreement, some of the darker stones that we have been hearing will be shown to have been yet more of the Euro-myths that we have had to listen to for many years.
  We are arguing strongly for greater involvement by the fishing industry in the way in which the CFP operates—but not only the fishing industry. No one would dispute that the industry is the primary stakeholder in the policy, but there is also a role for environmentalists, consumers, sport fishermen and members of the general public, who have an interest in the health of our seas and in marine biodiversity.
  One of the strengths of the new Department in which I serve—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—is that sustainability is at the heart of everything that it does and of all the policies that it is trying to develop. There is no contradiction between the objectives of environmentalists—healthy and strong marine biodiversity—and of the fishing industry, which has every interest in marine conservation and biodiversity.
  For the House's information, the timetable for the review has shifted slightly in recent months. The European Parliament has been unable to complete its report on the CFP, and the Commission rightly wishes to hear the Parliament's opinion before proceeding. I therefore expect the Commission communication to be produced in January next year. The communication will set out recommendations for subsequent legislative proposals for decision by the end of 2002.
  We do not yet have a full idea of the proposals that the Commission intends to produce, but it has said that we should expect them to cover multi-annual TAC setting—a policy that has been raised many times in debate, and one that the UK strongly supports. The proposals could also cover access, fleet structure, control and external issues. That shows that the Commission is moving in the right direction, and I shall offer it every encouragement in its efforts to forge a new, more meaningful, more flexible common fisheries policy that takes much greater account of the regional differences between the various fishing fleets of the European Union.
  Lawrie Quinn: With regard to the proposals from the Commission, has my hon. Friend been able to determine what level of consultation will take place in our fishing communities around the coast—the key stakeholders that he mentioned earlier? Such consultation would enable our fishing communities to feel that proper account had been taken of their feelings in relation to the Commission's proposals.
  Mr. Morley: I know that my hon. Friend has been very much involved in this process, and that he is anxious to
  506
  ensure that the views of the industry are fed through. He will be pleased to know that a series of seminars and conferences has been held around the country, to allow fishermen to express their views on the common fisheries policy and the post-2002 reforms. The industry has been very active in that process, and has made a range of proposals. The joint document produced by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation was extremely well argued, and it is clear from the Green Paper that it strongly influenced the way in which the Commission was thinking. That is a good example of the way in which the industry can feed through its ideas.
  On decommissioning, one of the key problems faced by the fishing industry is the imbalance between the size of the fleet and the stocks available to it, as was mentioned earlier. To help the industry to address the problem, we have introduced a £6 million decommissioning scheme in England, which, taken with the schemes run by the devolved Administrations, means that £36 million of public funds have been made available to the industry this year for decommissioning.
  While decommissioning has an important role, it should be seen as only one tool. The downside to decommissioning is that it takes vessels out of the fleet, which has an impact on regional ports. So, although there is an important role for decommissioning, we should not regard it as the only fisheries conservation management tool. It is one of a range of measures that we need to introduce. There is, however, no doubt that taking some of the capacity out of the UK fleet helps the viability of those who remain in it.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he was shocked by the fact that the decommissioning scheme introduced in Scotland has been oversubscribed by 100 per cent. in the north-east, an important area in which many of the newer, larger boats are based? Is that not a shattering blow to the Scottish fishing industry? Does he agree that it does not augur well for the future?
  Mr. Morley: We need to be fairly shock-resistant when dealing with fisheries. I was not altogether surprised, because decommissioning has been very useful to the industry, not only in helping people who want to leave the industry. The evidence of the previous decommissioning schemes shows that a lot of the decommissioning money has been recycled in the form of investment in the industry. I am sure that some people see the decommissioning scheme not as a way of exiting the industry but as a way of reinvesting in different parts of it. I suspect that that is one explanation of the high level of interest in it.
  Mr. Salmond: Is not the key to the effectiveness of the decommissioning scheme—which was long resisted by the previous Conservative Government—the question of whether the quota allocation of the decommissioned boats remains in the sector? Would it not be the worst of all possible ironies if boats were decommissioned, whether in the north-east of Scotland or elsewhere, and their quota allowed to leak outside their area or outside the country?
  Mr. Morley: This is a difficult issue, and I have discussed with hon. Members before, both in the House

  507
  and in Committee, how we should try to keep a fisheries quota within the region in which it has operated. I would very much like to do that. Unfortunately, all sorts of legal difficulties are involved in achieving that in practical terms. There has always been movement of quota around the country, and there is a need for some flexibility in the buying or leasing of quota, as that helps the producer organisations to manage their fisheries. The producer organisations are very well organised these days, and they are looking for opportunities to buy quota in their areas. That will keep the quota in the region and will be to the benefit of their members. I would be glad to see that, and I hope that it will happen.
  Andrew George: Following the intervention by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), may I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to intervene on the referral of the Shetland and Orkney quota schemes—and, by implication, the new Duchy quota scheme—to the European Commission? Those schemes support new entrants to the industry and protect quota in vulnerable fishing communities. That referral will clearly have a detrimental effect on the Duchy quota scheme in Cornwall, as it will delay its implementation. Will the Minister express a view on that matter and, if he is concerned about it, will he intervene to ensure that the investigation is completed as quickly as possible?
  Mr. Morley: Yes, I shall be happy to give my personal view on that. It is a very good idea for local communities to come together in a co-operative way to ensure that their quota is kept in the area and managed for the benefit of the region. I must make it clear that state aid rules apply to this issue, and I would not want unfair subsidies going to one region to the detriment of another. That would not be fair. As I understand it, both the Duchy Fish Quota Company and the Shetland scheme are based on commercial operations, and the quota is leased at a commercial rate. I also understand that there are no plans to restrict this in a discriminatory way. On that basis, they seem to meet state aid rules. We take an interest in the matter, although it is one for the Commission. We shall certainly examine the Commission's concerns, but as long as state aid rules are not breached, there is no reason why the schemes should not continue to operate.
  Mr. Steen: Has all the decommissioning money for the past couple of years been spent in the south-west, especially in Brixham? Was it at Amsterdam that the Minister negotiated to ensure that 50 per cent. of the foreign catch is landed in English ports, and does that help?
  Mr. Morley: The decommissioning scheme was a UK scheme. It was not restricted to any one region and all the money was fully utilised. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Amsterdam treaty negotiations, which do not relate to the economic links conditions that we have negotiated and successfully applied. He may be interested to know that I shall say a few words about the outcome, although I want to conclude soon.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: My hon. Friend has been very generous in giving way to so many
  508
  Members. I agree with the previous intervention by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on decommissioning, but he made an earlier intervention on tie-ups. My clear impression of the joint meetings that the industry had with us down here is that it believes that decommissioning is a much better answer than tie-ups. Decommissioning is a long-term solution to the industry's problems, whereas tie-ups pour money into a potentially bottomless hole.
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. There were differences of view in the fishing industry, but there is a strong school of thought that decommissioning is a greater priority for available funds.
  Mr. Salmond: I have here the Scottish Fishermen's Federation brief for this very debate. It expresses firm support for tie-ups as part of fisheries management policy, so I wonder whether the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) managed to attend the meeting at which he thinks the federation said something that it most certainly did not say.
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that there was a difference of view in the Scottish industry over tie-up grant. He will find that there was a slight difference of view between the west and east coasts. I must move on.
  On stock recovery programmes and technical measures, the UK has played an important development role and there is a great deal of scope for dealing with some of our conservation problems. We intend to take the measures forward in conjunction with the industry. On quota management generally, I appreciate that the reductions in total allowable catches and quotas for 2001 have resulted in many fishermen eking out their allocations and making difficult decisions about what to catch and when, although many have been successful. I am also pleased that good prices in general have helped in that respect.
  We have tried to help the industry out through quota swaps and the Department has a good record of managing our fisheries effectively. Nevertheless, it is important that all sectors play their part in ensuring that measures designed to conserve fish stocks are respected.
  Fixed quota allocations have been reviewed and they seem to be a success—that is certainly the conclusion of the review. They have achieved greater stability and have greatly facilitated the process of securing extra quota through quota swaps, both in the UK and internationally through the Department.
  Economic links were referred to by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). Those arrangements are a further example of how we have tried to address a particular problem realistically and pragmatically. Last year, I informed the House of the economic links arrangements and the benefits that they have brought. The first full year in which they were used was 1999: landings in the UK by foreign-owned, but UK-registered, vessels increased by 70 per cent., an additional £3 million was spent on goods and services in our ports and more than 300 tonnes of valuable quota—sole, predominantly—was made available for redistribution to our inshore fleet.
  I am pleased to tell the House that the benefits achieved in 1999 were maintained in 2000, and I am hopeful that the trend will continue throughout this year.

  509
  The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the trend in respect of foreign-owned, but UK-registered, ships has been downward in the past couple of years.
  On grant aid, the principal aim of DEFRA is sustainability in environmental, economic and social terms, and one of our objectives is to promote sustainable management and prudent use of natural resources, domestically and internationally. Our sea fisheries are an important national resource, so we have involved the industry in the priorities that we want, and the schemes that we have identified for the financial instrument of fisheries grant programme involve such matters as increasing the value of fishermen's catch by helping them to maintain the quality of fish at sea and in port.
  There are grants to help fishermen to transfer their fishing from pressure stocks to others, and that includes grants to switch to more environmentally friendly gear. There are also grants to help the processing industry to develop new markets, improve efficiency and minimise waste. I encourage all in the industry and environmental groups to consider how they can make the most of the grant aid available.
  We have also encouraged the industry to benefit from adopting electronic working. DEFRA and other fisheries Departments want to encourage the industry to explore the possibilities, including electronic marketing and electronic transfer of information, with which it is becoming increasingly involved.
  We commissioned a report on the impact of e-commerce on the UK fishing industry, using independent consultants, and in October we presented the findings to an industry seminar, sponsored by the Department of Trade and Industry and organised by the Sea Fish Industry Authority. We also showed what a Government web portal for the industry might look like. The feedback is encouraging and we shall want to consult the industry further on the report's recommendation on how best to take the matter forward.
  I do not underestimate the difficulties for the industry in the forthcoming Fisheries Council negotiations. Some cuts are justified on the science and some present difficulties, but we must remember that stocks need to be protected. We must achieve sustainable fisheries management and stocks that are below their safe biomass must be rebuilt.
  It is fair to say that some decisions should have been taken years ago, as some catches have been unsustainable for a long time. It will take years to achieve recovery for those stocks, but it can be done. I emphasise yet again that I have been consistent and that I have followed the science. That consistency also means that we should challenge cuts that go beyond the science, and I shall ensure that that is done in the forthcoming negotiations.
  The new atmosphere in the Fisheries Council means that the posturing of old has gone. We must concentrate on sustainability and responsible fisheries management, but I emphasise once again that the Commission is deadly serious about its proposals. The negotiations will not be easy and the Commission will not simply roll over because we disagree with it. We must make a strong and robust scientific case to the Commission, and we will.
  There are bright spots. We expect some stocks to increase and I am pleased that prices generally have been good. Consumers are prepared to pay a good price for a top-quality product. The inshore sector has done well, particularly with shellfish, but clearly I recognise that
  510
  there are problems in the industry. They key one is sustainability and the need to put in place management for the long-term, for the sake of the marine environment and a viable, sustainable, financially secure future for the industry. I believe that we can do that.
  2.58 pm
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I welcome the debate, although I do not know how many fishing debates the Under-Secretary has introduced and wound up. He seems to have been fisheries spokesman man and boy, in opposition and in government. He probably feels that way too.
  Lawrie Quinn: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Winterton: I am delighted to give way so early in my speech.
  Lawrie Quinn: I thank the hon. Lady. Perhaps I may offer some information. During a search on a website, I asked that very question and the answer is 191.
  Mrs. Winterton: I am grateful for the information. The Minister looks very well on it: he is obviously eating a lot of fish, as I did at lunchtime.
  Let me echo what the Minister said, and express our deepest sympathy for the families of the nine fishermen who lost their lives this year. We must also not forget those injured at sea during the past year.
  As an island nation, we have a particular affinity with the sea and respect those
  "that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters".
  For centuries, fishermen have braved the elements around our shores and further afield, and pitted their skills against the harshest and most unpredictable of elements, the sea. We politicians have added to the stress that they experience, not least by imposing stifling European Union regulations. While it is difficult now to find a customs officer, a coastguard or even a policeman around our harbours, fisheries officers can be found checking boxes of fish. That contrasts with the situation in the Scottish fisheries department, which allows over-quota landings to be policed by the pelagic sector itself.
  Mr. Salmond: I think that we missed the full import of the hon. Lady's attack on the Scottish pelagic sector, which is generally recognised to be one of the most successful management regimes ever, and the most responsible. Will she explain in more detail why she is developing this anti-Scottish attitude? I should have thought that her party was in enough trouble north of the border.
  Mrs. Winterton: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that he is talking to someone who is half-Scottish. He will have to do a damn sight better than that. Perhaps I should remind him of the minutes of the meeting of the pelagic sub-committee of the Shetland Fishermen's Association, which took place on 21 September. I shall quote from

  511
  them—and I am sure that, when I have done so, he will say how pleased he is to have been put right.
  The section from which I shall quote is headed "Control and enforcement" and it states:
  "Josie Simpson reported his disappointment at a recent pelagic enforcement and monitoring committee meeting where it was made clear the fisheries department intend to leave it up to the industry to clean up over-quota landings."
  Will that do for the hon. Gentleman, or would he like me to quote more? There it is, in black and white.
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Winterton: I want to make some progress. The hon. Gentleman will probably want to intervene later, when I start dealing with the part of the world that he represents. [Interruption.] I know that he represents Orkney and Shetland. I shall deal with issues relating to that area later: that is precisely what I meant a few minutes ago. I wish that Labour Members would not get so excited. They should settle down and do a bit of listening.
  The fishing industry's problem was summed up in Fishing News a few weeks ago. The Minister asserted:
  "A single European fleet is just not going to happen. The UK will never agree to it".
  That is in the same vein as the Prime Minister's description of the European Union in a speech he made in Birmingham on 23 November. He said:
  "We have a vision for Europe as a union of nations working more closely together, not a federal superstate submerging national identity."
  It appears to me, and to many others, that perhaps neither gentleman has studied existing European Union treaties, especially in relation to future fisheries integration.
  The statement in Fishing News continues:
  "Spain is totally isolated on this approach, which also fuels arguments for EU permits which we would strongly resist."
  The permit system—or call it what you will—is already an obligation under the treaty of Corfu. It is required to be operating before the end of 2002. Spain—this answers a point raised by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) earlier—can veto any issue when a discriminatory transitional derogation is sought, which includes the six and 12-mile limits. The Minister expressed support for that.
  The situation today is exactly the same as that which was clearly explained here, during debates in 1971 and 1972, by Labour Members—the now Lord Healey, and the late Lords Shore and Jay. The Commission's press release of 4 December confirms its intention to
  "reduce the TAC for associated stocks".
  That, and
  "reducing fishing effort, that is time spent at sea by fishing vessels",
  will be controlled by special fishing permits.
  The Prime Minister said:
  "The tragedy for British politics—for Britain—has been that politicians of both parties have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but on up to the present day, to appreciate the emerging reality of European integration. And in doing so, they have failed Britain's interest".
  512
  There is some truth in that statement—the Government do fail to see the reality of fisheries integration—but, as usual, what the Prime Minister says and what he does are opposites. The experience of fisheries integration over the past 19 years has created the greatest social and environmental disaster that mankind could devise, the price of which our fishermen pay every working day of their lives.
  Mr. Morley: I shall not defend the workings of the current common fisheries policy, which certainly need to be changed. Let me put the hon. Lady right on one point, however. I refer to the assertion, well known in the fishing industry, that we will all have to have European fishing permits. The permits required by the treaty of Corfu are already in effect, and apply to western waters management. They have not been used to supersede national permits or control, and they will not be: there is no reason why they should be.
  Another issue that often causes concern is coastal limits. It is not true that there is a veto. Unless anyone challenges them, coastal limits will automatically be "rolled over" after 2002. Even if they are challenged, qualified majority voting will be involved—and I have no doubt that a qualified majority is in favour of retaining coastal limits.
  Mrs. Winterton: I am sure that the fishing industry will be glad of those assurances—assurances about a matter that is yet to be decided. The Minister referred to qualified majority voting; I am pleased that he is confident of obtaining support in the numbers he requires, but I must admit to remaining concerned about the position. I shall wait to see whether he can deliver what he says he can deliver, but I believe that the case that I have presented is absolutely correct.
  The Prime Minister surely cannot believe that wiping out the British fishing industry and marine stocks is in Britain's interests. No wonder the Liberal Democrats' spokesman for environment, food and rural affairs challenged the Government to put the environment at the heart of policy in an article in the September edition of The Parliamentary Monitor. Unfortunately, the Liberal Democrat policy proposes a lot of mini-CFPs. We can only conclude that both the Liberal Democrats and the Prime Minister indirectly support the dumping of dead prime fish back in the sea—which will cause pollution—the breaking of the marine food chain, and the marketing of baby fish in southern Europe.
  The present quota system has one more year to run. The system, which is in itself a derogation from equal access to a common resource, will have run its course on 31 December 2002. Today's debate takes place just before the Minister goes to negotiate the new TACs, and other matters, at the Council of Fisheries Ministers. As he said, the Commission has already announced further devastating cuts to quotas as a basis for discussion—cuts that fall below even what scientists have recommended.
  There is an established pattern to those negotiations, which means that whatever concessions the Minister can wring out on behalf of the UK will be considered to be an improvement on the worst case scenario. Let us not be fooled. The situation is dire and we are witnessing the slow death of our industry by a thousand cuts.
  The Minister has told us in the past that fishermen have to accept the continuing cuts in quota in the name of conservation. How, therefore, can the Commission justify

  513
  the cutting back of quota for dover sole by 40 per cent., or 320 tonnes, in area 7E of the south-west coast of England, while allowing an increase in plaice quota of 6 per cent., or 330 tonnes, for the same area of sea, in order to conserve fish? It is well known that the species are caught together in the beam trawling fishery, just as cod and coley are caught in single and twin demersal trawls.
  The direct result of those quota decisions will be yet further dumping. That unhappy practice, together with juvenile discards, was highlighted more than a decade ago by the industry and included in the Commission's 1991 report. Since then, little progress has been made because of the rigidity of the system. I hope that the editorial comment in last week's Fishing News is correct and a more balanced view will be taken. The editorial stated:
  "There can be no greater indictment of the European Commission's failure to run the CFP properly than its own report on enforcement of fishery regulation.
  The inadequacy and patent lack of uniformity in the enforcement regimes across the EU have been apparent for many years. The Commission has been aware of these failures for years but they have still not been addressed."
  Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Lady mentioned a time a decade ago. According to my maths, the Conservatives were in government then. Why did they not do anything about it then?
  Mrs. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is new and perhaps he does not understand the cause of the problem, which is the rigidity in the system. It is the Commission that runs the policy and it is for the Commission to enforce it. [Interruption.] I have just read him a bit from Fishing News. Perhaps he read it, or perhaps he would like to go to the Library and read it again. If he did, he would see who is to blame.
  Mr. Frank Doran: The hon. Lady may have forgotten that there was a Conservative Government 10 years ago, but I hope that she has not forgotten that it was the Conservative Government who took us into the CFP in the first place.
  Mrs. Winterton: No, how could I have forgotten that? I am not trying to make cheap party political points—[Interruption.] I am trying to get to the truth of why our fish stocks are as low as they are, why our fishermen are going out of business because it is too difficult for them to continue and what we will do, in this country and elsewhere, to encourage good environmental management and to ensure that the ecosystems in the sea can recover so that the fish stocks can recover. This is an important issue. Hon. Members on both sides might guffaw about it, but it is not they who go out fishing every week: they sit around in a comfortable, warm and safe place.
  Mr. Doran Mr. Doran rose—
  Mrs. Winterton: No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman because I am going to make progress with my speech.
  Andrew George Andrew George rose—
  Mrs. Winterton: I am not giving way to that hon. Gentleman either. Let him make his own speech and he can give way to me.
  514
  On 1 January 1999, the Minister introduced a system of fixed quota allocations, on the basis that that was what the industry wanted—[Interruption.] Yes, a majority wanted it, although many indicated other views in their responses to the consultation paper. The introduction of that system has denied fishermen the opportunity to improve their businesses. They now have to pay money for the additional quota that they need to remain viable. Many fishermen have no financial means to do this and are being forced to leave the industry due to financial constraints.
  Schemes using public funds for the benefit of some fishermen have been introduced. This time last week the Commission issued a press release:
  "The Commission opens investigations into UK aid schemes involving purchase and leasing of fish quota".
  That is a very serious situation and refers to a purchasing company supported by the Shetland and Orkney islands councils. When that project was formulated on the recommendation of John Goodlad, chief executive of the Shetland Fish Producers Organisation and also secretary of the Shetland Fishermen's Association, who is due to step down from those posts at the end of this month, certain Shetland fishermen suggested that the Commission's authorisation should be sought before proceeding.
  In the fisheries debate on 15 December 1998, the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), whom I am delighted to see in her place this afternoon—
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: As usual.
  Mrs. Winterton: Indeed. The hon. Lady is a keen attender of fisheries debates for the simple reason that she has a strong constituency interest. In the debate in 1998, she quoted from a letter the Minister wrote in the 4 December 1998 edition of Fishing News, which gave support to that kind of scheme. In fact, the Minister visited Shetland and when he appeared before the Agriculture Committee on 22 June 1999, he confirmed that he fully encouraged such schemes. The Liberal Democrats also encouraged that approach.
  In the Aberdeen Press and Journal on 30 November 2001, John Goodlad is quoted as saying:
  "I am perfectly satisfied that the scheme does not breach any Community aid rules whatsoever. All the discussions we have had with the Scottish executive and the Commission confirm this to be the case".
  However, Shetland councillor, Drew Ratter, was quoted as saying:
  "I am absolutely stunned. The European Commission had a very good look at this before and there was an in-depth investigation. Everyone was informed".
  In the same report, Alan Coghill, chief executive of the Orkney Fish Producers Organisation is quoted as saying that he suspects that
  "a jealous Euro MP may be behind the investigation".
  I understand that it was indeed a Member of the European Parliament who initially prompted that investigation. I believe that that MEP is a member of the Labour group. Indeed, I understand that it was Mr. Gordon Adam.
  Mr. Carmichael: I am loth to interrupt the hon. Lady but she has now singled out no fewer than four

  515
  constituents of mine for particular comment, all of whom are well respected in the fishing industry. With every moment of her speech I can feel the Tory vote in Orkney and Shetland ebbing away. Would the Conservative party be prepared to be as fulsome in its support of the Orkney and Shetland islands councils' position on the purchase and leasing of quota on commercial grounds as the Minister has been this afternoon?
  Mrs. Winterton: Of course we would be equally supportive, as long as we know—I am sure that the Minister agrees with this point—that it has not broken any rules or regulations. I will shortly describe the procedure that must be followed, and the hon. Gentleman may wish to intervene later on that point. I am sure that he would not support knowingly breaking the rules, because that is not the way forward.
  The establishment of a similar enterprise, the Duchy Fish Quota Company, which is backed by Cornwall county council, has been seriously affected by the investigation. Advice about setting up the scheme had been obtained from the organisers of the Shetland scheme. In the Western Morning News of 3 December, the chief executive of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, Nathan de Rozarieux—a good Cornish name—was quoted as saying that the Commission investigation was a shock and a setback that could cause up to two years of delays.
  Unfortunately, the matter is far more serious and goes much further than the Commission's investigation. Applications for such schemes must be made in advance. When an application is received and approved by the Commission, notification of approval is published in the Official Journal. If that process is not completed, the Commission will open an investigation, as it has with the Orkney and Shetland scheme, that can take up to 18 months to finish.
  Annual reports have to be submitted to the Commission for such approved schemes. Have any annual reports been filed for the Orkney and Shetland scheme? It is puzzling that the scheme should have been operating for some time, and one wonders whether the Commission has turned a blind eye to its existence. If Community rules are found to have been broken in respect of a scheme operated without the Commission's approval, the member state is charged with the responsibility of taking back the money given in state aid, plus interest.
  It will not escape the House that if the Commission finds against a scheme, the amount of money involved is considerable. It will have been paid over several years and will run in advance for the 18 months or so that the investigation may last before it concludes. That is a serious issue for the fishermen concerned. If the Commission finds that the rules have been broken, it will expect the Government to take full responsibility. Indeed, they have a moral duty to do so, as in the past they have publicly supported the scheme.
  Save Britain's Fish and the Fishermen's Association Ltd. have warned for years that the devil was in the detail, and attracted much scorn from all sides in the process. Those who support the common fisheries policy must base their judgments not on wishful thinking, but on fact.
  I wanted to speak at length about the effort restrictions that apply to western waters and the Baltic, and to ask how many kilowatt days the United Kingdom is to lose
  516
  next year. The Minister knows that we are exceeding the kilowatt days allocation, but how does he believe that vessels will obtain the necessary licences to rectify the under-declared overcapacity in engines by 2004? However, I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak, so those matters will have to wait for another debate.
  In fisheries debates, we often hear the cry that too many vessels are chasing too few fish, yet, in the name of conservation, we are told that vessels must be decommissioned. That is strange, given that the quota is left intact to be reused. The Government—except for the Treasury—do not support a tie-up scheme, because that is all about getting rid of British vessels, not conservation.
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: Will my hon. Friend throw some light on the practice of klondiking? We in land-locked Leominster would be grateful to know more about the process, which allows a vessel to unload its quota or catch on to other vessels and thus to continue to fish 24 hours a day.
  Mrs. Winterton: The fishing industry has all sorts of wheezes to deploy in the system of quota management. My hon. Friend gave one example, and I could give him others. The important matter is how we can restore fish stocks sufficiently to allow a viable and sustainable fishing industry in the future.
  Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend accept that klondiking strips the seas of our fish stocks and so prevents recovery? In respect of reform of the CFP and other matters that will arise in the next year, should not the Government's policy be to prevent that and other practices, which are destroying our fish stocks?
  Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend is right, and makes his point clearly.
  The primary issue at stake is the development of sustainable policies to guard the marine environment and ecosystems, and thereby increase fish stocks. We know that different stocks are in flux as a result of global warming. The rigidity of the present quota system means that fishermen will catch species that are different from those specified in the 1974 to 1978 reference period. That problem will be exacerbated by the Minister fixing the quota for each vessel. As a result, catches will either be landed as black fish, or dumped.
  The Minister has indicated his dislike of industrial fishing on numerous occasions. We share that dislike. I accept that he secured a restriction for the birds around Wee Bankie, but the three vessels allowed in for scientific purposes seem to have had a field day with sand eels and juvenile haddock. It is nothing short of a disgrace that the sand eel total allowable catch has been reduced by only 20 per cent., to 816,000 tonnes. I hope that he makes sure that that TAC is no more than 200,000 tonnes for the next year. The present proposals are an insult to the demersal fishermen, and we must remember that industrial trawlers are not even catching their quota. The potential for even more damage to fish stocks is therefore inherent in the system.
  Another saying often heard is that fish know no boundaries. How right that is, as fish clear off to better waters when there is no food. How can fish stocks be

  517
  expected to increase when the food chain is being destroyed? In the Barents sea, cod turned to cannibalism and took longer to grow, and the same is happening now with North sea haddock.
  Industrial fishermen were even allowed into the areas closed for spawning cod earlier this year. To catch sand eels, they used nets through which it would be difficult to push a knitting needle. Moreover, the closed areas for cod were designated using British vessel log books and past records, but they did not match the spawning grounds and were applied only after half the cod had already spawned.
  Where were the demersal vessels to go? They had no alternative other than to go to the very areas that the fishermen wanted to avoid—those with juvenile haddock stocks that needed to be conserved for the 2002 catch.
  Parliament has allowed this system of integration in order to fulfil treaty obligations. It has resulted in fishermen being criminalised, and it has been the reason for decreasing fish stocks. It is no use our blaming European fishermen for making the most of every opportunity that is handed to them on a plate.
  As we enter the final year of the integration process, I hope that the Minister will not continue to believe that a derogation permanently overrides a treaty. I trust that he fully understands the aces that nations such as Spain hold. The Government and the Liberal Democrat party would like the 12-mile derogation to be made permanent, but I challenge the Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for St. Ives to say how such permanency might be secured. Given that they want to make the 12-mile limit permanent, the Minister should also explain what happened to the 12 to 200 mile median-line limit established by the then Labour Government with the Fishery Limits Act 1976.
  The problem for European marine stocks is political, stemming from the move for political integration to establish the superstate. The Prime Minister asserts that that will not happen, but page 34 of volume 1 of the Commission Green Paper refers to
  "ensuring that the governance remains compatible with the legal and institutional framework of the Treaty".
  It is there in black and white.
  Let me make very clear the difference between the political parties' policies. The Scottish nationalists cannot wait to sign up to the acquis communautaire, handing what they deem a Scottish living marine resource to the European Union, to be shared equally with all the present and future member states, including Austria and Luxembourg, which are landlocked countries.
  Mr. Salmond: I do not believe that Austria poses a mortal threat to the Scottish fishing industry at present. Nor has the Scottish National party ever supported the acquis communautaire. We are strong supporters of relative stability, which I hope is being secured.
  Can the hon. Lady confirm that it was a Conservative Government who, only six years ago, unnecessarily traded accelerated Spanish access to western waters in return for support from Spain on qualified majority voting on a matter that had nothing to do with fishing?
  Mrs. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman says that Austria is not a threat, but my point is that countries such as
  518
  Austria and Luxembourg, which have no sea, will be able to buy in an equal part of the fishing in the European pond.
  Mr. Salmond: Scotland is not represented equally or often at all.
  Mrs. Winterton: I will ignore that remark.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the previous Conservative Government. Has anything changed in the meantime? It is still all about horse trading, which is what the problem will be at the end of 2002.
  Mr. Savidge: Seahorses.
  Mrs. Winterton: Indeed.
  I have known the Minister for a number of years because we both served on the Agriculture Select Committee. I often think that he must feel uncomfortable in his present position because he is a tremendous environmentalist. I hope that he will hold his views to the fore and come round to a situation in which we can save the marine environment. My goodness, at the rate it is going, there will not be one left to save very shortly.
  The Liberal Democrats fully support the acquis communautaire but think that they can break the common fisheries policy down into smaller chunks. That, in theory, could be achieved now and need not wait until 2003. Ensuring that competency is given to those regions is a different matter. The Government go along with the concept of reform, which is disingenuous. How can reform be achieved to benefit British fishermen when, by definition, it means disadvantaging other countries? Reform is a smokescreen for doing little but tinker at the edges.
  Andrew George: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mr. Doran: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Winterton: I am going to make progress. I have been generous in giving way.
  The Conservative party believes in returning fisheries policy to national control to enable us to get to grips quickly with a very fluid conservation situation. We can achieve genuine co-operation among member states, for everyone's benefit, with reciprocal arrangements. That is the only way forward for the survival of not only the British fishing industry but of all the fishing fleets of other member states. Conservative policy has at its very heart the conservation and sustainability of fish stocks.
  The present policy is a travesty under the guise of conservation and a prime example of the abuse of a valuable national resource. Such a sacrifice must not be allowed to continue. We have a duty to ensure that our national interest is protected with the restoration of competence to the place where it traditionally and rightfully belongs.
  Andrew George: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. She is attempting to explain Conservative policy, after her rather vain attempt to rubbish the policies of others. Could she dwell a little longer on Tory policy as explained in the Conservative

  519
  manifesto? It says that the Conservatives will seek national or local control over our waters, to be established through zonal management, coastal management or in some other way. I am sure that that is clear to everybody. Will she elaborate on how that is to be achieved?
  Mrs. Winterton: I always believe that one good quote deserves another. How does the Liberal Democrat party propose to achieve its policy? I remember the hon. Gentleman speaking in a fishing policy debate on 23 July 1997. I wonder whether he has a selective memory. He said:
  "By regional, I mean that we need to consider the relative merits of natural regions such as the North, Celtic and Baltic seas, where boundaries coincide with the general range of a particular stock and coastal state management as favoured by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, operating up to the median line. The crucial point is that such semi-autonomous regions should be given the power and flexibility to determine the management systems best suited to their needs."—[Official Report, 23 July 1997; Vol. 298, c.893.]
  When he speaks, perhaps he will explain how he and his party will acquire the power to carry out his policy.
  Bob Spink: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Winterton: No, I intend to continue with my speech.
  I want to look elsewhere in the world for a moment. Global warming moved the cod from Canadian waters, not overfishing—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for St. Ives listens, he might learn something. Because of the bloom of shrimp, scallop and crab, the landings there today are far greater than they ever were with the cod. The Canadians developed from a Norwegian idea the separator grid, which gave them a virtually clean fishery. The lessons to be learned from their experiences are that we have to move quickly with gear development for the changing global circumstances and not build vessels or processing plants that depend on one species alone.
  The world's great success story is Namibia. Three years after gaining independence, the hake recovery was hailed as simply miraculous. That is an example of what national control can achieve.
  I regret that the fisheries debate this year could not have been held after the Commission's report. I understand from the Minister that the basic fisheries conservation regulation is due to be introduced in January next year. It will be interesting to see, under article 43 of the treaty, whether the Commission recommends any further transitional derogations in the run-up to 1 January 2003, which is only a year away. I rather suspect that it will, and the ensuing horse trading—seahorse trading—will leave plenty of blood on the carpet.
  The price of agreeing to renew the six and 12-mile limit derogation for a further period may be extremely high. It might even include Spain securing the right of a European Union-wide trading system for quota—with, of course, Gibraltar thrown in for good measure—leaving the Spanish industry in a predatory pole position to take over, for example, a further weakened Scottish fleet. After all. Spain always manages to gain financial advantages from European Union funds. It recently benefited from a further award of £122 million, so it has plenty of money with which to achieve its long-term aims.
  520
  I trust that a further debate will be secured to consider the implications of this important matter so that the House does not fail Britain's interests. We wish the Minister well in his negotiations on behalf of the United Kingdom in the coming weeks.
  3.40 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: As someone who has attended and spoken in even more fishery debates than the 191 claimed by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), and given my even more frequent attempts to become the Parliamentary Private Secretary to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to win his approval, I note that this annual fish fest occurs in a more difficult and uncertain atmosphere than ever before. Usually, the Minister attends the debate and then goes off to negotiate an agreement, but at present there are so many uncertainties that the situation has become extremely complicated.
  Much attention has been devoted to the review of the common fisheries policy that will take place next year. That review opens up huge issues such as zonal management, which of course we all support, and relative stability. With regard to that, I draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to the problems of Spanish and Portuguese access. They will eventually have access to the North sea for non-quota stocks, but as there are bound to be by-catches, the fishing organisations are worried that the Spanish and Portuguese will establish a track record in quota stocks as by-catches to the quota stocks that they catch, thus giving them a foothold in that area. There are implications for the new entrants: for example, the Poles will eventually have access on the same basis as Spain and Portugal. We should consider that question.
  There is also uncertainty because so many aspects have not yet been settled, largely due to the breakdown of the talks with Norway on blue whiting—a necessary form of currency for exchange with Norway. It is pointless to catch blue whiting merely for industrial purposes and to grind it into fishmeal. The fish is edible and can be used as a currency swop for cod—to obtain increased cod quota from Norway—which is vital for the big Humberside industry that we hope will be maintained. It is a shame that the talks have broken down and I hope that my hon. Friend can give us some reassurance about that. Will the 2.9 per cent. EC share of north-east Arctic cod—small though it is—be maintained? That, too, is crucial to the Humberside industry.
  A further uncertainty is the conservation problem. We do not know what is happening. As yet, there has been no study of the effects of the cod and hake preservation plans. We are making decisions about TACs and quotas before we know about the reduction in the scale of the industry. Scotland generously allocated about £25 million for decommissioning while the English Government scraped together a pathetic £6 million for the English industry after emptying every piggy bank in DEFRA—and after foot and mouth, DEFRA does not have many piggy banks left. What effect will that have on the conservation problem?
  What effect will the reduction in the fleet have on the multi-annual guidance programme? The industry is losing faith in that programme and it needs to be revised.
  In addition, the Commission chucked a bombshell into all that uncertainty on 4 December. The industry had been looking forward to a minor increase in catches—certainly

  521
  in the North sea—based on scientific advice. Although it was a small increase, it was helpful, but the Commission announced, in effect, that it was going to cut back on what had been recommended. I can see no reason for that, unless the Commission is anxious to safeguard its position by saying, "We are more virtuous. We are purer than pure, and if anything goes wrong we are not to blame because we recommended cutting back on what the scientists proposed." Why has that happened?
  My hon. Friend said that he will oppose that cut. The whole industry will be grateful for that. We cannot have these unilateral excursions, whereby the Commission decides unilaterally to abandon scientific advice. We have taken great trouble to establish a proper working relationship between fishermen and the scientists. That is developing especially well in Scotland—the relationship is healthier there than in the rest of the country. Having gone to the trouble of developing that relationship, it is pointless for the Commission to torpedo the scientific recommendations. Some scientists say that that decision is nonsense. They will not say so publicly, unfortunately, but it is nonsense.
  The Commission is moving to an ominous new basis for drawing up its management policy for fisheries. The basis for its judgments is now to be the optimum biological solution. That sounds good and indeed it is good—that is what we all want—but fishing is also an economic activity. We must emphasise that: it is an economic activity on which communities depend and which produces a living for fishermen all over the country. If it is to be viewed solely in terms of optimum biological solutions, it will be only one factor in a biological matrix. However, it must also be considered from the economic point of view. That is crucial. Unless the economic importance of fishing is recognised in the conservation measures, they will be circumvented.
  A bankrupt or failing industry will not obey the rules—it will try to cheat. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations put that more politely in its submission to its members by noting that there would be "circumvented measures". That means that people will cheat. There will be black landings and illegal practices. Stocks will be damaged. Fishermen will be driven to those practices by their financial situation. We must acknowledge the importance of economic factors in keeping the industry going.
  Conservation must take account of the economics of fishing. Any measures that the Government or the Commission adopt must be properly financed. For example, technical measures will be introduced next year as part of the cod and hake preservation plans. There will be an increase in mesh sizes. There will be regulations on the thickness of twine—we are getting down to details like that. There will be regulations on catch composition. All that will not only be difficult to enforce, it will inevitably mean a loss of marketable fish. If fishermen have to use a larger mesh size—as they should, because it is good practice—their catches will go down. The fish will be bigger and more marketable, but less will be caught.
  The Scottish industry tells us that trials in Scotland have shown that the economic loss through those measures will be twice as much as the Commission has suggested. There must be financial support from the Government or from the Commission. The industry does not care where the money comes from as long as it comes.
  522
  The Industry needs that incentive to help it to implement and comply with the measures and to ensure effective enforcement.
  If the industry does not receive help, it will be hit by the same double whammy that has been described over the years in all those 191 fishing debates. Measures are constantly imposed on the industry from Europe: cuts in quota; regulation of days at sea; attempts at reduction and various conservation measures. No doubt they are all important. However, it does not receive the financial help from the Government—it certainly did not under the Conservatives—that comparable European industries receive.
  My hon. Friend referred to the ending of the Moroccan agreement. The Spanish industry will be generously compensated for that and we shall pay towards that compensation. If there was a similar rundown in the British industry, British fishermen would receive no compensation because the British Government will not pay out the money. Because of the problems of the Luxembourg agreement and the threat to the rebate—
  Mr. Morley rose—
  Mr. Mitchell: I hope that my hon. Friend will not complicate the matter—I do not understand the Luxembourg agreement.
  Mr. Morley: The loss of the Moroccan fisheries agreement is very comparable to the United Kingdom's loss of the Iceland fishery, in which case it is a complete fishery gone—there is nowhere for the boats to go. In those circumstances, there was a lot of Government compensation for the distant-water fleets. The compensation for the crews was not very fair, but my hon. Friend and my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) played a very important role in putting right that wrong under this Government.
  Mr. Mitchell: That is certainly true, and the fishermen and the industry are grateful that that happened; it was right that it should happen. However, the point that I am making is that Spain is getting compensation from Europe now because the fishing has stopped now, and that compensation is more generous than that paid to the British industry. It is certainly more generous than that paid to the British fishermen—they got nothing when that happened in 1976. We did not get an allowance for the loss of those waters in subsequent quotas and catches.
  There is a need to support and help the industry. When the industry is forced to obey European measures, it should not be hit by a refusal to pay European compensation or British Government money. The Treasury shows no sign of understanding the economic importance or the relevance of fishing.
  Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority and passion and I always enjoy listening to him. Of course, the Opposition agree that we must adequately compensate our fishermen, but he is avoiding the root cause of the problem. Surely he, above all people, will accept that the cause of the problem over the past 20 years has been the common fisheries policy, which has failed. It has failed our fishing communities and the fishermen

  523
  themselves, and it has failed to conserve fish stocks. Our industry has been decimated by Europe. Is it not about time that he came clean for his constituents and agreed that the best way forward now is not to tinker with that policy, as the Labour Government will do—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Interventions should be brief. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could come to the point.
  Bob Spink: Instead, the Government should follow a Conservative policy by establishing area sector controls and national controls for this country so that we can conserve our stocks.
  Mr. Mitchell: Flattery will get the hon. Gentleman a long way, but it will not get me to support Conservative party policy. I have to point out to him that the Conservative Government did nothing about this issue. In 1972, the Conservative Government sold the pass on the common fisheries policy, as the memoir written by the appropriately named Sir Con O'Neill showed at the time. He was asked to abdicate the fight over the common fisheries policy so that he could move towards getting the greater good, which was entry, and nothing has been done since.
  In passing, I have to agree that life would be much easier if we could control our own destinies—I would like that, too—because we controlled our own waters. That is why other industries have been more successful than ours, and why it has faced those difficulties. The hon. Gentleman's flattery has got me to admit that much any way, but the point that I am making is more simple than that. When those measures bite and are successful, catches will begin to increase, the preservation plans will work and we shall have more cod and hake, but if we are to encourage the industry to survive, we have to help it financially through the transition.
  I am delighted that the NFFO and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation have co-operated with the World Wide Fund for Nature in its cost-benefit study on the benefits of investing in fishing. I emphasise the word "investment", because my hon. Friend the Minister has said that he will not support vessels to do nothing or tie-up schemes, but this is about investment in the industry's future. That study shows—this is a preliminary indication only—that investment of £590 million over 10 years will produce a return 14 times that sum in the increase in the British industry's catches.
  The value of those catches will increase to £7.638 billion as a consequence of that investment. That really is investment, and we should make an intelligent case for it. Such a case will not necessarily appeal to the Treasury—muscle is more important there—but the industry is producing an intelligent case for that investment, and I hope that my hon. Friend and the Treasury will consider it seriously.
  Usually, in fisheries debates, I urge my hon. Friend to take a strong stand. I know that he will; he has committed himself to doing so and the industry trusts him. It is fed up with Europe, true, but it trusts him because it knows that he understands the industry and that he will fight the cuts, but he has to do other things as well. He is as
  524
  concerned about industrial fishing as I am and he will oppose it. Industrial fishing is a disaster when we are trying to build up stocks because of the by-catches.
  An item in the Fishing News, about which I wrote to my hon. Friend in October, states that one Danish industrial vessel was tied up for catching too much immature haddock in its by-catches. The Grimsby Fish Producers Organisation worked out that that 114-tonne industrial catch of juvenile fish, which was landed illegally in Denmark, would have amounted to 912 tonnes of mature fish if they had been allowed to grow. That is a third more than the entire Grimsby haddock quota of 600 tonnes.
  Those are the figures, and they show what was ruined and the damage done to the stocks by industrial fishing. If that estimate is increased to cover 40 vessels, to make allowance for the scale of other catches, the fish that did not grow to maturity would have equalled the United Kingdom's entire 40,000-tonne haddock quota. That is terrible and frightening, and it is a direct consequence of industrial fishing, so I hope that we can ban such fishing because we cannot have effective conservation without stopping industrial fishing.
  I also hope that my hon. Friend will invoke The Hague preference to protect our catches. The very small increase in the total allowable catch for North sea cod will leave the share of United Kingdom cod below the trigger point, so we can invoke The Hague preference and should do so for those areas that are dependent on fishing. Unfortunately, they are north of Grimsby, but I am making an altruistic gesture.
  My hon. Friend knows the importance of research, but we should attach enormous importance to more research. Frankly, we do not know what is going on. Other hon. Members have mentioned the warming of the waters, but the Grimsby FPO says that in the 1980s the English fishing fleet was reduced by 50 per cent. It was reduced by another 75 per cent. in the 1990s, yet we still have a conservation crisis, so something more than the fishing effort is causing the problem.
  The scientists inform us that the fish in the North sea stocks under survey—those that they are researching—are not now reaching the size and weight appropriate to their age. Why is that? The explanation that is most often put forward involves climatic change and global warming. The food source for the cod larvae—the phytoplanktonhas—decreased because the waters are warming. The fact that the waters are warming is causing the cod to migrate north, so there are more cod further north.
  We are finding unusual species even in the North sea. There are increases in red mullet, bass and strangers. A swordfish was washed up on the Lincolnshire coast—the costa del caravan. I read in Fishing News this week that a barracuda has been caught off Cornwall—it probably has not yet joined the Liberal Democrats there—and that suggests that the waters are warming.
  We need to examine the problem so that we understand what is happening, how much can be done through changes to fishing practice and how much is due to circumstances beyond our control. We cannot have a proper policy unless we understand the problem.
  Although my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), with whom I usually work closely, will object, I must mention the fact that the Grimsby FPO says that there is a seal population explosion and that

  525
  something must be done about that. I know that she is an animal lover but, if fish catches are down and quotas are to be reduced, why should the seal population not be culled to its previous level? A growing seal population is targeting a smaller number of fish.
  Shona McIsaac rose—
  Mr. Mitchell: I knew this would happen, so I give way.
  Shona McIsaac: I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way, but I was probably more incensed by the reference to the costa del caravan.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the seal population explosion, but what scientific evidence does he have for his claim? What evidence from scientific research shows the impact on fishing stocks?
  Mr. Mitchell: I must admit that the evidence is a priori and largely in my head, but it is reinforced by complaints made by fishermen. Seals are a problem and I am asking for more research to be carried out. It stands to reason that an increasing seal population must have an effect on the number of fish.
  Other problems need to be considered in the round. For example, aggregates dredging must damage fishing. I noticed that the Dutch have banned aggregates dredging entirely and that they import their aggregates from us. We dredge them up in the North sea with consequent damage to the fishing grounds.
  I have also written to my hon. Friend the Minister about power stations and industrial complexes. Fish are killed in the intake pipes of the power stations on Humberside. That is a problem and we need to understand all aspects of it, so that we can devise an overall policy that supports fish stocks.
  Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend has mentioned the power stations on Humberside. As he is well aware, they are mainly located in my constituency. They take fresh water from the River Humber, which is obviously not as saline as the water out at sea. Therefore, different species are involved, so he cannot blame the power stations in my constituency for reductions in cod stocks.
  Mr. Mitchell: Loth as I am to disagree with my hon. Friend on any occasion, and closely as we always co-operate, edible fish, including haddock, are found dead in the intakes to the power stations. The problem goes wider than riverine fish, and we need to have a policy on the issue. If we are to build more power stations and if it is possible to prevent fish stocks from being destroyed, we should surely act because we have a conservation crisis on our hands.
  We cannot regulate in the dark, but we are being asked to accept arguments that we do not know can he supported and that are based on fairly shaky evidence. There is a genuine dispute not only between the fishermen and the scientists, but between the Commission and the scientists. My argument is for more light to be shed on the problem. Because there are so many generators in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes, I am sure that she will not argue with that. There is a measure of common ground between us on that at least. Ocean research cannot be left to the BBC. Such work is an important part of the role of DEFRA.
  526
  I am sorry that I have gone on for so long, but the discussion is based on an uncertainty that is bad for fishing. The industry has been badly battered over the past few years, and it is in a desperate financial state. Many of the vessels fishing are not viable in that they do not produce a return or support the fishermen who operate them. Some improvement will result from the decommissioning that will take out vessels in Scotland and England, but I fear that that will not be enough to return the industry to viability. We expected a slightly better deal for the North sea and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) has pointed out, we have a damaging status quo in the Irish sea.
  I wish my hon. Friend the Minister all power, because he carries a major burden in trying to bring certainty to an industry when the Commission pulls one way and the scientific evidence is not available. The industry needs a national plan and the confidence that the Government will sustain it through the difficulties that it faces. It wants to be assured that the Government will resist the mercurial ups and downs of the Commission and support it by investment so that it will be seen through the problems that will undoubtedly arise. If British vessels go bust, fold up or leave the industry, we must not allow licences to be bought out by better financed industries that are supported by their Governments in a way that ours is not.
  4.6 pm
  Andrew George: I congratulate the Minister on securing this debate.
  I associate myself with the sympathies that the Minister extended to the families of the nine fishermen who have died in the industry this year. As he knows, I have pursued this issue inside and outside the Chamber, because it is unacceptable that the fishing industry appears to accept far higher fatality levels than any other industry. Further measures are certainly needed. The training and training grants that he mentioned are very welcome.
  The debate focuses on the Green Paper on the reform of the common fisheries policy in a climate in which, as the Minister knows only too well, difficult negotiations are due to take place on 17 and 18 December. Therefore, it is inevitable that the debate will concentrate on how we can carve out a long-term future for the industry through the renegotiation of the CFP while dealing with the short-term issues relating to the stock numbers and species that the Minister highlighted in his speech.
  Despite the doom-and-gloom merchants, who are mainly on the Conservative Benches—all one of them at present—it is encouraging that we now have the best opportunity in a generation for sensible reform of the CFP. All sensible political parties are concerned about the future of the CFP, and we now have an opportunity to renegotiate it.
  We welcome many elements of the Commission's Green Paper. The fact that it recognises that the CFP
  "has not delivered sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources"
  acknowledges the policy's fundamental failure. Since 1986, the Liberal Democrats have published our policy on the matter and we were the first political party to argue

  527
  for devolved powers within the CFP through a reformed mechanism. The Green Paper also clearly recommends devolving serious powers to regional coastal fisheries committees. We must encourage that, and I was pleased to hear the Minister again welcome it. We must push for that in the reform of the common fisheries policy.
  We welcome the recognition of the need to introduce technical measures to achieve more selective catches. The Minister welcomed multi-annual quotas, for which, as he knows, I have pushed for some time. We need to break out of the annual eleventh-hour brinkmanship that takes place when we carve up quota. The ability to plan is important. The continuation of the six and 12-mile zones and the retention of relative stability, which are recognised in the Green Paper, should be welcomed. I hope that with the Minister's support we have reason to be optimistic that we will achieve that in negotiations by the end of next year.
  Having said that, we need a clearer statement of effective and stronger devolution. That needs to be spelled out in policy so that we know how it will be achieved. If we give fishermen in the regions power, we also give them responsibility. As it would be down to them if they got things wrong, it is important that they are genuine stakeholders in the regional management committees. It is essential that they work with representatives of Departments from all nation states that have an interest in that area and with fisheries scientists so that it is possible to focus on a natural fishing region and to plan for its future with clarity.
  I welcome the Green Paper. It is important that we move away from the doom-and-gloom view expressed mainly by Conservative Members. The industry needs a long-term policy. History shows that fishermen and politicians do not always go together well, and it seems inevitable that there is a process of short-term reactive and piecemeal policy making for the fishing industry. That is why the Agriculture Select Committee, of which I was a member, was right to recommend in July 1999 that the Government establish a clear long-term strategy for the United Kingdom's fishing industry. That recommendation received an enthusiastic response from the Minister and the Government two and a half years ago and was welcomed in a written answer on 4 December 2001, just two days ago. However, little progress has been made.
  I hope that the Minister will ensure not only that we get strong and effective renegotiation of the CFP, but that we have a clear UK strategy on where the industry is going and how it will get there. There is a general consensus in all parties on the need to have a sustainable industry, and it is encouraging that environmental bodies and fishing industry representatives are coming together to achieve a common accord, which was not the case some years ago.
  The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who has left the Chamber, referred to a recent Commission report that followed requests to all member states to provide information on the success or otherwise of their enforcement measures and on what infringements were committed and what fines imposed. She was right: the report does not make good reading. Of the 15 member states, only Denmark, the Netherlands and Austria met the March deadline to submit information. The Dutch and the Spanish supplied sections that were
  528
  illegible; there were serious omissions in the reports of several states, including the Italians and the Spanish; and the French refused to send a report.
  The Conservatives criticise the fact that the system is failing, but go no further. We differ from them in that they do not propose a constructive solution. We have argued for some time, as the Minister knows, that there is a choice. Either we can have central European policing, which we oppose, or we devolve the matter and give nation states greater powers to make bilateral arrangements with other fishing nations so that we can carry out spot checks at any time of another nation's inspectorate and its enforcement regime. Rather than creating another centralist policy, with more centralised bureaucracy, we have a great opportunity to create common accord between nations if we are confident that the enforcement measures are transparent to everyone.
  Mr. Steen: I agree entirely about the need to avoid more centralised bureaucracy, because we would end up with another layer in the Commission that would be involved in enforcement in all member states. However, we need cross-border enforcement: for example, British fishing inspectors going to Spain and vice versa. We have been talking about that for years, but nothing ever happens.
  Andrew George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If he was listening, he would have heard me recommend bilateral agreements between nations such as the UK and Spain. I apologise if I did not use terminology that he could understand. We would like bilateral arrangements between the UK and other nations implemented. I understand from discussions with the Minister that arrangements are in place for reciprocal visits by enforcement officers, especially with the Spanish. That is welcome. We need to hear more about that. The visits should be unannounced so that spot checks can be made, and that will reinforce the confidence that people have in the inspection systems of other nations.
  The end of year negotiations on TACs and quotas are based on science. The Minister was right to say that if the science is clear and robust, it is important that all decisions, including difficult ones, are stuck to so that we do not jeopardise the health of fish stocks. I associate myself with those remarks. However, as he said, the science is at best flimsy, and in some cases non-existent, on a number of stocks. Fishermen would clearly want to recommend responsible increases in quota. If there is disagreement between fishermen and scientists, there must be a method by which the veracity of their evidence can be tested, which is not the case at the moment. Although scientists report to fishermen and there is some discussion—I accept that the relationship between them has improved in some ways—there is still disagreement, which results in a dialogue of the deaf. Fishermen who should be involved in the process end up as bystanders, having to make appeals to MPs in order to be heard, and that is a matter for concern. We need structurally to reform the process; for example, by appointing fishing industry representatives to the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management and other bodies. The industry should be formally represented in the process of collating evidence and testing its veracity. It is essential that it is allowed to use its own evidence in negotiations.

  529
  A great deal has been said about this year's quota allocations. The Minister knows that he will have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House if he robustly defends the science and pursues his arguments on nephrops, on the North sea cod quota and on matters where he believes that the European Commission recommendations do not reflect scientists' advice. He has our support for the agenda that he set out today.
  I turn now to hake, which I mentioned in an intervention. The experience of fishermen in western waters does not match the scientific evidence. It is important that a proper recovery programme is introduced, but we must listen closely to the industry. I know that the UK industry will welcome the increased mesh sizes in area 8, in the bay of Biscay, because of deep and proper concern about the catching of juvenile fish, but that does not go far enough. Catching juvenile fish is unacceptable, and a minimum mesh size of 100 mm is not good enough. It will not protect the species, and a great deal more needs to be done. The UK industry in area 7 accepts and welcomes an increased landing size of 40 cm, and that should apply to area 8 as well.
  On cod, also in area 7, once again the experience of the industry over the past year does not match the scientific advice. There is concern that the shape of monkfish, or angler fish, means that it is inevitable that large numbers will be caught as a by-catch and will need to be discarded dead, which is clearly an absurd waste. I recommend that the Minister reconsiders that issue.
  I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Congleton, who has still not returned to her place, about the industrial fishing quota on sand eels. The UK must take a robust attitude to industrial fishing, which is the scourge of the industry as a whole and needs to be kept properly in check. I wish he well in his negotiations on 17 and 18 December.
  Earlier this year, the Minister introduced welcome consultation on shellfish licensing, which has not yet been mentioned. I want to put it on record that, in a written answer to me last week, he indicated his intention to introduce measures on shellfish licensing by the end of the year. I know that almost the entire industry, and particularly the inshore sector, will welcome that. If he introduces those measures as soon as possible, he will find that he has a very supportive audience.
  The Minister knows that mackerel hand liners, particularly in Cornwall and the south-west, were concerned when, only a couple of months ago, 300 tonnes of their quota were removed without any apparent negotiation. At that time, the industry was particularly buoyant, and there had been significant increases in the catch. I understand that the Minister has had further negotiations on that point.
  Mr. Morley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a great deal of sympathy with the mackerel hand line industry, which is a very select and sustainable fishery. That is reflected in the generous guaranteed underpinning of the industry's catch. It is true that some of the mackerel was included in international swaps, which we have to do to ensure that we have sustainable fisheries all around the country. However, as the uptake has been higher than
  530
  expected, I assure him that we will ensure that that amount of mackerel is reinstated up to the maximum amount of guaranteed underpinning.
  Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that welcome reassurance. I hope that in meetings to discuss the future of the mackerel box, he does not allow anyone to persuade him to consider relaxing the rules on that. There is no point in opening up trawler activity in the mackerel box. As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
  As the Minister knows, there has been a great deal of talk in this debate and others about the fact that the Worldwide Fund for Nature and the industry, in the shape of the NFFO and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, are keen to safeguard, through an investment programme, the long-term viability both of the industry and of fish stocks. I know that the Minister is sceptical about the figures provided by the WWF and the industry, which show about £500 million of investment generating over £7 billion of return in 10 years. I hope that he will carefully consider that programme and other forms of transitional aid to support the industry in tackling a difficult issue.
  The hon. Member for Congleton went into some detail about the difficulties of quota companies. In an intervention, I spoke of the importance of ensuring that the European investigation into this matter is concluded as quickly as possible. She named a Labour MEP as the source of the subject's referral to the European Commission. I hope that the Conservatives have checked whether their representatives, whether in Europe or in local councils, raised the possibility of referral.
  The Conservatives have made great play of criticising others but they have not been prepared to defend their record or explain their policy. I gave the hon. Lady an opportunity to do that. I know that many hon. Members are still unclear about what the Conservatives stand for. Do they want to pull out of the common fisheries policy and repatriate fishing with a return to national control? That is unclear, and all their statements simply add to that lack of clarity. However, we know what their record is, and if they could not achieve their aims during 18 years in government, we should take their claims in opposition with a significant pinch of salt.
  I encourage the Minister to argue strongly with his counterparts in Europe for a satisfactory outcome according to the agenda that he has presented to the House today. In the coming months, he should also consider long-term measures to secure the future of the British fishing industry.
  4.29 pm
  Mr. Alan Campbell: I shall keep my contribution fairly short, as I know that other hon. Members on both sides want to get into the debate. I shall focus on the main issue that concerns fishermen in my constituency.
  I welcome the announcement by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary this afternoon of payment for safety training courses. The matter was raised in the debate last year and 1 am pleased that it has been dealt with. I am interested in his comments about the knock-on effects of cuts in quota in some species and some areas, and the disregard for the scientific advice which suggested otherwise.

  531
  The immediate concern of fishermen in North Shields is the proposed cuts in nephrops and the proposals that might follow cuts in North sea cod. Last year's debate was dominated by the imminent closure of the cod areas. There was a clear warning from both sides of the House that that would inevitably lead to pressure on other fisheries. In particular, prawns along the North sea coast were mentioned.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) had already been informed of the intention of some of his fishermen to make that transition. I do not say that to provoke civil war between Yorkshire fishermen and Northumberland fishermen; we are all in the same boat—if the House will excuse the pun. Dennis Clark, one of my fishermen, said at the time that in his view, we were trying to solve one problem but were in danger of creating another. That has been borne out by events.
  North Shields, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows, is one of the top prawn ports, if not the top prawn port. There has been a great deal of activity this year. It has been quite a good year for fishermen in North Shields in that respect. Many Scottish boats are currently in port, but there is a question about whether the activity is sustainable. Prawn stocks appear to be relatively good. I was given anecdotal evidence to that effect by fishermen, but it seems to be the position taken by UK scientists as well. There was even speculation that there was room for an increase in quotas.
  Hon. Members will understand the surprise and dismay among North Shields fishermen when there was talk of a cut in the nephrops quota in some areas, especially when that seemed to be against official advice. Such cuts are unexpected and unacceptable. I am heartened by the statement from my hon. Friend this afternoon about the strong line that he intends to take in the negotiations. I strongly support him in that.
  It was inevitable that diversification from cod fisheries would put pressure on other fisheries. There is concern about how far that will go. Since the last debate, the worst scenario has been painted by the WWF report entitled "Now or Never", which suggests the possibility of not just a temporary problem for cod stocks in the North sea, but a permanent problem. I am not as blasé as the Conservative spokesman about the Canadian example. The wipe-out of cod stock should not be seen as an opportunity. If the situation in the North sea mirrored what happened in Canada—heaven forbid—why should we live through it, when we can read the book?
  I was interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about the cost of action and of inaction. Whether or not we act, there will be a bill left at the end. We must address the issue of over-capacity not just in the UK fleet, but across Europe. It is a depressing prospect if only the UK and Denmark accept the need for a reduction in fleet size and in capacity. In the long term, we run the risk of running up financial and environmental costs.
  These debates must be more than an annual plea for more money for the fishing industry, although we inevitably get round to the question of money. I welcome the £6 million for decommissioning this year and the £5.5 million for the fisheries regeneration initiative, but if
  532
  there is a longer-term and potentially a bigger problem than the one that we face now, that figure falls short of the investment needed. I do not blame my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in any way. Fishermen have a great deal of confidence in the way that he speaks up for the industry. If the blame lies anywhere, I suppose that it lies with the Treasury. I hope that the comments from all parts of the House lend weight to my hon. Friend's arguments when he enters into discussions with the Treasury about the amount of money available.
  Successive Governments have ducked the question of investment for the longer term and of how much is enough for decommissioning. Although that is only one tool, it is a necessary and important tool, but money also needs to go into fishing areas for alternative employment. The danger for the Treasury is that if we do not face up to the cost now, that will add to the cost in the future. Governments have not been good at recognising that.
  Decommissioning has a knock-on effect on the facilities and infrastructure of our fishing ports. I welcome the fisheries regeneration initiative, but it is not enough, particularly if the money came, as we understand it did, from the regional development agencies' existing budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby spoke about the NFFO and WWF study on the costs and benefits of fishing, but we need a proper assessment of the economic costs and benefits of fishing and of fishing communities in a regional context in the economic strategy of the RDAs, which have a key role to play. In saying that, I may be straying beyond the remit of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and into that of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and also, perhaps, into the realm of longer-term issues.
  The immediate concern of North sea fishermen is what will happen to the quota and the pressure that they feel is being brought to bear. My hon. Friend the Minister has a difficult task and we wish him well.
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I have spoken in most fisheries debates in the past 18 years. Such debates are a little like saying bon voyage to the Minister—waving him goodbye on the steps of the docks as he sails out to Brussels and wishing him well in his travels. The Minister is part of the fabric of the fishing industry—in fact, I think that he is the fishing industry. He has been the best fishing Minister, if not the only fishing Minister, that the Labour Government have found. Perhaps they cannot find another one.
  It does not matter how long the debate runs, although I am grateful to all hon. Members for pushing for a full day's debate. Fishing policy has virtually nothing to do with the House of Commons. The whole thing is a charade. Everybody knows that fishing is to do with the Council of Ministers and the European Commission, and is subject to qualified majority voting. The Minister will no doubt remember that a few years ago, we had the debate in January, after he had come back from Brussels. That did not seem to make much difference.
  The Commons has become a sort of focus group for the Minister before he goes off to the Fisheries Council, from where he returns every year with similar results—cuts in quotas and other bad news for the fishermen, but he is lifted shoulder high by fishermen who, I think,

  533
  are brought in by his party. Shoulder high he goes along the docks, saying what a wonderful job he has done for the fishing industry. He tells us that the cuts would have been far worse if he had not argued so vigorously, and we all say that it did not matter anyway.
  We enjoy the annual pantomime just before Christmas. I am not sure how the Minister is cast; I do not know whether he is the sugar plum fairy or plays another role. However, that rerun has been going on for 10 years or longer; it was going on when we were in office, and has continued now that we have swapped sides. It is like going to the cinema and watching the same film over and over again. The Minister makes his points and hon. Members on both sides of the House make theirs. As a result, we all say the same as we said the previous year and many years before.
  The Minister knows my views on the fishing quota and the impact that cuts to it have on fishing communities such as Brixham in my constituency, where we have a fleet of about 100 ships. In spite of all the cuts, disasters and catastrophies, we still have a substantial and successful fleet. We have more than 100 boats, 1,000 fishermen and 3,000 to 4,000 industry-related jobs; it is a going concern and a great industry with a big turnover. Whatever we and the Minister do here does not seem to matter much because the fishermen go on fishing.
  What is the problem with the common fisheries policy? We know that it has not worked. The deal struck in 1982 locked Britain into the highly dubious process of total allowable catches, which has run for 20 years. There was a mid-term review in 1992 but, by and large, the policy of total allowable catches has been rigidly adhered to. The Commission is now compelled to come up with proposals for the Council of Ministers on the reform of the common fisheries policy in 2003; 2002 will therefore be a significant year, as there is a genuine chance to reform the CFP.
  We all know that the aim of the CFP was to ensure a fair standard of living for those in the industry, to stabilise markets, to ensure the availability of supplies and to ensure that those supplies reach consumers at a reasonable price. The policy stipulates that environmental protection requirements must be integrated into Community policies, with a view to promoting sustainable development. The CFP has fundamentally failed in nearly every one of its aims. On the conservation of fish stocks, for instance, the number of fish in the seas around our shores has decreased year by year, even though they have put up a spirited fight. Scientists have warned that, with new equipment such as sonar and new, more powerful boats, many species of fish are under threat of extinction. I remember going to meetings in the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at which experienced, erudite scientists explained why fish would not survive if we did not continue to make cuts. The fish have managed to survive. Ever more draconian cuts have not decimated the fishing stock or the fishing industry.
  The whole thing is therefore a case of posturing—the fish posture; the fishermen posture; and we posture. I am not sure what the result is, but it is clear that there is an obscene situation in which, I am told, more fish are caught and thrown overboard than are landed. We do not know the exact number, because no one has weighed the whole catch. However, when there is a shortage of fish and a shortage of food in many parts of the world, it is appalling that we have a system in which more fish are thrown back
  534
  into the sea than are landed simply because they do not fit a category in the total allowable catch. The CFP has therefore got to be changed so that, whatever fish is caught, it can be landed; we do not necessarily need a quota of that species.
  I have discussed the matter with the Minister before, and we would go back to the tie-up proposals and consider the number of days at sea. There would be fewer boats, but fishermen would be allowed to keep all the fish that they caught; they would not have to throw them overboard before landing. Obviously, there are problems because there are 17,000 to 18,000 fishing vessels in Spain. There will be difficulties with European countries with a large number of boats that are subject to the same process. We have to move to a new process which, I believe, should be based on days at sea, vessel tie-up and being able to land all the fish that are caught.
  The Commission's Green Paper is pretty good; it shows that the CFP is unworkable and many aspects of it are welcome. I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and visited Spain before it assumed the presidency of the EC a few weeks ago. I was impressed by the Spanish Minister with responsibility for fisheries, who is a professional and says all the right things. He is well briefed and said all the things that we wanted to hear; he agreed that the current policy, which allows hundreds of thousands of tons of dead fish to be thrown back into the sea rather than allowing them to be landed on shore and sold is economically unjustified and immoral. He also agreed that the reform of the CFP is necessary if we are to protect fish stocks and, at the same time, ensure that maritime industries and all the onshore industries associated with fishing remain viable. He supported the proposal that the CFP should move towards regional management. The key question is whether the Minister, his Spanish counterpart and others have got the will to replace the CFP with something better. That will be the test.
  I wish to touch on some areas of concern. Monitoring and control are essential and I hope that the Minister realises that they are important. We have talked about cross-border enforcement and other things, but we do not want more bureaucracy from the Commission. As I said, the Spanish fleet has about 17,000 to 18,000 ships; I am told that Spain has about 90,000 fishermen and 500,000 people in the Spanish fishing industry, which is a big part of the country's infrastructure. The standard joke is that there are 60 fishing inspectors, all based in Madrid, but I was assured by the Minister that they are not; they move around the ports. Our dealings with Spain will therefore be critical.
  Regional management is a good idea provided that the regions are given real power. In the interests of that much forgotten concept, subsidiarity, which I greatly support, it is important that regional committees have power delegated down and can do what they want for their region. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) recognised that limiting effort was the way forward. I may be wrong, but I believe that the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill became law in 1992, but was not enforced. It is therefore on the statute book waiting to be used. The Minister should not feel that he has to spend time in the House introducing a new Bill; the Conservatives have done it for him already. I am quite sure that—with the consent of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman—the Opposition would be very happy for the Minister to use that legislation in the manner

  535
  that he thinks is most useful. That would be a useful thing to do. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) was going to say something on that issue, but he could not attend the debate because of important constituency engagements.
  I have simply gone round the course on the issues. I have travelled back from New York to make this powerful speech—I was at the Inter-Parliamentary Union and thought that they could probably do without me for a day. I did not want to miss this debate because it is always important. I also wanted to hear the Minister rehearse the same words and mouth the same platitudes that he has been saying for so many years, and he has not disappointed me at all. Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, ahead of all the other Conservative Members. I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
  4.49 pm
  Shona McIsaac: Given the number of hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall try to keep my remarks brief. I shall try to represent the views of two organisations operating in the north-east Lincolnshire area, the Grimsby Fish Market and the Grimsby Fish Merchants Association. I thank both Martin Boyers, the chief executive of Grimsby Fish Market, for taking the time to give me his views on CFP reform, and Steve Norton, the chief executive of the association. They would like the Minister to take several messages, which I shall outline, to the Fisheries Council.
  The two organisations feel that the industry itself will have to be much more involved in decision making on CFP reform. They also feel that the European Union has not taken sufficient action to protect fish stocks, and that that issue could be resolved if the industry were more involved in the decision-making process. They also feel that fleet over-capacity must be addressed because of the adverse effect on the marine environment.
  The organisations also believe that in the current climate, the review must deal with stock conservation, which is the most important issue facing the CFP. They believe that the industry and other stakeholders will have to be involved in the decision-making process and that sustainable fisheries and environmental protection are aspects of that. The objective is an economically viable and self-sufficient fisheries sector.
  The organisations feel that cuts in fleet size will have to be made sensitively and should not penalise those who depend for their living on the fishing industry. Not only should financial aid be sufficient to ensure that those leaving the industry are well compensated for loss of livelihood, it should be made available to address various educational issues.
  Although compensation for those who lost their livelihood in the cod wars had been agreed, no payments were made until, I think, just before Christmas last year. In the past year, however, thousands of those men have been compensated. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for all that he did to support the campaign, which has helped the men to get justice. Although there are still a few problems to iron out, all of us who were involved in the campaign thank him for his help. The campaign has
  536
  also highlighted the sensitivity of the compensation issue. We have been campaigning for compensation for those who were affected by the cod wars, but we do not want future generations of hon. Members to have to campaign to address compensation issues arising in today's industry. That is a particular fear.
  Earlier this year, my hon. Friend announced assistance for fishing communities, which was much welcomed by hon. Members who represent fishing communities. However, as has been pointed out in some excellent research by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), there are concerns about how that money is allocated. If there is another such initiative, I hope that we will ensure that assistance goes to the fishing communities that are most affected by quota cuts.
  The previous Government did not serve the fishing communities well on a related compensation issue, providing almost no assistance in the attempt to obtain compensation for those communities after the cod wars. Moreover, British taxpayers are still paying for the action that the Thatcher Government took against Spanish fishermen. That situation angered fishermen across the United Kingdom, and people should remember that it demonstrated that Conservative Members are no friends of the fishing industry.
  The speech by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) did not reveal what the Opposition would do to assist Britain's fishing communities. The Tories did nothing to address quota hopping, which resulted in the payment of damages of, I think, more than £50 million—it was certainly millions of pounds. Indeed, I believe that they also illegally removed the UK fishing vessel register. What they did to the fishing community was scandalous. I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister has done about quota hoppers. The problem now seems to be declining because of the action that the Government have taken.
  On compensation and decommissioning money, we must consider all the small businesses such as fish producers and smokeries in Grimsby docks. Such businesses are also affected by the reduction of quotas and by decommissioning—issues that can have an severe knock-on effect in the community and on small businesses. That must be considered more. When we discuss fisheries, we talk far too often only about the men and boats, rather than about all the associated industries on which our communities depend for employment. I should also like fishing communities' local authorities to be regarded as stakeholders in these matters. They should be more involved in decision making and discussion. The other matter that the organisations in my area would like my hon. Friend to take to the Fisheries Council is industrial fishing. Anybody who looks at the evidence will see that the Danish industrial fisheries are doing particular damage and are probably undermining the cod and hake recovery programmes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) mentioned concern expressed by the Grimsby Fish Producers Organisation about climate and the fact that red mullet and swordfish have recently been found off the Lincolnshire coast. He said that that obviously related to global warming and climate change. There could be something in that suggestion. We must be very careful about climate change, especially with regard to the hydrodynamics of the ocean. If the ice caps melt and fresh water is released, salinity and water movements

  537
  will be affected. The effect would be to switch off the gulf stream and the north Atlantic drift, to make waters here much colder—
  Mr. Morley: And to drown Cleethorpes
  Shona McIsaac: Indeed, most of my constituency would probably disappear under the sea.
  We must be very careful when talking about climate change. Grimsby's fish producers are not happy with the scientific research. They feel that it is flawed and that the vessels are returning to the same grids year after year, while the changing hydrodynamics, currents and temperature of the ocean mean that the fish are moving to different areas. They believe that we might be getting false data, so they would like the scientific research to be reconsidered.
  I believe that changes in quota allocation and the reduction in quotas will probably not have a severe effect on Grimsby. I am sad to say that many fishermen are taking the opportunity to decommission their vessels. If all those who have applied to decommission do so, the changes will not have much of an effect on the fleet because it simply will not exist.
  I should like quickly to mention two final points to my hon. Friend the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby mentioned by-catch, in relation to which I want to raise one specific issue: harbour porpoises. I think that 7,000 harbour porpoises are probably killed by the Danish fleet every year and 1,000 by our fishing vessels. I hope that the Minister will express concern about the matter when he attends the Fisheries Council, as there are EU regulations that relate to it. Perhaps measures such as the use of acoustic devices could be introduced to try to reduce unwanted by-catch.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to disregard totally the comments of my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby about culling, shooting and decimating the seal population of our islands. The biggest consumers of young fish are other fish. The seals are visible, and therefore some people, like him, try to blame them.
  5 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I say to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) that I shall present some evidence on the migration of fish. She thought for a moment that I was going to talk about seals. I am sure that she will find the evidence interesting; I have already discussed it with the Minister, and I shall read out an extract. It is the first detailed evidence to support the view that cod stocks in particular have substantially moved and that that might undermine some of the methods of current scientific research.
  First, I want to outline some of the politics of the industry. When I listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) about the Minister's longevity, I could not help thinking about the transience of Tory fishing spokesmen. They come and go and leave their speeches behind them. I have heard it all before. She speaks with some vigour, but as she developed her speech, I could not help reflecting that there was something to be said for the laid-back approach of her predecessor, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss).
  538
  Conservative Members do not want to talk about the history of the common fisheries policy and their involvement in it. Given the vast expanse of green Benches with no Conservative Members to fill them, it would be unfair to put the boot in too hard. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] It will not stop me. Let us remember that the Conservative Government sold fishing down the river on entry into the then Common Market. In the words of the famous Scottish Office memo of the time, in the overall importance of the negotiations, fishermen were "expendable". For 18 years, not only did the Tory Government refuse to concede generally agreed sources of aid, which the EU would have accepted, for the fishing industry, but they traded its interests at every opportunity.
  The hon. Member for Congleton said that horse trading—perhaps seahorse or horse mackerel trading—was part and parcel of the CFP. There was never any doubt in 18 years of government who was traded first. Time and again, the interests of the fishing industry in Scotland and elsewhere was subordinated to other policy objectives in the wider European structures.
  If we consider other fishing nations, the lesson is not whether they are in or outwith the CFP, but the priority that they allocate to fishing, whatever structure they operate. Norway, outwith the EU, allocates a huge priority to its fishing industry. Year after year, it secures a good deal for its fishermen in the Europe-Norway negotiations. In the EU, Spain and Denmark accord a huge priority to fishing. Year after year, in aid or, in the case of Denmark, protection of the abomination of industrial fishing, they secure a good deal for their fishermen because of the priority that they attach to the industry.
  The priority that the Conservative party accords to the fishing industry is shown by the vast expanse of green emptiness behind what remains of the Conservative Front Bench. With the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who has attended almost every fisheries debate—although perhaps not as many as the Minister—not one Conservative Member, let alone the party, expresses an avid interest in the industry.
  Let me consider the Government briefly. The Minister knows that I admire him greatly, but my comments constitute a warning. He confirmed in a debate in Westminster Hall earlier this year that his previous boss had complained in a letter, which was leaked to The Herald, that he had been "holding the line" against allocating decommissioning grants across the fishing industry. He then wrote—[Interruption]. I am sure that the those on the Tory Front Bench would be interested to hear this. If they listened to it, they might be able to make better speeches on the industry.
  The previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wrote:
  "We now face a development in Scotland, where the executive has responded to mass demonstrations by fishermen by offering a decommissioning scheme worth up to £25m for next year. The English industry is arguing strongly that this puts them at an obvious disadvantage and that I should offer a similar package. This is a most unfortunate situation."
  I am glad that the mobilisation of the fishing industry in Scotland secured some sort of financial package, even if it was not the one that I would have chosen for the industry. I am equally glad that that motivated the Minister—or his former boss—to secure something for the fishing industry. Would it not be better, though, if we had Ministers who were prepared and able to secure a

  539
  package for the industry without being embarrassed by the success of the campaign in Scotland, or who were prepared to listen to the industry as a priority?
  Mr. Doran: This is the third or fourth time that I have heard that letter read out in a debate, either here or in Westminster Hall. It obviously still has quite a bit of life left in it. The hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous, so far as the fishermen's demonstration is concerned, because my recollection is that the money had already been offered, and was on the table, before the demonstration started. It was not offered as a consequence of the demonstration.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is confusing a series of demonstrations at fishing ports—which he chooses to remember because he likes to embarrass fishermen—with the demonstration that involved 180 fishing boats being photographed sailing under the Forth bridge. That was the largest mobilisation of fishing effort that we have seen in recent times, and it occurred before the announcement of the package—
  Mr. Doran Mr. Doran indicated dissent.
  Mr. Salmond: Yes, it did. I was in the Scottish Parliament and at the fishing demonstration—
  Mr. Doran rose—
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman sit down for a second? The fishing demonstration on the River Forth occurred the week before the announcement of the package in the Scottish Parliament. The Government were then defeated on that package because the Parliament at that stage wanted a tie-up scheme. He should not complain to me but to the former Minister, who said clearly in the leaked letter that it was the mobilisation and the campaign—to which the Executive responded in Scotland—that resulted in the package being offered. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should pursue his argument with his colleagues rather than me.
  The lesson for the Minister is that there was a Fisheries Minister in Scotland who resisted the justified demand for a tie-up scheme, and she is no more. The Minister's former boss resisted the demand for a decommissioning scheme, and he is no more. If this long-serving Minister wishes to stay in office, let him listen with an open mind to these justified arguments from the fishing industry north and south of the border. I hope that he will.
  I have many difficulties with the case advanced by the Conservatives. My main difficulty is that they do not address where we are at present, or how to get the best deal that we possibly can in the current political context. If the Conservatives were proposing to leave the European Union, of course they could adopt a new fisheries policy, although it would then have to be negotiated with other people, new arrangements would have to be made, and all the rest of it. But that is not their policy, so their argument has no meaning whatsoever.
  Those of us who do not like the CFP—including the fishermen's organisations, whatever their standpoint—who see its faults and limitations and who have made
  540
  speech after speech and argument after argument against it, have managed to engage with some aspects of it. We can now see a glimmer of light, at least in certain areas, such as in the growing acceptance of the concept of zonal management. We are not there yet: not everybody has agreed to it. There is still resistance across the European Union, but there is majority support for it, so far as we can judge. As the Minister knows, it was at least mentioned favourably—let us say no more than that—in the fisheries policy Green Paper. My late colleague, Dr. Alan McCartney, should be mentioned in despatches as a pioneer of that approach to fisheries management, in which fisheries organisations north and south of the border engaged. They can now see a possibility of the policy coming to fruition.
  The engagement of scientists and fishermen in exploratory and research voyages is very much in its infancy, but the Scottish Fishermen's Federation told us yesterday that it hopes that it will make the scientific research more meaningful. The Scottish industry in particular has pioneered certain technical measures. I know that they are not the Minister's specific responsibility, but I hope that he will do his level best to ensure that they receive their proper reward in terms of the allocation of quota. The industry has been told, "Use technical measures to conserve fish." so those measures cannot be ignored when questions of quota are decided.
  I must refer to what I promised the House is interesting research and evaluation that I hope will help the Minister in arguing about cod migration in the coming negotiations. Unless there is at least an increase in the cod quota, the recovery in other North sea stocks and nephrops stocks or quotas in particular will be badly affected. Any benefit that fishermen should take from a recovery in stocks or a well sustained industry such as the shellfish industry will be ruined by what may be done to the cod allocation and quota.
  The Scottish Fishermen's Organisation has carried out a study of boats fishing for northern cod in particular, and I shall give the Minister the full report for his evaluation, but I want to read the House a few paragraphs. It states:
  "The reduction in the cod total allowable catch for the North Sea in the current year was amongst the most savage reductions ever imposed in any fishery. The 2001 TAC is some 45 per cent. lower than the 2000 TAC. And this reduction was on top of significant reduction in the previous year when most of the Scottish groups undertaking sectoral quota management responsibilities took their full allocations of zcod.
  There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that the spatial distribution of cod in the North Sea is in the process of changing and in particular the distribution of cod is moving in a northerly direction. This is highlighted by the fact that the Scottish groups have taken a far greater proportion of their cod allocations in the North Sea than those groups based further south. And an examination of individual vessel landings who concentrate on cod suggest that they have not seen much of a reduction in their cod catches in the current year.
  The reality of the current year has been that despite the cod closure areas, the reduced fishing year resulting from the fishermen's tie up, the reduced vessel allocations necessitated by reduced total allowable catches, vessels have actually maintained their cod catches in the northern sector of the North Sea.
  What this does suggest is required is a reappraisal of the way in which the sampling of North Sea cod stock is carried out. Taking samples from the same area over a long period of time is in accord with scientific discipline. But when the anecdotal evidence suggests that changes have taken place in the spatial distribution of a stock then the strict disciplines of comparability have to be revised. If the

  541
  Western mackerel stock was still being assessed on the basis of catches in the Minches which was the main catching area 20 years ago, the scientific assessment would be that the stock had … vanished. The reality is that the stock has seldom been larger but is in a different location. It is essential that the cod stock in the North Sea be treated as one that may have been over fished but has responded to environmental and other factors and may very well be in …better condition than a narrow interpretation of the known facts suggests. The fact is that all the facts are not known because yesterday's science has not taken account of all the changes that are taking place within the marine ecosystem within the North Sea."
  To back up that detailed analysis, the fishing results from 22 vessels specialising in catching cod in northern waters produced significant evidence: those vessels are suffering less of a reduction in catch than would otherwise be expected.
  I know that the Minister will take that evidence on board and, if the worst comes to the worst and he is unable to negotiate a satisfactory cod quota in the first round at the European Council, he might go for a mid-year review based on a special scientific assessment of those areas in spring, which is the next available period.
  I hope that he takes that evidence on board, because, following the decommissioning victory, if that is what it was, a huge number of Scottish boats applied for decommissioning. That in its turn shows how depressed the industry is. Young men in my constituency are being asked to go to sea for £10,000 a year: there is thus a shortage of experienced seamen and crews, with all the consequent dangers.
  The processing sector cannot survive without a steady supply of fish. We have evidence that many stocks are on the way to recovery: in many areas, the fish are there. It would be a tragedy if we could not manage the difficulty that we are experiencing, certainly with cod stocks, in a way that allowed full access to fishing opportunities, and enabled as many as possible of our constituents to retain their livelihoods.
  The fishing policy is not just about the conservation of fish, although that is vital. It is not just about the conservation of one species—cod—however important that may be. It is about the conservation of fishing communities. I trust that the Fisheries Minister—a long-lasting Fisheries Minister—will bear that in mind as he takes our case to Europe.
  5.15 pm
  Mrs. Joan Humble: I apologise to both my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) for being unable to stay for the winding-up speeches. I wish the Minister well in his efforts at the Fisheries Council. He is well respected in fishing communities for his knowledge and understanding of the industry, and if there is anyone who can take our message away and argue the case forcefully it is him. However, none of us underestimates the difficulties that that may involve, especially in the context of the savage quota cuts that are having a particularly dramatic effect in the Irish sea and on Fleetwood's fishermen. I shall concentrate on the impact on Fleetwood.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac) pointed out, we are talking not only about catching effort, but about fishing communities and about all the jobs in the onshore industry. We are talking about the auction hall, the processors, the retailers and the
  542
  wholesalers. Many more jobs onshore depend on the catching effort. The CFP was introduced to safeguard fishing communities, but it has not done very well in that regard. We must ensure that it does rather better in future.
  Franz Fischler, the European Fisheries Commissioner, visited Fleetwood recently. I think that it was the first time that a European Commissioner had done so. I thank my friend Terry Wynn, MEP for facilitating the visit, which was much appreciated by the local fishing community and all representatives of the local fishing industry. In the past, they had gone to Brussels to put their case—this was the first occasion on which Brussels had come to them. Commissioner Fischler not only listened to what they had to say, but engaged in a constructive debate with them, and his Cabinet member Maya Kirshner remained the next day to take part in even more detailed discussions.
  I am pleased that Commissioner Fischler recognises the substantial shortcomings of the CFP. In an article in the 21 September edition of Fishing News, he said:
  "We have to end the cycle of short term measures which are detrimental to both fish resources and the fisheries sector."
  That reflects what happens annually here. We have a relatively short debate, and then the Fisheries Minister goes to Europe. Everything is done in a rush. We need a much better system of organising quotas and organising the industry.
  Commissioner Fischler went on:
  "There is no doubt in my mind that the fishing industry must be more involved in fisheries decision making."
  That is why local fishermen welcomed his visit, but there has been disappointment in Fleetwood at recent announcements by the Commission, both about the substantial cuts in quota—the 55 per cent. cut in the haddock quota is huge—and about the operation of the Irish sea cod recovery programme for next year. I hope that at this late stage the Government will press the Commission and the Council of Ministers further on some aspects of the conservation plan for next year.
  My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of many of the issues that I shall raise, because I have raised them with him over the past two years in detailed correspondence. I am pleased to say that he has, on occasion, been able to respond positively. However, we are now addressing those issues against the backdrop of substantial cuts and an industry that is looking for some sort of help for the future.
  With regard to the cod recovery programme, I wish to raise the issue of the closed area in the Irish sea. The eastern Irish sea—Liverpool bay and Morecambe bay—was included in the 2000 closure programme but not in this year's. However, the eastern Irish sea is recognised as a major cod spawning ground. Fleetwood fishermen requested of Commissioner Fischler that it be brought back into any future programme closures. They also asked that it should include any closure that had a significant by-catch of cod. The derogation to beam trawlers working in the eastern Irish sea is unacceptable to Fleetwood fishermen.
  My constituents are disappointed that neither of those requests was met in next year's plan for the Irish sea. That is especially bewildering because the explanatory memorandum to the proposed new Council regulations acknowledges that cod stocks have reduced to such a level that they cannot readily replenish themselves by

  543
  reproduction. If stocks are so low, why will not the Commission listen to Fleetwood men who say from personal experience that spawning cod are being caught in the eastern Irish sea in large numbers by Belgian and Dutch beam trawlers? By mid-September, in area 7a Belgian beam trawlers alone had caught 235 tonnes of cod, or 11 per cent. of the total allowable catch. The total Belgian and Dutch cod quota for area 7a, including swaps, is now 310 tonnes, which accounts for 15 per cent. of the TAC. The information that the Fleetwood Fish Forum has from the surveillance carried out by the enforcement agency is that the main effort of those vessels in January, February, March and April 2001 in area 7a was carried out in statistical rectangles, including those for the eastern Irish sea that were included in the first cod recovery programme.
  Because of their cod catches, Dutch and Belgian beam trawlers are included in the recovery programme in the North sea. Their combined quotas account for 15 per cent. of the TAC for that area. At the cod and hake meeting in Brussels on 19 October, they were included in the measures to protect hake. They asked for a derogation to use 80 mm nets in The Hague boxes to the south-west of the UK, but were refused. During the proposed closed season in the western Irish sea—11 February to 30 April—the beamers come into the eastern Irish sea and catch fish heavy with roe, swimming along the bottom of the sea. That is not conservation.
  Fleetwood men are not anti-Dutch and Belgian beamers per se, but they want fair treatment. They want the Dutch and Belgian vessels to be incorporated in any cod recovery programme in the Irish sea, as they are in the North sea and to the south-west of England. The Fleetwood men think that beamers should be brought into the programme as well as recognising that small local boats with low horsepower must be allowed to continue to fish in the so-called Blackpool box. My hon. Friend the Minister will recall the problem in 2000 when those vessels were not allowed to fish and had nowhere else to go. That caused problems. Their effort is very small and they do not affect the cod recovery programme or the viability of the fisheries.
  My hon. Friend the Minister and I have corresponded on mesh sizes. Fleetwood fishermen tell me that mesh sizes should be linked to horse power. They see beam trawlers exploiting regulations on mesh sizes and mixed fisheries and catching a wide variety of fish. That undermines the effort to conserve stocks in the Irish sea.
  Information from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea shows that cod, whiting and sole in area 7a are being fished beyond biological limits. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will re-examine the issues of mesh sizes and the quotas that are allocated in mixed fisheries. I hope that he will also look into the way in which vessels such as beam trawlers, which specialise in catching sole, can catch substantial amounts of cod as well, even though they are using a much smaller mesh size. Moreover, I am told that the mesh size for sole catches many fish that are not yet mature and have not yet reproduced. Clearly, that is another serious conservation issue.
  I understand too that the Commission is looking at the possibility of introducing a uniform mesh size of 120 mm for cod fisheries around the whole of the UK. This is a
  544
  very technical matter, and my fishermen sometimes show me the size of the mesh and the twine that they use in their nets. They tell me that the thicker twine that they use in the 100 mm mesh works in exactly the same way as thinner twine in a 120 mm mesh. I understand that that is accepted, and I hope that my hon. Friend will look into that when the Commission considers introducing a uniform mesh size.
  I come briefly to the matter of governance. Many hon. Members have drawn attention to the recommendations from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on regional fisheries management. They are widely supported, with the proviso that the particular needs of sub-regions around the country must also be taken into account.
  All parties involved accept that decision making has been too remote and bureaucratic. The Commission's Green Paper acknowledges that fishermen have not been sufficiently involved in developing acceptable technical measures. We need the advice and expertise of local fishermen, scientists and administrators if we are to formulate a policy that will deliver a sustainable fishery, and which will also be acceptable to those who work in the industry.
  Several hon. Members have commented on decommissioning, an issue that excites very different opinions. Previous schemes led to a large number of vessels being taken out, and meant that no new investment was made. Seven years ago, 40 local boats were registered with the Fleetwood Fish Producers Organisation, but today there are only 20. We could end up with no local vessels fishing our local waters in the Irish sea. That would be dreadful, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise the impact that decommissioning can have on fishing communities. At the same time, however, some fishermen regard decommissioning as an opportunity to leave the industry with some dignity.
  Finally, I shall sum up by thanking Tom Watson and the members of the Fleetwood Fish Forum for their hard work in supporting the local fishing industry. I am also grateful to them for the many hours that they spend briefing me and keeping me updated on issues of local concern. Their plea to my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Council of Ministers is that they work to protect the British fishing industry and to support the needs of our local fishing communities, so that when—and if—stocks recover, Fleetwood fishermen will still be around to benefit.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I apologise to the Minister for having to leave the Chamber during his speech. This was no discourtesy to the House or the Minister but, as a member of the Committee dealing with the Proceeds of Crime Bill, I found myself in mid-sentence when the Committee was adjourned at 11.25 this morning, and was left with no option but to return. I welcomed much in the Minister's speech, and shall make every effort to familiarise myself with it in its entirety in the Official Report.
  I welcome this debate, as many other Members have done. It has struck me, as a fairly new Member, how difficult it is to get the opportunity to discuss fishing matters. The Minister is no doubt aware that at the last Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Question Time there were no fishing questions. On the previous occasion,

  545
  the one question on fishing—about total allowable catches and their effect on Essex, that great fishing community—was given less than two minutes. Therefore, I am glad to take part in this debate.
  It is difficult to overstate the importance of fishing to my constituency, especially to Shetland. Some 33 per cent. of the Shetland economy—£180 million—is derived from fishing and some 20 per cent. of the active Shetland population is employed directly in fishing. The Minister knows that because he attended a seminar in Shetland as recently as May this year. His attendance was greatly welcomed and I hope that he will return there soon to keep up to speed with what the fishermen in my constituency are saying.
  I do not know whether the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) has ever been to Shetland. I suspect that after her contribution to the debate, if she were minded to make the journey she might be given a rather hotter welcome than would previously have been the case. We have long felt that the 18 years of a Tory Government damaged the fishing industry in Shetland and elsewhere in Scotland because of their indifference towards us. I was intrigued to see from her contribution that their policy has moved on from indifference to downright hostility.
  I was particularly concerned that the hon. Lady—who, unfortunately, has not had the courtesy to stay for the rest of the debate—felt it necessary to quote from the minutes of the Shetland Fishermen's Association in trying to support her contention that the Scottish pelagic fleet was given the benefit of a different enforcement regime. She referred to one of my constituents, Josie Simpson, and quoted the part of the minutes that said:
  "Josie Simpson reported his disappointment at a recent pelagic enforcement and monitoring committee meeting where it was made clear the Fisheries Department intend to leave it up to the industry to clean up overquota landings."
  That would be a fairly flimsy justification, at best, for the hon. Lady's remarkable assertion. However, I have obtained the whole minute, and from what follows it occurs to me that the hon. Lady may have come very close to misleading the House with regard to the position of the Shetland Fishermen's Association and my constituent. The minute continues:
  "A discussion took place and it was agreed that the Association should continue with our existing policy of calling for black fish to be eliminated across the whole of the EU. Disappointment was expressed that the Fisheries Department did not appear to show the will to eliminate overquota landings while actively trying to eliminate mis-reporting of fishing grounds. It was agreed the focus of their enforcement was wrong.
  It was reported that new satellite monitoring rules recently introduced require a manual report to be sent to the Fisheries Department every 2 hours rather than 24 hours if the equipment breaks down."
  That does not sound like an enforcement regime that is in any way lax or indifferent. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) will address that matter and put things straight when he sums up. The hon. Lady has just returned to the Chamber, but I shall not take interventions at present.
  The Minister made reference in his speech to the elements of the common fisheries policy that he considers work well. I commend him for that and hope that he will give his blessing to the continuation of another element of the current policy—the position with regard to the Shetland box. That is crucial to the fishing industry in the
  546
  northern isles. It has worked exceptionally well and might indeed serve as a prototype for zonal management under a reformed common fisheries policy. The licensing scheme limits the number of vessels of more than 26 m in length, and it is extremely important as it also allows unrestricted access for smaller boats.
  The scheme is an important element in sustainability. It encourages small boats and it is crucial that inshore fishermen in Orkney and Shetland have such unrestricted access. They must be able to continue landing in Shetland and Orkney, as their contribution to the local fish processing industry is also of immense importance.
  Several hon. Members referred to decommissioning and tie-up. The Scottish decommissioning package of £25 million is most generous. I ask the Minister, however, not to shut the door on tie-up and not to close his mind to it. I commend to him the report issued by the World Wide Fund for Nature, "Now or Never", which makes a strong case that short to medium-term financial assistance of that sort is a sensible long-term precaution and a conservation measure. I urge the Minister to use every available opportunity to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that funding will be available for a tie-up scheme in the future.
  I thank the Minister for his support—unlike the support of the hon. Member for Congleton, his was unqualified—for the case being put by the Orkney islands and Shetland islands councils for the supremely important leaseback schemes for quota that they are operating in the northern isles. I have no doubt that they are doing so properly. I urge the Minister vigorously to pursue at every opportunity the case for maintaining such schemes. They are of crucial importance to one of the most fragile industries in one of our most remote and peripheral communities.
  Sustainability for the Shetland fishing industry is not some high principle or a great ideal to which we must aspire. No community depends on fishing as we do. For us, it is essential to our continued survival and economic prosperity. I urge the Minister to remember that when he goes to Brussels.
  5.39 pm
  Lawrie Quinn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). As I come from the community of Scarborough and Whitby, I can appreciate that he has a complete grasp of the strong wishes of his community in respect of the fisheries debate. I welcome him to this debate, and hope that he will make speeches in many such debates.
  We experienced a sense of deja vu during the contribution of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). I am sorry that he is no longer in his place. In fact, it was not so much deja vu; his approach to this annual debate was more like "Groundhog Day". Obviously, I am sure that all hon. Members were pleased to hear that he had flown back specially from New York to make his contribution, but I had a feeling that I had heard his speech many times before.
  Unlike many of the other hon. Members who have spoken, I feel that the agenda is moving forward. I commend to the Minister the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac), for Blackpool,

  547
  North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), and I commend them for the fact that the agenda is moving on.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the one Tory Member who has been here for most of the debate. I have listened to many speeches made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), and the one that he made today was the most practical, most up to date and most open-minded that I have ever heard him make. I think that he is changing his mind.
  Lawrie Quinn: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's wisdom on the issue, but from my perspective, having replaced a similarly minded gentleman in the Scarborough and Whitby constituency in 1997, it certainly sounded like "Groundhog Day". For those who are not aware of that movie, the point is that when the principal character wakes up in the morning he has forgotten what he learned the day before. He finally gets there, but it takes a long time. Surely if the Conservative Benches are to be filled in future annual fisheries debates, they have a long way to go and many more groundhog days before them.
  I regret that, once again, the editorial line taken in today's Yorkshire Post—the principal newspaper in Yorkshire and the Humber region.—involves a sense of "Groundhog Day". I hope that the Minister will have an opportunity to read that article if he has not already done so. The headline is "Fishermen fear scrap heap in quota cuts". I recall seeing that headline as a preface to the debates that we had last year, the year before and the one before that. In any case, I suggest that the media need to play their part in the wider national debate on the economic, environmental and socio-economic issues that are important to the fishing communities. They need to get down to the quayside more often..
  I commend my hon. Friend the Minister for visiting my constituency on numerous occasions in recent years. He has met my constituents, who rely on the industry for their incomes. He has listened to them and engaged with them, and he goes from strength to strength in their minds, especially given his record of representing the industry, which is very important to my constituency and many coastal communities around the country..
  On most of the visits that my hon. Friend has made to my constituency he will have met Mr. Arnold Locker—a well-known fisherman in Whitby, the principal fishing port in my constituency. I am glad to say that he is now the NFFO's chairman-elect. I very much look forward to receiving the national briefings that he may send to those of us in the all-party fisheries group next year. I hope that Arnold will take the time to come to London to help to brief us for next year's annual fisheries debate, and I hope to see him then..
  Like many fishermen, Arnold Locker is very good at communicating verbally. Having previously heard from Arnold an awful lot, I was very pleased that he has now put pen to paper. He has written a very interesting article in the current edition of NFFO news, which is an important newspaper for the industry. In many respects, Arnold's "View from the wheelhouse", as it is called, reflects the current opinion, which may be dangerous to my hon. Friend, that the great esteem in which he is.
  548
  held in Scarborough and Whitby and other fishing communities may be affected and that the choppy seas that he may face in the negotiations may be even rougher than any of us had previously thought.
  Arnold Locker's article is entitled "Why the cod plan must be scrapped" and it conveys the message that I have heard on the quayside. Fishermen in Whitby are suspicious of the Commission because, as the Minister said, its recovery plan for the North sea chooses to ignore key parts of the science.
  Arnold writes:
  "It is ludicrous that this cod recovery plan is still going ahead at a rate of knots despite the fact that we don't know why there is no cod in our part of the North Sea. It seems unlikely that overfishing is the reason, given the fact that the fleet in Yorkshire and Humberside has been reduced by about 80 per cent. in recent years. The real reason is probably due to global warming, which is well illustrated by the good catches of red mullet our boats are now getting. This is further backed-up by catch statistics … which reveal that cod catches are much higher in the northern North Sea compared with areas off the English coast."
  Such areas include Yorkshire. He adds:
  "Nobody seems to care. It also seems crazy that our Yorkshire boats, ranging from 200 to 480hp and with a small bollard pull, have to work to the same mesh size regulations as much bigger 2,000hp stern trawlers. Conservation policy, or the lack of it, means that the whole industry is on a roller-coaster at the moment. We need to get some sense into everything and the first step should be a far-reaching investigation into conservation policy. And until that is done, the pointless cod recovery plan should be shelved".
  Arnold Locker is not only putting pen to paper but talking to many people in my constituency and up and down the Yorkshire and Humber coast. The fact that someone like him is doing that means that the immense credibility of the long-term sustainable approach to fishing policy that scientists have been able to generate in the fishing community is being questioned. We must be able to demonstrate to the industry that the science is being applied, so, as many Members have said, I hope that the Minister will stress in the Council meeting on 16 and 17 December that the science cannot be ignored.
  If the science is ignored, short-term damage will be done to the delicate relationship between the quayside, the scientists and this place. Furthermore, longer-term damage might be done to a conservation programme that fishermen and key stakeholders can buy into. The problem is not just the short-term one of quotas, but the long-term credibility of the Minister and this place when we talk about the national interest.
  People on the quayside have asked me to raise several other specific questions in the debate. If the Minister does not have time to respond in his closing remarks, I hope that he will be able to write to me.
  Does my hon. Friend accept that effort control in the form proposed by the Commission for the recovery plan will be both brutal in effect and uncertain in its benefits? Does he accept that the short-term losses associated with the North sea mesh size increase to 120 mm will be crippling for the industry? Does he accept that there is manifest agreement for public investment in recovery measures that will allow the fishing industry to rebuild its stocks to optimum levels? I stress to my hon. Friend that many Whitby fishermen have benefited more from the recovery package in Scotland than from the English scheme. Those fishermen are sceptical about what the public purse is managing to achieve.

  549
  Access to the North sea—my hon. Friend has heard us get on this old hobby horse many times before—is pertinent to the debate in which he will engage in Brussels in the next week or so. What steps will the Government take to ensure that Spanish access to the North sea from 2003 will not result in a by-catch of quota species and an overall increase in the fishing effort?.
  Other hon. Members mentioned industrial fishing. Every fisherman finds it abhorrent that Denmark and other north European countries can still use industrial fishing for non-human consumption purposes. Will he ensure that he is seen to press for that to change?.
  On a local issue, a few salmon netsmen still fish out of the River Esk. My hon. Friend is aware that there is great concern about how long it is taking to conclude the negotiations on a compensation package to buy out the netsmen's licences. Obviously a tendering process is going on and I would appreciate it if he referred to the conclusion of that delicate negotiation.
  I wish my hon. Friend well on behalf of the fishing communities of Scarborough and Whitby. I hope that he comes back with a headline settlement that is far better than the bleak prospect that we currently face, and that the next time he visits my constituency he is held in the same regard.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Archy KirkwoodI am pleased to participate in the annual debate on fisheries. It has been of a high quality, and I hope that the Minister appreciates the assistance that we are trying to give him in his difficult job as he takes his arguments into Europe on 16 and 17 December. In fact, I think that we should have an annual dinner each year in which mugs are cast. The Minister could be the honorary patron of the organisation and I might even buy some of the drinks
  The debate has been valuable. The Minister has done well to secure a full day. I have much more confidence that the industry is in his hands rather than those of some of his predecessors who have sat on the Treasury Bench during my 18 years in this place. That is good. We hope that he will build on his reputation and use his experience to great effect on 16 and 17 December
  Although I concur with much that has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I fear that the situation in my constituency is as bad as it has ever been. We cannot avoid that, and it is not the Minister's fault. I have noticed for the first time that any sense of hope is beginning to disappear, especially among young skippers. That is very bad. In larger coastal communities and bigger sections of the industry, such as in Peterhead and the places represented by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), there is a higher critical mass. A village-based industry or a small coastal community reach a level at which skills, and the investment, go
  There are two things that are different this year and that worry me. The volatility of scientific advice makes it harder for people to plan investment, marketing and processing. We have had long battles. The Minister has led the argument, with some success, that science is the thing to follow. Cod recovery plans and so on are the only way forward in the longer term. However, there are deeply worrying wild fluctuations in scientific advice and the statistics on which we base policy decisions. As a lay person, one would think that they cannot be right every
  550
  year. On top of that we have to deal with the Commission's new complementary measures, which do not have anything directly to do with science and produce more difficult TAC situations with which we have to cope.
  In addition to those difficulties, we face an uncertain year come 2002. Everybody understands that the common fisheries policy needs reform. I know that the Minister understands that, and that he is aware of crucial issues such as zonal management and relative stability in the six and 12-mile limits, but they represent yet more uncertainty, and that does not help. We must all work harder still to address those issues..
  I am very worried about the level of discards in 2001, which other hon. Members have mentioned. It seems to me, from my experience and from what I am told, that there is a big biomass of undersized fish, and catching them is leading to discards on a scale that we have not seen for a long time. That may get worse next year. I do not know what can be done. In my constituency, 250 boxes of haddock that were just above minimum size were left unsold, so it is clear that even if one lands this stuff, there is no market for it. We need actively to address the issue of discards, and if the Minister can get better scientific advice and support on that, so much the better
  I agree that transitional protection, to which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and many others referred, needs urgent consideration. I think that I can win an argument in my coastal communities that with the industry in a state of flux, if sensible scientific advice is consistently followed for five years, there will be better times ahead. However, fishermen will not be able to survive for that time, so some support is necessary. In Scotland, £25 million for decommissioning has gone a long way, and that programme has allowed people to exit the industry with dignity. Fishermen, particularly those with smaller boats, will find it hard to deal with the technical conservation measures that will come in early next year. The Government need to work harder and harder to provide the support that the fishing industry needs to survive until, we hope, the cod recovery programme and other measures come on-stream and come right.
  I subscribe to the view about ambient temperature changes that the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan and for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac) usefully put on the record. We need to understand those important issues, but it is difficult for us, as policy makers who are laymen, to do so. I hope that we will not ignore the advice that we are being given.
  As I said, decommissioning is important, and industrial fishing must be dealt with, but 1 want to leave the Minister to consider two other issues. The first is the effect of the proposed cut in nephrops in my area, which will be very difficult to sell to fishermen. It is almost impossible to convince the sector in my constituency that such cuts are necessary. There has been a huge diversion of effort, which we all expected as a result of the cod recovery programme, so it is impossible for me to return to my constituency and defend nephrops cuts on the scale suggested by the commissioner. We produced evidence on that, and I was surprised by it because I thought that in the north-east sector there would have been a bigger cod by-catch. If the Minister takes any message from me

  551
  to the negotiations on 16 and 17 December, it is that he should fight his hardest to try to inject more common sense into them.
  Secondly, as someone who spends quite a lot of his time in this place considering social security issues, I know that there are big changes ahead in the social security programme. The Government are sensibly moving towards working tax credits, but the way in which the fishing industry works, with days at sea determined by the weather, makes it difficult for people on jobseeker's allowance to try to get any sustainable help coherently delivered by the benefits system. It would be sensible if the Minister could spend half an hour with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions. He could then explore whether the introduction of tax credits, later this year and beyond, will provide better support and ease access to the benefits system, particularly for crewmen.
  Of all the resources, fish are probably the main one on our minds in this debate, but if we do not have the skilled labour to go to sea, we are all wasting our time. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that young people are not prepared to contemplate any career in fishing, and it is becoming harder and harder for share fishermen north of the border to find crews to go to sea.
  Let us hope that the Minister can keep in mind all the points that have been raised. If, after the resolution of these difficult matters on 16 or 17 December, he can secure a meeting of the European Standing Committee under the scrutiny process, that would be appreciated by all.
  6 pm
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: It is a pleasure to be called to speak in a fisheries debate, especially as it is the first time that I have been able to speak in one for more than two years, having served as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That experience gave me some insight into the role of the Department in dealing with fisheries.
  I am sure that we could not have a more committed Fisheries Minister than my hon. Friend. As has been said, he is clearly the most knowledgeable Fisheries Minister we have had. He has become irreplaceable, even if after four years of fishing and floods, some of us may feel that he deserves promotion, or perhaps relief. It was said earlier that he was the best Fisheries Minister in a Labour Government; I think that he is the best in any Government. I know that he has a hard task in government carrying the flag for fishing, which is why I begin my contribution by saying why I believe fishing is important in national terms.
  First and obviously, fishing is a source of healthy and nutritious food—non-fattening food, as I have discovered in recent months, by focusing my diet more on fish. It is also an extremely popular food, though not always in the least fattening form. Fish and chips is our national dish. If hon. Members have not tasted them at their best, I invite them to sample the fish and chip shops of Lowestoft. It is inconceivable that we in the UK will not want to eat fish.
  We are an island nation, so it is unthinkable that we will not want to catch a substantial proportion of our fish ourselves. We expect to be a top fishing nation. We know that we are now catching much less than we did and that
  552
  there are fewer fish to catch. Governments cannot conjure up more fish, but our industry is becoming weaker, relative to that of other countries that fish our waters. I shall return to that.
  All round our island are fishing ports and fishing communities. Fishing is especially important to places such as Lowestoft, where I live. It is not easy to find other work in such peripheral locations. Fishing in those communities is in people's hearts, as well as their minds. We know that there are only a fraction of the jobs that there were and that fishing is no longer the major part of those local economies as it once was. However, it is still a substantial part of the economy in Lowestoft, and it is an emotive issue.
  Everybody in a fishing community knows a fishing family and sadly, everybody knows a fishing family who has suffered a bereavement at sea. Fishing is rather like mining. When we see it in those terms, fishing has political importance, like mining. We should recognise that.
  Other hon. Members referred to the recent WWF report, "Now or Never", which is one of the most significant reports that we have had for a long time. It is significant because it resulted from a partnership between the WWF, an environmental organisation, and the fishermen's organisations. This is the first time that that has happened, as far as I know. It is the first of two new partnerships that I shall mention.
  I do not have time to dwell on the report, but it paints a grim picture. It notes that our fishing industry is disintegrating before our eyes. It charts the decline, and points out that the financial assistance to the UK fishing industry is among the lowest in the European Union: 850 euros per fisherman in the UK, compared with 3,532 in Belgium, 3,524 in Germany, 1,222 in the Netherlands and so on. As I said, the Government cannot conjure up more fish, but those figures suggest that we could do more. All countries face the same problem of stock depletion, but the Dutch and Spanish industries seem to be in a stronger position than ours.
  My principal contention is that this country needs a comprehensive plan for fishing, which will be achieved only by the Government and the industry working together in a formal taskforce. There should be a plan not just for conserving fish, vital as that is, but for the industry as well. The plan for the fish is obviously the common fisheries policy, which we are trying to reform; it certainly needs to be much better. We come to the House annually to discuss the usual measures—tax, multi-annual guidance programmes or MAGPs, recovery programmes, technical measures and so on—but what about the fishing industry? As other Members have said, if we succeed in conserving our fish and achieving a recovery of stocks, what shape will our industry be in? We must ensure that there is still a worthwhile industry to catch the fish.
  I want to put to my hon. Friend the Minister the views of my local fishing industry on measures for the year ahead. In Lowestoft, the fleet of North sea plaice fishermen agrees with the scientists' recommendation of a total allowable catch of 77,000 tonnes for North sea plaice. The fishermen make that suggestion, despite knowing that there has been a better year class for plaice this year; they have asked me to urge my hon. Friend not to agree a higher quota in the Council of Ministers. They accept that the Dutch may try to push it up to

  553
  86,000 tonnes, but they do not want that because they want to conserve the fish. There is therefore a second remarkable partnership; fishermen and scientists agree on what the level of fishing should be. That came out yesterday in the meeting between the all-party group on fisheries and the NFFO, which is at one with the scientists. In those circumstances, the Commission should not disregard the science; I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that on 17 December, the politicians do not disregard it either.
  My plaice fishermen do not want closed areas, whether for North sea cod or other fish; they regard such areas as unfair for plaice fishermen, who have a tiny by-catch of cod. Last year, they were prevented from going to catch plaice by the cod closure programme. They appreciated the extra little box that my hon. Friend negotiated, but last winter was extremely tough, especially with high fuel prices. Like them, I feel that they could be allowed into closed areas under satellite monitoring, with their catches validated on landing. If there has to be a closure period this year or in future, I do not see why they cannot be allowed to do that. We would know exactly which boats are fishing; my fishermen do not catch much cod and must be allowed to carry on catching plaice when those fish are there to catch. They do not want proposals for tie-ups or days at sea, which would be impossible to manage because of their difficult circumstances.
  Mr. Carmichael: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that closure plans alone, without a measure of funded tie-up, simply lead to displacement of the overfishing problem?
  Mr. Blizzard: I certainly agree. My fishermen say that if there are tie-ups and closure periods without compensation, the industry will simply be unable to manage and will be brought to its knees. If that happens, we fear for the future.
  The Lowestoft plaice fishermen voluntarily use nets with a larger mesh, which is a key point for CFP reform. Why do we continue to allow smaller mesh sizes? How can fish recover if young fish are still being caught? It is madness not to address that crucial point. I want to emphasise that we must not penalise the plaice fishermen, whatever we agree we need to do for cod. I also have long-line fishermen in my constituency. Long-lining is an environmentally friendly and sustainable fishing method, although my fishermen cannot find any cod at the moment. They fear that stocks have already collapsed in the southern part of the North sea. They, too, are now at one with scientists. Last week, they came to see me and said that the "scientists were horrifically right" all along. Now they are looking for radical action to enable the cod that they fish to recover.
  We hope that a reformed common fisheries policy will deliver more fish. However, what about the industry? Some people in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs say that they are concerned only with the fish, not the industry. If so, which Department sponsors the fishing industry? For my money, DEFRA is the only possibility.
  We need to do more. We know that £11 million of the £22.5 million which my hon. Friend the Minister announced in April was from the previous grant regime. On a small point, while I am dealing with that, I should say that there are grants to encourage long lining, which
  554
  is a more environmentally sustainable fishing method. However, long-liners are asking whether they will have access to a further grant, to try something else, if they cannot find any fish by the use of long lines. I make that request to the Minister.
  There is £6 million for decommissioning. However, my trawler industry has told me that, in practice, it is difficult to decommission because environmental controls have resulted in ever fewer scrap facilities to chop up boats. Trawlermen feel that they may not be able to decommission to the required standard within the proposed time scale. They are therefore looking for sufficient flexibility to allow them, more simply, to put their boats beyond economic repair so that they cannot take to the water, but also to receive interim decommissioning money so that they can finish off the boats later. Smaller fishermen are also asking for decommissioning to apply to vessels under 10 m where there are too many such vessels.
  I shall not dwell on the next element of the £22.5 million package as I had an Adjournment debate on that in Westminster Hall. However, the £5.5 million fishing communities regeneration initiative was a travesty at every level. It was shared out between the regions, and certainly within the eastern region, in the wrong manner, and the money was often spent on the wrong things. Lowestoft lands almost 10 per cent. of England's catch, but it was offered a mere £65,000, out of £5.5 million.
  We have, however, had a bit of a breakthrough: we were offered another £60,000. That is being spent on some jolly good measures, and I wish that I had enough time to tell hon. Members about them. Nevertheless, I urge Ministers to dig into that regeneration money and try to ensure that it is spent on things that relate to the fishing industry, not on some of the things that it is being spent on that do not relate to the industry at all.
  The failure of the fishing communities regeneration initiative shows the need for a proper plan for the fishing industry. However, how can we work out such a plan when the industry is not nationalised but is a collection of private businesses? The Government have already developed such a model in the oil and gas industry. Three years ago, the oil and gas industry taskforce was established, comprising the leaders of that industry and officials from three Departments including the Treasury, and it was chaired by the Minister with responsibility for energy. It set itself a deadline and developed a plan for how that industry could get more resources out of the North sea, rather than closing down the operation more quickly than was necessary. The taskforce met the deadline and is now implementing the plan through another body called Pilot.
  I believe that we could do in fishing what we have done in the oil and gas industry. If we do not, our fishing industry will simply wither away. Pieces of it would fall off haphazardly, which would be no good for fishermen, for the communities in which they live or for the country. I doubt that we would ever recover from it.
  The WWF and NFFO report shows how investment in a transitional package can reap a rich return. If my hon. Friend the Minister can achieve such a plan and such a partnership, we shall have a future; we could look ahead with confidence. We have seen partnerships between scientists and fishermen and between fishermen and environmental organisations, but let us now see a

  555
  partnership with the Government. If my hon. Friend can achieve that, I am sure that I would not be the only one saying that he is the best fisheries Minister we have had.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I certainly endorse what the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said about fisheries regeneration funding and the need to get the best deal possible for his constituency. We will support him on that, because there are obviously important implications for King's Lynn as well.
  The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) spoke about industrial fishing. I concur with what he said 100 per cent. I note that the Minister has visited his constituency; I hope that he will visit mine and talk to my fishermen. Indeed, I hope that he will come to Conservative-held constituencies. I do not know whether he is prepared to do so, but he has an open invitation to come to west Norfolk to speak to our local fishermen.
  I do not know why we are having this important debate on an Adjournment motion. We should be debating a substantive motion that would enable us to have a vote at the end. I am sure that the Government have nothing to fear when it comes to putting their case to a vote, but we obviously cannot have one this evening. None the less, I welcome the fact that we are having a full day's debate on this important subject.
  As most hon. Members whom I have heard have pointed out—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was not present for the whole debate; I had to move some amendments in a Standing Committee—the background to the debate is the reform of the common fisheries policy. In the course of the next year, the Commission will have to table a proposal for reform of the CFP. I am pleased to see that it is beginning to accept the arguments for a radical decentralisation of the CFP. I note especially that Commissioner Fischler now appears to be convinced that the new regional committees should hold real powers and responsibilities, rather than act merely in an advisory capacity.
  That is good news, but I still feel that the policy is fundamentally flawed. Hon. Members have spoken much about the cod and hake fishery, which is in crisis. We have heard about a proposed programme of savage cuts in quotas for the Irish sea, the western approaches and the channel. I think that there is also probably a genuine threat to the six-mile limit in terms of open access. The abandonment of that limit would have a devastating effect on the Wash shellfish fishery. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby mentioned the very important point about Spain and Portugal having access to the North sea from 1 January 2003. He rightly pointed out that their quota share arrangements will limit their catch to non-quota species. However, there will, of course, be a significant by-catch of quota species, which is a serious concern.
  I believe that the time has come for us not merely to reform the CFP, but scrap it completely and replace it with a series of bilateral arrangements between member states. If we continue to proceed as we are now, it will not work. We will be tinkering with a system that is fundamentally flawed. We must now move forward with
  556
  a much more radical policy. That view has been expressed to me by most of the fishermen in King's Lynn and west Norfolk.
  In the short time that remains, I should like to say a few words about the Wash inshore fishery, which is crucial to our local community. The main species of catch are shrimps, cockles, whelks, mussels and crabs. Forty boats and about 100 crew are involved in the King's Lynn fishing fleet. I think that the Minister knows that, as he visited the fleet during the previous Parliament. He will know that for every job at sea, there will probably be four jobs on land. On that basis, about 500 jobs in total are dependent on the fishery, which is crucial to the local economy.
  As the hon. Member for Waveney pointed out very eloquently, we are not talking only about pure economics. The fishery is of huge symbolic importance. Some fishing families go back many generations. The Wash fishery and fishing folklore are deeply entrenched in the local psyche. He summed that up well.
  There are various threats to the fishery. Resources in the Wash are being depleted, especially the shrimp fishery. The Minister knows that, under current regulations, white fish boats that meet their quotas are allowed to diversify into the shrimp fishery on their existing licence. There appears to be widespread support for a licensing system for inshore fishermen. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.
  Another important point relates to the structure of inshore fisheries. The legislation is too old. The Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 and the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1967 need updating. The Minister knows that the 1966 Act is a rehashing of a 100-year-old Act. The legislation is therefore out of date, and the funding of sea fisheries committees badly needs reconsidering. Since 1966, extra responsibilities have been placed on the fisheries committees, especially environmental responsibilities, with no extra resources to accompany them. It is time for a new Bill to amalgamate legislation on sea fisheries boards so that they can address those extra responsibilities.
  Other serious issues affect the Wash fishery, especially dredging, cable laying and the potential development of offshore energy in the form of wind farms. All have serious ecological side effects for marine ecosystems. They unsettle the sea bed and the silt-over of breeding grounds has a profound effect on shellfish habitats.
  There has been much controversy about dredging. Although everyone feels strongly that dredging to replenish sea defences, for example the Skegness to Mablethorpe section of coastal defences, is acceptable, it is not acceptable to dredge sand and gravel for export. Roughly 30 per cent. of all offshore dredging is of minerals and sand for export. That is unacceptable. We are considering a delicate marine ecosystem. If dredging helps to support local communities and to sort out sea defences, that is one matter. But the commercial export of minerals is another.
  As the Minister knows, the Crown estates have been through the pre-qualification process. The wind farms need permission from the Department of Trade and Industry, and I presume that there will be a public inquiry and that the Secretary of State will have the final say. However, on the pre-qualification site allocation, King's Lynn wind farm will have 60 turbines and the Cromer site

  557
  will have 30. I accept that the benefits in renewable energy will be substantial. We must look increasingly to renewable energy. However, there are serious drawbacks for the Wash fishery.
  We must consider the construction phase for 60 large turbines. It will mean substantial disruption to fisheries. The completed turbines will be surrounded by exclusion zones. I have not worked out the exact square mileage for 60 turbines, but we are considering a substantial area of fishery in the Wash. The location of the turbines will therefore be crucial. If they are located in the wrong position, we could do irreparable harm to the shrimp fishery, the whelk, cockle and mussel fishery off King's Lynn and the crab fishery off Cromer. That damage would have a profound effect on an important community in my constituency. I ask the Minister to look carefully at that.
  I said a moment ago that this resource is vital to the local economy. It is essential, particularly, at a time when the wider economy is starting seriously to suffer from the downturns in manufacturing, and in the telecoms and tech sectors. Jobs are being lost across the board in those sectors in west Norfolk, and elsewhere in Norfolk and Suffolk. We are also suffering from an appalling downturn in agriculture. It is crucial that this local fishing community is given maximum priority. It is part of our local heritage, and also forms an important part of our national heritage, which is why it is essential that it should be protected and maintained. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
  6.25 pm
  Vera Baird: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to my hon. Friend the Minister and to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), because I cannot stay for the end of the debate.
  I, too, want to scale down, and I invite the Minister to take the view from my constituency, Redcar, which has one of the smallest fishing fleets. We have nine cobles, which are less-than-10-metre boats that are launched afresh each day from the beach. They fish primarily for shellfish, but also for cod, Dover sole and nephrops.
  For my briefing, I owe much to Mr. David Horsley, an executive member of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations from my locality. I am also indebted to him for a well learned bit of wisdom. When I said to him, during what he must have suspected was one of my early fishing conversations, that I knew that nephrops were important to him, he said, "Why, pet, if you're going to talk to us, you're going to have to learn to call 'em prawns, like we do."
  The fleet fishes using gill netting, and long lines, and some of the small boats trawl. The less-than-10-metre boat fleet gets an annual quota from DEFRA of the TAC for each relevant fish. It has already received notice that this year's quota has run out. From 14 January to 30 April 2002, it will be banned from landing any Dover sole. There is a proposed further cut of 25 per cent. in the TAC for Dover sole and, unless there is a variation in the DEFRA quota to the less-than-10-metre boat fleet, that will have a great impact on it.
  This argument has to be put into the economic context in which the fleet works. It has an approximate annual catch value of between £20,000 and £40,000. That is an annual input before any costs such as diesel, maintenance, shared hard-standing—because the boats are often out of
  558
  the sea—and security from urban risks. Let us compare and contrast that with larger boats, which can catch up to £50,000 worth of fish from four or more days at sea. The larger boats obviously have higher costs, but the relative economic positions are clear from those figures.
  Relatively and absolutely, small-boat fishermen in Redcar live hand to mouth. In that situation, they could easily be unbalanced and tipped into inviability, and they therefore merit particular consideration. A sustainable fisheries policy means taking measures to sustain fish stocks. It also means taking measures to sustain the fishing industry, so that its contribution to the local and national economy can continue.
  A further problem that my constituents see on the horizon is the increase in mesh sizes in January from 100 mm to 120 mm for trawling. Large modern trawlers can drag their huge nets faster than an unladen coble can steam at full power. The mesh, heavy enough to remain rigid at a gauge of 110 mm, cannot be towed by a small boat at a speed sufficient to keep it rigid. The weight of the mesh does not allow the boat to get sufficient weigh on, so the mesh is not rigid but opens and closes, allowing the catch to slip through. Thus, for a small boat, the effect of an increase in mesh sizes goes beyond that for a large boat and it has a particular and perhaps unforeseen, but certainly disproportionate, effect on small-boat men.
  In January, mesh sizes for gill nets will be upped from 4.75 mm to 5.25 mm. That will have a much more straightforward impact on those fishermen, because, inshore, they take smaller fish. There will also be a significant and deep impact on their takings. They are concerned, too, about the revival of the Minister's intention to impose shellfish licences on static gear at a cost that, at their subsistence earnings level, is meaningful.
  A primary concern is that those fishermen fish for prawns, as I am learning to call them, at the west edge—a location in the North sea 15 miles offshore and hence not protected by the 12-mile limit. Access will soon be available to the French and the Spanish, who will not pay the costs of a British licence and will therefore be given a worrying economic advantage.
  I must mention the importance of the fishermen in Redcar, which is primarily not a fishing port, but a small seaside resort backed by a poor, post-industrial area suffering from economic decline and social deprivation. The Redcar fishermen sell their fish direct from the coble, having been tractored up to the back of the sands on the esplanade. That is an attractive feature of Redcar's appeal as a resort.
  People travel from further south and east in Cleveland and from Teesside, south Durham and north Yorkshire to buy freshly caught fish and, of course, to enjoy the picturesque spectacle. They stroll along the esplanade and are attracted to the shops, cafes, garages, amusement arcades and museums. They also pay to park and drink in the pubs. The point is clear: the fishing industry is, first, an integral part of the culture of a sea town and, secondly, engenders business for the town far beyond the value of the fishermen's earnings in a location in which every pound of local income is important to local people.
  I must say again that there are general and specific problems for such a small fleet of small-boat inshore fishermen and I invite my hon. Friend the Minister,

  559
  on behalf of everyone in the community I represent, to give all possible assistance to Redcar's highly valued fishermen.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Michael Weir: Like the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), I represent a small fishing port, which is in the heart of my constituency. Unfortunately, I am old enough to remember when Arbroath was a bustling fishing port, but it has been in decline for a number of years to the extent that few boats fish out of it. Of those, three have applied to be decommissioned under the Scottish scheme, leaving very few still working. However, Arbroath still has a vibrant fish processing industry, and when we discuss the future of the fishing industry we should not forget that it sustains a great deal of onshore employment. Any Member who represents a fishing area also represents many fish processors.
  My constituency is famous for the Arbroath smoky, the raw material of which is the haddock, so I am interested to note that the scientific evidence going before the Commission contains a recommendation for a considerable increase in haddock quota. That is welcome, but given the way in which the Commission has used other scientific evidence before it, I am apprehensive about whether it will ever come to pass. It should also be noted that, even if the haddock quota increases, levels would return to those fished in the mid-1990s, which were far below historic levels, so there is hardly cause for great celebration.
  Over the past few years, there has been a problem with the continual supply of fish to the fish processing industry because of quota difficulties. That has affected my constituency, as some processors have been unable to obtain supplies and a main Arbroath smoky producer stopped making them because it could not obtain a consistent haddock supply. As a result, Arbroath smokies are now produced by small outfits.
  We should bear it in mind that quotas are important not just to offshore fishing, but to onshore industry. A steady supply throughout the year is, perhaps, even more important to processors than to fishermen. Much of the fish coming into Arbroath comes from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), and from Aberdeen. It is transported by road, but that involves considerable cost.
  I hope that when he discusses this in Brussels, the Minister will remember that for every job at sea there are numerous jobs on land—many in rural communities—that rely on those jobs at sea for a sustainable future.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Keith Simpson: We have been fortunate enough to hear, I think, 14 excellent speeches from Back Benchers, some of which had to be short. There was a common theme: the speakers represented fishing communities, and spoke on their behalf. A number emphasised the fact that we were discussing not just an industry but a community. One referred to mining. I come from a farming rather than a fishing community, but I too appreciate the point.
  Members have put to the Minister the view from the fishing ports, and we all hope that he will convey that view at the important meeting that will take place on 17 December.
  560
  Strong views were expressed, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), about the general nature of the common fisheries policy. Undoubtedly there must be reform at the very least, if not radical change. I do not want to concentrate on that because she made the necessary points. In the short time available, I want to ask the Minister two or three specific questions, because it is important for him to flag up Members' concerns at the meeting.
  The first of those concerns, which the Minister himself admitted was causing anxiety, is the proposal for cuts in quotas. He rightly emphasised not just that we should question it for the scientific reasons adduced by a number of Members, but that it was unacceptable to fishing communities whom we, the politicians, must persuade of the efficacy of a policy proposed by the European Union as well as our Government. It is possible to put a lot of force behind Government policy and EU policy, but if the fishing communities reject proposals out of hand we are in dangerous waters. I know that his time is limited, but I hope that he will specify at least some of the arguments that he may advance, apart from his questioning of the science.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton expressed strong views about the CFP's appalling impact on the environment. It not only affronts tens of thousands of EU citizens but is totally counterproductive. I suspect that, with the exception of one or two bad fishermen, the fishing community rejects it as well. I should like to know what the Minister will say about that.
  Finally, there is the whole business of compensation for fishermen, particularly in relation to the decommissioning of fishing vessels. The Minister and I were on a Committee debating a statutory instrument dealing with that. Our Scottish colleagues touched briefly on compensation in Scotland today, but perhaps the Minister will say whether all the compensation relating to English vessels has been taken up, and whether there is a queue for future compensation. That will be an issue that will come back and hit us again.
  I wish the Minister well on 17 December and I hope that he will be able to address the problems raised by hon. Members. I look forward to further debates in the House next year on the issue and I am sure that we will have a robust discussion of the common fisheries policy. He will have had notice of some aspects of the argument from our side.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Morley: I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their kind remarks.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The Minister should ask for the leave of the House to speak a second time.
  Mr. Morley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to the debate. I am not used to both opening and winding up these days.
  One thing that does not change about the debates is their seriousness. Of all the debates in which I participate, this is one of the few where we have a genuine, thoughtful discussion about serious issues, such as fisheries management and conservation, the importance of the fishing industry in a regional context and all the other

  561
  points that we have heard in the course of the debate. Not least of those was that made by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) about onshore interests, which was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and other hon. Members.
  I have so many points written down that we could have another whole debate on them, but I shall do my best to address them. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has a long history of involvement in the fishing industry and great knowledge of it. He, and several other hon. Members, asked about what would happen with regard to access in 2003. We should not forget that the quota is the key issue and that that is why the issue of relative stability is so important. There is very little in the North sea that is not a quota stock. It would not be economic for any fishing vessel that does not have a real commercial quota to take all the trouble of steaming all the way to the North sea to fish. By-catch is monitored and would not count in that fishery towards establishing a track record, so there is no advantage in a by-catch. I cannot see any commercial inducement for anyone to enter the North sea when that changes.
  My hon. Friend raised the issue of the 2.9 per cent. cod allocation from north Norway, which is part of the European Economic Area agreement. That is a legal agreement and forms part of the relative stability for the range of quotas that we have. I hope that that reassures him. He also raised the important issue of rising sea temperatures, which we take seriously. We are carrying out research on such matters as the decline in plankton, but it is important not to try to look for scapegoats.
  We cannot escape the fact that the biggest pressure on fish stocks comes from fishing. That is not to say that we do not take into account, for example, the impact of seals, although that impact is complex, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes stated. We have little evidence that seals have much impact on commercial fish stocks, but the research is being done. The same is true of power stations. I have been looking at some figures on power station intakes—that is the kind of person I am—and considering the fish by-catch that is sucked into the intakes. The figures are fairly low, but measures can be taken—such as bubble streams—to minimise the problem. I expect power stations to implement those measures because I take the problem seriously.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) questioned whether the demonstrations on fishing were before the aid package was announced in Scotland, and I have checked the facts in the Library. The flotilla sailed on 6 March and the aid package was announced on 8 March. I know that the Minister wanted me to put that on the record. Will the debate or the information that I have supplied help in his examination of the migration of species, especially cod? Will that information be useful in establishing whether that migration can be substantiated or whether it is anecdotal? It is a widespread belief among fishing communities.
  Mr. Morley: The migration of species is a widespread belief—and I had made a note to myself to reply to the hon. Gentleman on the matter, which I know that he was very keen to get on the record. All I can say is that, from my close and friendly contacts with the Scottish Executive, I am aware that the package was being
  562
  discussed for some time. I suspect that it was being discussed even before the flotilla, of which the hon. Gentleman was part, sailed down the Forth.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby also referred to aggregate dredging, as did a number of hon. Members. These days, any new application for a licence must go through a thorough environmental impact assessment. That will take account of the impact on the local fishing industry and whether the area is a spawning area or important for shellfish. If the study finds that the impact would be detrimental, the application is turned down. Applications have been turned down for that reason, and I emphasise that we take into account the impact of activities on the fishing industry.
  Finally, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have commissioned a new research vessel for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. It is under construction at present—and in a British shipyard, I am glad to say.
  The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) always takes a sensible and pragmatic approach to reform of the CAP, which is a matter of what is achievable. He also emphasised his support for multi-annual quota, which I share. I support, too, the concept of banking and borrowing, which has been used quite successfully in the south-west.
  The hon. Gentleman also emphasised the need for the industry and science to work together. I agree, and believe that the industry's involvement is important. It has an important contribution to make, which I take very seriously, as do the scientists in my Department. We have worked hard in the past few years to involve the industry more in discussions and decisions. Recently, we invited industry representatives to sail with CEFAS on our research ships and to work alongside our scientists. I am sure that that experience was mutually beneficial: the industry representatives watched the scientists work and saw the techniques that they used, and I understand that the scientists found very helpful the representatives' advice about matters such as net repairs and setting nets.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) emphasised the importance of the prawn fishery to his port in North Shields. I know that port and the industry well, and I repeat that I think that the Commission's suggestion about the scale of the cut in the nephrops quota is not justified by the science. It would have a devastating effect on the prawn industry, and I assure him that I take very seriously the points that he made. They will certainly guide me in the negotiations to come.
  The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) is a fixture in these debates, as he has been a Member of Parliament for a long time. Although it is fair to say that the process of these debates is largely similar year to year, different issues and priorities arise every time. I am used to seeing hon. Members posture in debates, but the hon. Gentleman's description of posturing fish—although interesting—was new to me.
  However, I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that things have changed in the Council of Ministers. Less of the horse trading—or sea horse trading—mentioned by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) goes on. It will not be easy to get the Commission to shift position

  563
  on some of the matters that have been raised, as it is acting according to what it believes to be the basis of sustainability.
  There is a genuine motivation behind what the Commission is doing, and I would not want to criticise that. I simply believe that it is not interpreting the science correctly on a number of points and not thinking through the implications of moving beyond the science in a range of stocks, particularly in a mixed fishery. We want to emphasise those issues to the Commission so that it will think about them and, I hope, make changes.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Why does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Commission can deliver now when it has failed to do so over the past 19 years?
  Mr. Morley: It is hard to put the blame completely on the Commission. It has to take its share of the blame and, indeed, it was open and honest in the Green Paper about the failures of the common fisheries policy. The people who should take the blame are Fisheries Ministers from a range of countries who have refused, over the years, to follow the science. They have been reluctant to go against the undoubted impact on their industries and have talked up the quota over and above the scientific advice. That has to stop. That attitude has changed within the Council of Ministers because it is not sustainable and we are still paying a price for it now with regard to the desperate state of many stocks. Even stocks that are not in their recovery position are on the borderline of sustainability in relation to their biomass. Every year, what is being taken away for the commercial catch should be increasing the biomass.
  We must address these tough issues. Over the years, people have ducked them because they are so difficult. If we are not careful, we will have no fishing industry in this country and will be in a situation similar to Canada. Whatever has been said—and there are some unknowns in the Canadian situation, which I would not dispute—the principal reason that the cod stocks were wiped out was overfishing.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made some pertinent points about the history of the common fisheries policy and the involvement of the previous Government, which we all noted. He raised the issue, which has been put to me by a number of fishermen, about whether cod have migrated further north because of changing sea temperatures. We do not rule out any kind of environmental change. Our scientists have a whole range of sampling points, including the northern North sea, and they will take these figures into account.
  I take the views of the fishing industry seriously. They are the ones out at sea and they have a valid contribution to make. Indeed, much of the science is based on catch records and the fishing patterns of the industry. I will ensure that the figures that the hon. Gentleman presented are considered very carefully by our scientists.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) raised a number of issues about the industry in the Irish sea. I understand the worries about the scale of the proposed cuts in haddock. I also understand the concerns about twine thickness, although I can reassure her and her industry that we are not looking to apply standards that mean that her industry would have
  564
  to have a different twine thickness. They can continue to use their present twine thickness, which is environmentally friendly.
  All the evidence that we have and the surveys that we have carried out, including surveys in the eastern part of the Irish sea with British and Belgian beam trawlers, show that the main spawning cod concentrations are in the western side of the Irish sea. That will be closed in the coming spawning season, and it will be closed to beam trawlers as well—so they will be kept away from the cod concentrations. However, we have little evidence that the concentration is on the eastern side.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) spoke about the Shetland box, which is of great regional importance. I was glad that the Commission, in its Green Paper, accepted the continuation of the Shetland box and, indeed, the Irish box. I recognise the regional importance of the fishing industry to Orkney and Shetland. As he said, I have visited the islands on a number of occasions and had a chance to talk to his industry. I always appreciate the opportunity to go there and chat to the very far-sighted and progressive industry.
  I understand the hon. Gentleman's points about a co-operative venture to buy up quota and lease it on commercial terms, which has also been considered in Cornwall and other areas. As long as it is a commercial operation and does not discriminate against other regions, I am sure that it can meet state aid rules and I look forward with interest to the outcome of the current investigation. I am sure that the Commission will be sympathetic to the way that it has been operated in the past.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) represents two important east coast fishing ports. Cod is, of course, an important catch there. He raised several points, including the impact of horsepower and I wholly accept the comments of his constituent, Mr. Arnold Locker. I shall be seeing a great deal of Mr. Locker in his NFFO role in forthcoming months. No doubt he will make his case clear to me.
  Effort control has not yet been agreed. It has not been decided whether it will be a feature of the cod recovery plan in the North sea. I realise that people are worried about that. We shall need to talk to the industry about the issue and keep it involved. I also know of my hon. Friend's concerns about 120 mm nets in a mixed fishery. Mesh size is important and we should think about it carefully, but it will be difficult to move to 120 mm in one go. That is why I have argued for a phased approach.
  I understand my hon. Friend's point about industrial fishing. I am a long-standing opponent of industrial fishing and my views have not changed. Human consumption should always take precedence in fisheries management. I expect to see a reduction in the TAC for sand eels in the negotiations. I support the 20 per cent. reduction. There may be attempts to raise it again, but I assure the House that I shall support the Commission on that particular reduction, because we need to introduce it.
  We are working with the Danes on by-catch. I accept the dangers of excessive by-catch as reported in Fishing News. I notice that the Danes suspended the licence of the vessel concerned. That is a draconian power that we do not have in this country, and I was pleased to see the Danes using it.

  565
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) also spoke about scientific advice and withdrawal. It is important that the industry concentrates on quality, not quantity. We want to encourage that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) stressed that the fishing industry has a cultural and social importance. The industry is important to him locally. He raised the issue of the plaice quota, and I was pleased to hear of the responsible attitude of the industry in his area. I shall certainly take that seriously.
  The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) spoke about CFP reform. It is important that we try to address that realistically. At present, all inshore boats must have a licence—we are very keen on that. I understand the pressure for review of the legislation on sea fish committees. I am sympathetic, but it is a question of finding parliamentary time. That discussion will continue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made an excellent speech on the needs of the inshore sector. She spoke about the differences in the horsepower of large vessels and expressed the concerns of fishermen in her area about shellfish licences, although I think that such licences are in their interest. The majority of the inshore sector support them.
  The hon. Member for Angus expressed concern about Arbroath smokies. I should not want them to be threatened in any way. He made an important point about the impact on the onshore industry if supplies were limited.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) made several points, some of which I shall have to deal with on another occasion. There has been enormous interest in the decommissioning scheme; the money will certainly be fully utilised. In fact, it is likely that the scheme will be oversubscribed—as, I suspect, will the Scottish industry scheme.
  I point out to the hon. Member for Congleton—as I did to her predecessors—that it is all very well to talk about national control, but what does it mean? I have never been clear about the meaning of the Conservative concept of national control, and nor has the industry. The industry believes that sensible reform—in which it is engaged—is the way forward. That is why it supports our position and that of other parties.
  We are seeking that reform pragmatically and sensibly. Unless it is undertaken in that way, we should be completely isolate—like the hon. Lady's party during the last Parliament. There would be no support and we would make no progress. I believe that we can address some of the serious weaknesses of the CFP. We can make it better. We can take into account the needs of the industry and bring about that reform.
  It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Downview Prison
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Angela Smith.]
  7 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am very pleased to be able to secure this debate on Her Majesty's prison Downview. The debate is extremely timely this week because it coincides with the retirement of Downview's governor, Mr. Bob Chapman, and it provides an opportunity for me to put on record my appreciation of his service to Downview, its staff and its inmates during the past few difficult weeks and his lifetime's commitment to public service.
  The debate follows a meeting that I had yesterday with the Minister and the Director General of the Prison Service. I have to say, and I suspect that the Minister will agree, that it was perhaps not the most satisfactory meeting that a Member of Parliament will have ever had with the Minister. I hope that the perhaps at times disagreeable tone of our discussions will not be replicated here, and I wish to conduct this debate in that spirit.
  The issue arises because of Downview's change in role from a male to a female prison and the way in which that decision was made and handled by the Prison Service. I want to focus first on the wider issues for the Prison Service that relate to the way in which the decision was handled and then to deal with the specific issues that relate to Downview's future as a prison for female inmates.
  No one disputes the fact that the Government and the Prison Service face a problem in the steady and relentless increase in the number of women sent to prison. The exchange that I had yesterday with the Minister on the number of women prisoners was rather sterile, and I hope that we do not return to that issue in detail; suffice it to say that on the basis of the figures that I have received from the Minister in parliamentary answers, especially on 7 November, there appears to be a relentless increase of about 8 or 9 per cent. in the size of the women prison population, year on year.
  I am slightly concerned that the decision-making process in the Prison Service currently appears to be based on a projected increase of 4.5 per cent. I want to place on record what I said privately to the Minister yesterday: there is a problem for the Minister and the Prison Service, and I hope that they will re-examine it. If they do not do so, the sort of decision making that has led to so many problems at Downview will continue. The problem has also occurred at two other prisons whose role has changed from male to female very recently—at Send and, most recently, at Buckley hall in the north-west.
  I was pleased to have the opportunity to speak directly to the Minister and the director general and to put my concerns directly to them, but I am afraid that my conclusion from that meeting is that serious concerns remain about the way in which the decision-making process works in the Prison Service. Downview illustrates the problem, and it had to deal with its consequences.
  In May this year, the Prison Service was contemplating changing prison roles, and the area manager informed the governor of Downview that it was not one of the prisons being considered. Obviously, it came as a surprise when it was announced by written answer on 17 July that Downview would indeed be re-roled. I understand that the governor had only a week's notice of that decision.

  567
  On the basis of all the information that I have been able obtain, there is no evidence that the director general considered the proper information in coming to that decision, which was formally endorsed by the Minister. There should have been a proper cost-benefit analysis of exactly how much changing the prison's role would cost the Prison Service and therefore the public. I believe that that decision was taken by the higher management, the director general and the Minister in ignorance of the facts on the ground.
  Yesterday, I asked the Minister for the advice, on whatever basis she would like to provide it, that she and the director general received in taking that decision, which was published on 17 July. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some comfort when she replies, because I want to be reassured about the quality of management in the Prison Service. Given all the challenges that the director general and Ministers face in managing the service, I am happy to give Ministers the benefit of the doubt.
  This is a unhappy story. The decision was announced in a written answer on 17 July and, on 25 July, the governor got the staff together to tell them that the prison had to start emptying itself of male prisoners at the beginning of August. That process was to be completed by the end of August. I am informed that pressure was placed on the Prison Service to empty the prison immediately and that some people wanted to send a fleet of buses to move the male prisoners out straight away. Within one month, the prison started to fill up with female prisoners.
  On 3 October, the board of visitors was so concerned that it wrote to the Home Secretary. It also wrote to me to draw my attention to the problem; I regret that it had to do so because the Prison Service did not realise in whose constituency the prison sits. My engagement with the prison has been entirely pro-active since I made a visit to it in 1998. I also went there on a later occasion when I visited it in conjunction with a visit to the prison across the road at High Down. I suspect that I did not receive any information from the Home Office or the Prison Service about Downview because they had failed to plot it in the correct constituency. I hope that that mistake has been put right, and I have accepted the apology that the Minister made on behalf of the Prison Service.
  To a degree, my concern arises out of my visit to the prison in 1998. Category C and category D prisoners were placed alongside each other and the Rehabilitation of Addicted Prisoners Trust—RAPT—programme, which was founded in Downview, was working effectively. Prisoners elsewhere in the prison estate were queuing up to get to Downview to get on to the addiction programmes, to become clean of drugs and to be able to return to society free from the problem that probably resulted in their going to prison in the first place.
  I have been concerned by the changes that have taken place to the prison since 1998 and since 2000 when category C and category D prisoners were no longer placed alongside each other. The institution was working well and I had every reason to believe that it was a flagship for the Prison Service. The then governor, Colin Lambert, frequently appeared at events—not least, here in the House—to promote the RAPT programme and the
  568
  excellent education and rehabilitation work that took place in the prison. I had no reason to believe that it did not represent a decoration for the Prison Service.
  Tragically, things began to change when the Prison Service began to remove category D prisoners from the prison and to turn it into solely a category C prison. The desire of people to get on and through the programmes has regrettably changed in the past year as a younger cohort of prisoners go into the prison.
  The chief inspector of prisons noted that, in the wake of those decisions, the Prison Service had not seemed to have identified properly a clear role for the prison. It is a great shame that the Prison Service did not, at a senior level, understand just how effective an institution it had in Downview. That partially explains why I am so exercised by the decision to take it out of the male estate and away from the role that it had so successfully pursued.
  The real concern, however, is about the cack-handed way in which the Prison Service managed the change. To give people in a prison private notice of only one week about its change in role is unacceptable. That is not just my view; it is the view of the board of visitors. In its report on Downview to the Home Secretary, it said:
  "We consider this to be gross mismanagement on the part of the Prison Service, displaying total lack of concern, and indeed contempt, for human issues. Whilst we fully accept the need to adapt to a changing population, such changes can not have occurred almost overnight. Assuming there is any planning at all at Head Office, it would seem reasonable to conclude that it gives itself the luxury of time and then expects the people at operational level to act almost instantaneously."
  It goes on to say:
  "All this is now, with no warning, being followed by a complete change of direction at breakneck speed. We consider this to be an extreme example of poor strategic management on the part of the Prison Service."
  I wholly agree with that conclusion.
  From what I have seen—I hope that this impression is corrected—the decision-making process inside the Prison Service is centralised and autocratic, and responds almost directly to crisis management. At the moment, I do not have confidence in the management of the Prison Service. I know that the director general has just been reappointed. I hope that the Minister, and the director general in the years to come, will reassure me that my lack of confidence in the Prison Service management, especially with regard to the two prisons in my constituency, is misplaced.
  The victims of the Prison Service's decisions are the staff and the inmates. I note that the director general has given a reassurance that all the male inmates who were so rapidly displaced from Downview have completed their programmes of education and rehabilitation at other institutions. I have tabled a written parliamentary question on that. As the director general has given me an answer, I look forward to the Department confirming that that is the case.
  I want to express my gratitude to the Minister for the compliment that she paid the governor and the staff on the way in which they coped with the decision that the Prison Service imposed on them. In her letter to me of 13 November, she said:
  "I am extremely grateful to the Governor and his staff for the efficient and professional way in which the changes are being implemented."

  569
  I am sure that the governor is grateful for her kind words.
  For my own part, I very much regret the retirement of Bob Chapman in the middle of the process this week. The timing is most unfortunate. I understand that the staff equally regret that, and that they gave him a generous and moving send-off. I commend them for the support that they gave him in the past difficult months. I am sure that they will continue to give that support to the new governor in the months ahead.
  Let me turn to the future challenge for Downview. One of the satisfactory outcomes of my meeting with the Minister and the director general yesterday was the director general's promise that in three years' time Downview will be a state-of-the-art prison for female inmates. I hope that the Minister will confirm that.
  I want the Minister to address specific issues that affect Downview. There is real concern about the suicide risk among women prisoners. They are at greater risk of suicide than male prisoners. Apparently some 40 per cent. of female inmates are identified as being at risk of suicide or self-harm. That is a particular interest of Jean Casale, the mother of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale), who is in the Chamber. I commend her for the work that she has done.
  I also commend the work of the rest of the board of visitors, led by Simon Morrison and Terry Cushing who accompanied me when I visited the prison on 26 October. They do an unpaid and unsung job, which is of critical importance to our community and, in particular, the prisoners.
  On the future of Downview, will the Minister confirm that the prison will be a local prison, taking remand and recently sentenced women prisoners, which is what it was designed to be when the director general took his decision, on the basis of its location? The director general will be all too aware, as is the Minister, of the requirement to get the prison into proper shape so that it can carry out that role. The first thing that I want is for the Minister to confirm that that will be its role. Will she also confirm that C wing, which has two thirds of the prison's capacity, will be emptied so that it can be properly rebuilt and turned into state-of-the-art accommodation for women prisoners, as the director general promised?
  In my judgment, the comparison between High Down, across the road from Downview, makes it clear that if Downview is to become a local prison, it will need a new reception centre. I do not believe that the existing facilities are adaptable, and I would be grateful for the Minister's confirmation that she will examine that issue. The medical centre and prisoners' health requirements have been of grave concern to the board of visitors, and I hope that the Minister is able to reassure me that there will be proper, separate health provision for women inmates, who, on average, need more health care than male prisoners.
  When will the Prison Service reach the stage at which it no longer requires detached duty officers to serve at Downview, as they have done for the past few months, at some considerable expense to the service? May I draw to the Minister's attention the condition of the buildings that house the education facilities? They are temporary buildings with a roof that leaks on to IT equipment, which is obviously not satisfactory. Frankly, they need rebuilding if this is to become a state-of-the-art facility.
  I am grateful to have had the attention of the director general and the Minister focused on the prison, and I hope that that will continue until the work to turn it into a
  570
  state-of-the-art institution is complete, which, with the scale of rebuilding that is required, will take two or three years. I wholly regret the way in which the decision was reached, and I hope that lessons have been learned.
  7.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): I welcome the opportunity to put on record some of the facts surrounding the issues raised by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) in this debate and, more publicly, on previous occasions. As he said, I have had several brief discussions with him and provided information in answer to a number of parliamentary questions. Yesterday, the director general and I met him to discuss some of his main concerns. Although I shall try to answer some of his additional questions, I have nothing to add to the facts, but as I said, I welcome the opportunity to put them on record.
  I repeat to the hon. Gentleman publicly what I said to him yesterday and previously. Notwithstanding his remarks, to which I shall turn in a moment, I welcome his great interest in the prisons in his constituency. That is not something that every Member of Parliament demonstrates, and I do not criticise him for expressing his concerns; indeed, as I said, I welcome that interest. However, his interest does not entitle him to make wider allegations about management and decision making in the Prison Service. He may reach a conclusion from the limited perspective of his concern about a prison, but the director general and I have to take into account the condition of women prisoners throughout the prison estate and the Prison Service more generally. The hon. Gentleman needs to understand the decision in that context.
  The hon. Gentleman knows that it is essential to change prison accommodation from male to female to provide sufficient spaces for the increasing number of women who, as he acknowledged, are being committed to custody by the courts. Downview was selected on the basis of a range of criteria, including not only its geographical location relative to where in the country the demand for places was arising, but the availability of female staff and the ability to relocate the existing male population. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the Prison Service did not know of the quality of Downview as a prison for men. Clearly, the Prison Service was aware of that, as was I, but the factors that had to be taken into account to meet this need were many and varied, and decisions were not taken in the absence of knowledge about Downview.
  Unfortunately, the demand for prison places for women, which represents about 11 per cent. of all places between May 2000 and May 2001, increased sharply again in the middle of this year, with the result that Downview had to take in women prisoners faster than the Prison Service would have liked or, indeed, was planning for. That meant that, once the decision had been taken, there was no alternative to moving women prisoners in before all the desirable works had been completed. Those included some redecoration, changes to bathing and sanitation arrangements, the extension of in-cell electricity, and staff recruitment. I am glad to say that the changes to in-cell sanitation and much of the refurbishment have been completed. A suitable mix of male and female staff, including those with experience of working with women, has been achieved, as the hon. Gentleman says, by transferring staff from elsewhere on a temporary basis.

  571
  The hon. Gentleman concludes from his experience at Downview that the haste resulted from mismanagement by the Prison Service, which should have foreseen the need and managed it better. As I said to him yesterday, although I accept that part of the process of change was not as we would have wanted, the reasons for it were outside the control of the Prison Service and were not due to mismanagement.
  In the three months between July and September, in the context of a general upward trend, the number of women in prison rose by 7 per cent. That represents an annualised increase of 30 per cent. That sharp increase, on top of an existing upward trend, was totally unexpected. The Prison Service had no indication that that would happen. The hon. Gentleman expressed surprise yesterday, but that can be the pace at which cumulative sentencing decisions make themselves known to us. The Prison Service is required to accept those prisoners committed to custody by the courts. We must make the best arrangements that we can, sometimes in difficult circumstances, to increase the availability of places—in this case, women's place—as a matter of urgency.
  The alternative of increasing overcrowding elsewhere in the prison estate was not acceptable because of the lack of privacy and the risk to the safety of women prisoners that it would present. As it was, women from the south-east of England were being sent to the far north of England, away from their families. That is another factor that we had to take into account. It would have been equally unacceptable to resort to the use of police cells for women prisoners, because of conditions, the lack of a regime of activities, the diversion of police resources, and so on. The alternatives were examined and found to be unacceptable across a range of objectives, including decency and contact with family.
  The seasonal slowdown that we usually experience in December is just beginning. The population at Downview has allowed us to stop taking new prisoners for the past two weeks—the first time that the rate of increase has allowed us any respite. In response to one of the hon. Gentleman's questions, I can confirm that we expect to be able to empty C wing quickly to allow the recruitment of permanent staff and the completion of works, subject to the population trend for December continuing as we expect.
  Roger Casale: I understand that there were serious problems with the transition from a male to a female prison at Downview, and I am grateful for the action that my hon. Friend took after I, too, raised the matter in a written question. Through my mother, Mrs. Jean Casale, who is also my constituent and a member of the board of visitors, and Simon Morrison, the chair of the board of visitors, I have kept in regular contact about the situation at the prison. I am grateful for the steps that my hon. Friend has immediately taken. I understand that the situation is improving, to the extent that some women prisoners were offered the chance to go to another prison, but declined and said that they wanted to stay. There are important lessons for us to learn for the future from the experience of Downview. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) for raising the matter.
  Beverley Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend. He, too, has raised the issue with me informally, and I know that he has taken a close interest in it. I am grateful for his interest and his remarks.
  With regard to the consequences for some of the male prisoners relocated from Downview, the transfer would clearly result in some disruption to their sentence planning. Of course, we regret that, but I can tell the hon. Member for Reigate and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) that, as far as possible, all prisoners were given the opportunity to express a preference for relocation. We had additional recategorisation boards and about 50 men were recategorised to category D. No prisoners had their security category increased as a result; as a temporary measure, a substantial group were moved to Wormwood Scrubs, where they were accommodated in a separate wing.
  I know that the hon. Member for Reigate is anxious that prisoners moved from Downview should not be prevented from completing any rehabilitation or education programmes that they were following. As he said, he has tabled a question on the matter, which is of immense concern to me too. He will understand that it will take some time to collate the information and I am not in a position to give him a detailed response today. However, we are putting the material together and I shall reply to him in due course.
  The hon. Gentleman made two points about what he felt was the mismanagement of the process by the Prison Service. He talked about the use of projections and the decision-making process. As I said yesterday, projections are not an exact science, but are produced as rigorously as possible by the Home Office. They are produced by independent statisticians, not Prison Service statisticians, who produce three variants—high, low and central—for us.
  The population trend in relation to projections is closely monitored and contingency plans are always in place and are periodically reviewed. It is not a matter of us not having plans in place and being surprised by changes in trends. Contingency plans are in place. Indeed, yesterday we detailed for the hon. Gentleman extensive plans for extra women's places, new prisons, new ready-to-use units and so on. In addition, we have had to re-role Downview and a number of other prisons. I explained to the hon. Gentleman that decision making is a robust and systematic process. The decision to re-role a prison is not taken lightly. The criteria for decision making and the way in which the process is executed are not unique to Downview, but are systematically applied to any similar situation. Downview, therefore, is no exception.
  I wish to join the hon. Gentleman in his congratulations to the staff, who have coped magnificently with the process of change. I accept that many members of staff are unsettled by the process, but I know that they have responded to demands and put the interests of prisoners first. However, I do not accept that the way that staff were treated was an abuse of authority or was overly centralised. Prison officers are subject to transfers as a condition of their employment; that is essential to make sure that we have the necessary flexibility to cater for the demands on the Prison Service. I make no apologies for that.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the important concern of health care. He is right that women's health care issues are different from men's. Indeed, the incidence, not of suicide, but certainly self-harm, is different. Since the

  573
  prison re-roled, 35 prisoners have been identified as at risk, although there have been only 10 recorded incidents of self-harm. The staff have had to grapple with the issue of the difference between men and women. The population of women at Downview is similar to other populations of women prisoners; there is no over-representation of self-harm incidents as a result of the move. We are watching closely the impact on individual women.
  We plan that Downview should be an excellent women's prison. If the hon. Gentleman visits other women's prisons like Styal, he will see what we are
  574
  aiming for. I have told him that C wing will be emptied. He mentioned education and reception facilities. I am aware of deficiencies in those buildings, and we are looking closely at those issues. On detached duty and recruitment, we will need staff on detached duty until we are able to complete the recruitment process. However, we are pressing on with that and I am confident that, in a few months, we will be in a position to have permanent staff at Downview.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Yugoslavia
[Relevant documents: Fourth Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2000–01, HC 246, and the Government's response thereto, CM 5220.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
2.30 pm
Donald Anderson: It gives me great pleasure to open this debate on the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, published in March, on Government policy towards the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the wider region following the fall of Mr. Milosevic. Indeed the Committee was in the region the previous year and visited Kosovo and Montenegro, but was unable then to visit Serbia. It was indeed Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark, but we have since repaired that omission. On reflection, so many significant developments have taken place since March, when our predecessor Committee published its report, that it all seems such a long time ago.
In the course of its inquiry, the Committee heard evidence from a panel of independent experts, including Charles Crawford, the excellent British ambassador in Belgrade, the European Commissioner for External Affairs, Chris Patten, as well as the then Minister of State for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). In February, the Committee visited Belgrade, where we were fortunate to meet, among many others, Federal President Vojislav Kostunica and the Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic.
Two Members of the Committee left the main party to visit Kosovo, which the Committee as a whole previously visited in March 2000. The rest of us visited Novi Sad, a remarkable middle-European city and the capital of the Vojvodina region, where we were able to see for ourselves the damage inflicted by NATO bombardments on the bridges over the Danube and the regional television station. I was delighted to learn during the past few days that an agreement has been reached between the Danube Commission and the Yugoslav Government to allow the final phase of the de-mining and clearance of the Danube to go ahead. Indeed, the removal of debris is expected to be achieved by mid-2002, which will be a major contribution to the integration of the region.
The Foreign Affairs Committee in this Parliament has kept a watchful eye on developments in Yugoslavia and the wider region. We received a detailed memorandum from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office only a few days ago. That has been reported to the House and copies have been placed in the Library. A week ago today, we were delighted to renew our acquaintance with President Kostunica during his visit to London.
The background to the report scarcely needs reiterating. For much of the 1990s, western Governments appeared uncertain whether President
140WH
Slobodan Milosevic was the problem, or whether he was part of the solution to the many crises in the region as the old Yugoslavia unravelled. Indeed, historians will point out a number of key mistakes made by western Governments during that time. The decisive turning point came with the Kosovo conflict, the programme of ethnic cleansing and the subsequent indictment of Milosevic for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in May 1999.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Has there been any progress on indicting anyone in Kosovo for the second wave of ethnic cleansing—the Serbs, the Roma, the Gorani and the others who were driven out by the KLA when NATO ceased bombing?
Donald Anderson: I am certainly not aware of any indictments that have been laid by the ICT at The Hague in respect of Kosovo, but that is entirely a matter for the tribunal; if the evidence is available it should be followed through.
In response to the new situation, Britain and the European Union evolved a twin-track approach towards Yugoslavia, aimed at isolating the Milosevic regime and encouraging democratic and economic reform in Serbia. Our Committee concluded in the report that the approach was a success. Support by the Government was well judged, both for targeted European Union sanctions against Yugoslavia and for encouragement of the democratic opposition to Milosevic. The Committee felt that that strategy could provide a useful model for dealing with autocratic regimes elsewhere in the world.
The main thrust of the Committee's report looked to the future and the Government's action to help maintain peace and prosperity in the region. That inevitably concentrated on not only Serbia, but Montenegro and Kosovo, which are largely self-governing areas but remain in their different ways parts of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The report also commented on events in Macedonia, which at the time showed worrying signs of developing into a regional flashpoint. Indeed, paragraph 2 of the Government's reply to the report emphasised the key differences between their policy and the Committee's consensus, stating:
"However, the Government does not agree with the Committee that UK/Western policy is based on two 'unreal' assumptions: that Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo can continue to exist in one state; and that Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo can build a multiethnic community."
Within Serbia, the Committee identified four principal areas of concern, which were the economy, the unclear division of responsibility between the federal and Serbian Governments, co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal at The Hague and extremism in the Presevo valley.
The Committee found that for once there was general praise for the European Union for its assistance on the economy. Yugoslavia faces the problems of reconstruction and transition following more than a decade of isolation and economic sanctions, as well as the burden of a massive national debt. In the longer term, however, as Yugoslav politicians realise, the aim must be to move away from reliance on aid towards self-sufficiency. Although aid is important in providing basic

141WH
needs and reconstruction in the initial, transitional phase, the longer-term priority is to get the policy framework right and attract significant private investment. Given Yugoslavia's history, it has proper foundations on which to build.
The danger of sudden economic reform is that the most disadvantaged elements of the population suffer. That is why the Committee recommended that the Foreign Office examine the current disposition of EU humanitarian and economic funding. I also welcome the Government's continuing input into the form and content of the CARDS country strategy paper for Yugoslavia, the £3.4 million given by the Government to pay arrears of welfare benefits and the commitment of £5 million towards paying family welfare benefits during the next three years.
On paper, the federal structure duplicates many functions at federal and republican levels, which causes confusion about where real power lies and creates competition between different authorities. The constitutional powers of federal positions do not reflect the authority wielded by their incumbents. In practice, the federal Government's writ runs only barely in Montenegro and only nominally in Kosovo. The powers of the federal and Serbian Governments largely extend over identical territories. It was clear during the Committee's visit that President Kostunica and Prime Minister Djindjic had different approaches on several issues. Clarification of the future of the federation is crucial for the effective governance of Serbia, as well as for the political stabilisation of Montenegro and Kosovo.
The International Criminal Tribunal at the Hague aims to ensure that suspected war criminals of all ethnic backgrounds are brought to trial for the crimes committed in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), Kosovo is certainly within its remit. When the Committee's report was published, Milosevic himself was still ensconced in Belgrade. Numerous voices there claimed that to send him to The Hague for trial would make him a hero at home and potentially destabilise Serbian society. Milosevic is in The Hague under arrest and, if anything, his popularity in Serbia seems to have decreased even further. Events have moved on and so, it seems, have the people of Serbia with their new European aspirations.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): I do not really want to talk about Milosevic, but I had the opportunity, a year ago, to visit Bosnia with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It was interesting to examine how the forces were trying to arrest war criminals, known as Pifwics, which stands for persons indicted for war crimes. How long does the hon. Gentleman—the report does not dwell on the matter for very long—think British troops should remain in such roles? We should consider not only how we conduct peacekeeping operations, but how we bring international justice to the appropriate quarters.
Donald Anderson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his observations. It is clearly of enormous importance that those responsible for war crimes should be brought
142WH
to justice. It is true that our own forces have played a significant, leading role in that. The only answer that I can give is that so long as there is a serious hope of laying hold of those responsible for those crimes, we should be there doing that job. There appears to be a growing awareness that a country can be purged of responsibility for crimes committed in its name only if the individuals actually responsible for those crimes are brought to justice.
The Committee was keen to stress that domestic trials could not be substituted for trials at The Hague. No Bosnian Muslim or Kosovar Albanian witness should be expected to testify in Belgrade. On the other hand, it is crucial that the international tribunal be seen to be scrupulously impartial. That was one of the Committee's main concerns. Developments in the Presevo valley are encouraging. The Committee was fully supportive of the Covic plan to resolve the crisis peacefully. For Yugoslavia to be accepted back into the fold of western democracies, it is crucial that the Government in Belgrade address the grievances of minority groups, such as those referred to by my hon. Friend, and recognise the need to solve political problems by political means—as they seem to be doing.
Montenegro is the other constituent state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but to all intents and purposes has been autonomous since the mid-1990s. The writ of the federal Government only runs in Montenegro in respect of the armed forces and air traffic control. The British Government have repeatedly told the Foreign Affairs Committee that a unilateral declaration of independence by Montenegro could destabilise the region. The Committee was not convinced of this, but was convinced that a positive neighbourly relationship between Serbia and Montenegro was in the interests of both. President Kostunica stressed that to us last week. He has a vision of a rather minimalist federal structure covering foreign affairs, defence and macro-economic matters, but with major devolution. European Union High Representative Solana has been seeking to build bridges between both sides.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: To return to the question of ethnic minorities in Serbia, did the Committee examine ethnic minorities in and around Belgrade? Are there any Albanians in Belgrade and if so, do any of them hold positions of responsibility there? Was there any investigation of the position of the Muslims in Sandzak, a region of Serbia?
Donald Anderson: We did not specifically address those issues. However, the more that minority rights are respected in the new democracy of Serbia, the more Serbia will be ready to be fully accepted into the European comity of nations. That is a challenge for the new Government in Serbia, given all the tensions and pressures that draw people into their ethnic enclaves.
Events have moved on since our report was published. The minority, pro-independence Government in Montenegro seems determined to proceed to a referendum on independence, and many Serbian politicians seem content to let that happen. It would be useful to know how the Government intend to respond to a referendum.

143WH
The Committee was concerned about inefficiencies in the international administration in Kosovo. In their recent memorandum, the Government outlined positive and welcome moves to improve the morale of United Nations staff and strengthen law and order. Alas, Kosovo's status is an unsatisfactory fudge and will remain so for some time. However, the alternatives are worse. Independence would destabilise the region, while reintegration with Serbia is not on the practical agenda. The success of moderate ethnic Albanians in the recent elections and the relatively high level of participation among the Serb minority are welcome signs of growing inclusiveness and the rejection of violence, which we all hope will persist. President Kostunica told the Committee last week that all the peoples of the region must abandon any idea of living in ethnically pure states. He said that there should be no greater Serbia and no greater Albania. I am sure that my colleagues on the Committee agree with that.
When the Committee published its report, Macedonia was showing worrying signs of descending into the sort of inter-ethnic violence that had plagued much of the rest of the former Yugoslavia. The Committee recommended that the British Government take the most urgent steps to galvanise the international community into bringing the situation under control and countering Albanian extremist violence against Macedonia, much of which was coming across the border from Kosovo. It is heartening that the international community has learned some of the lessons of Bosnia and Kosovo and that the threat of widespread interethnic violence seems so far to have been averted. We all have before us images of the violence in the former Yugoslavia, in places such as Srebrenica, Mostar and Vukovar. The Macedonian Government must be held to their commitment to guarantee all their citizens equal rights. Ethnic Albanian leaders must be held to their commitment to join the political process and not resort to arms. I commend the speed of NATO's response on the surveying of weapons decommissioning in Macedonia. The operation was highly successful.
Finally, I commend the conclusions of our report and the Government's response. In paragraph 190, we made it clear that during
"the last decade more than 90,000 have been killed in the Balkan wars and civil conflicts. At one time or another more than 4.5 million people have been displaced from their homes. NATO has been compelled to go to war for the first time in its history. More than 70,000 international troops, including 6,900 from the United Kingdom, maintain peace in Bosnia and Kosovo. This is certainly not a 'quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.'
Events in the Balkans cannot be separated from European security."
Although threats remain and economic difficulties will not be easily surmounted, there are real signs of hope in the region. Those include the development of a democratic and reform-minded Government in Belgrade, the opening of the Danube, the positive vote in the Macedonian Parliament and the result of the elections in Kosovo.
The United Kingdom and the international community must commit themselves fully to supporting the democratisation and economic reform that will enable the region to move beyond the narrow-minded
144WH
ethnic divisions that have caused such suffering and tragedy. It is right, and in our national interest, for there to be stability within European borders and, in time, for those borders to extend outwards as Europe, and indeed NATO, welcome new partners in the European family.
2.49 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: It is a great personal pleasure for me to follow the speech of the distinguished Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson). I unreservedly applaud him and all the members of the Committee for producing the report. It is a valuable contribution to our understanding of the Balkans and it sets the tone for discussions of the future pattern there.
The Committee has made a positive contribution to the debate about the future of the region, and particularly the role that the United Kingdom Government can play in assisting with the complex political issues that arise there. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the terrible catalogue of displacement and slaughter that has taken place in the Balkans in the past few years. That has been a matter of international concern. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to discuss some background before dealing with the specifics of the report.
After the Balkan wars, the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the then Foreign Secretary, said:
"The Balkans do not need another tragic round of revenge killings. We must break the cycle of violence that perpetuates ethnic hatred and fear."—[Official Report, 17 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 585.]
We support that sentiment and recognise the contribution made by the United Kingdom, through bilateral and multilateral action, to the establishment of a democratic Government in Belgrade. However, some questions that we have raised in the past two and a half years remain unanswered. Of course, it would be absurd to suggest that there is an immediate solution to the situation in the Balkans, given the history and tensions. There is too much historical baggage for simple answers, but Britain is a major military player in the former Yugoslavia. British forces were central to the NATO-led implementation force IFOR, which was in turn succeeded, after UNPROFOR, by the stabilisation force, SFOR. In the more recent past we need only think of the role played by British troops in attempting to secure peace in Macedonia.
The situation in the Balkans is fluid. In the seven months since the report was released, there have been welcome, historic, elections in Kosovo, constitutional amendments in Macedonia and an end to the United Nations Security Council arms embargo against the federal republic.
Mrs. Mahon: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the second set of elections in Kosovo, in which voter turnout dropped and extremist parties obtained 30 per cent. of the vote—an increase on last year?
Mr. Spring: The hon. Lady is right. To suggest that there is any simple solution to the Kosovo problem

145WH
would be absurd. The growth—or existence—of any kind of extremism is a matter of regret, but it is not, given the history, entirely surprising. All that we can do is to hope that moderation and good sense prevail in the unhappy circumstances that still exist.
To make the peace a long-term one, the international community must work towards a framework, from which a consensus on long-term stability in the region can emerge among the Balkan countries, however difficult, and international players. We have long called for a policy that, rather than focusing on each individual state, would adopt a broad, embodying approach to the region. That way of thinking echoes sentiments recorded in the Committee's findings.
In its conclusion the Committee stated that what happens in Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Kosovo matters, and influences European security and stability. That is a crucial observation and echoes what the right hon. Gentleman said in his remarks. I pay tribute to the Minister for his interest and involvement in what happens in the region. There has in the past been criticism of what has happened and we should perhaps gently pass that by, but the interest that the Minister has shown in the area, on behalf of the Government, is appreciated. For our interest to wane once more would be a tragedy for the region, and such neglect might have implications for all that has been achieved so far.
Only five days after the report was published, a landmark in the political evolution of the Balkans was reached. Slobadan Milosevic was arrested and, in June, was extradited to The Hague to face the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. He inflicted terrible harm on his own people, masterminding a programme of ethnic cleansing throughout the western Balkans, so it is right that he should be brought to book.
We welcome the encouragement provided by the United Kingdom Government to the democratic opposition to Milosevic during the election campaign and subsequent transition period. The trial of Milosevic is a test of the integrity of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. We welcome the progress made to date and, in the face of Milosevic's defiant words, his trial must be seen to deliver impartial justice, as I am sure that it will. The voluntary surrender of Halilovic to the International Criminal Tribunal showed that the tribunal has the potential to deal with injustice in the region. Therefore, we hope that it will be a success and complement the role of domestic courts.
The hundreds of millions of dollars of aid received by the federal republic since April are proving crucial in rebuilding the country's battered economy. However, I recently saw reports of concerns about the living standards of many in the region, most notably in Serbia, and I welcome the fact that the Danube is to be cleared. On 20 November, a letter appeared in The Times from the European Commissioner Lord Patten. When adding to his comments on the clearing of the Danube, he said:
"Last year we took action to open the EU market to exports from the Balkans. And we are negotiating legally binding agreements with each country, which will help them to implement political and economic reforms and to achieve, over time, the fullest possible integration into the European mainstream. The EU has said clearly that all the countries of the Western Balkans are potential candidates for EU membership."
146WH
I am sure that all hon. Members would applaud those sentiments and welcome those observations.
The Committee noted in March that the growing tension and violence in Macedonia had a frighteningly similar pattern to that in Bosnia. Instability in Macedonia has proved a great threat to the region. I express our sorrow at the death of sapper Ian Collins, who died trying to restore peace to the region, and welcome a full investigation into his death. Macedonia must simply not be allowed to disintegrate into another Kosovo, Bosnia or Croatia, which would constitute a massive reverse for the United Nations, the European Union and NATO, as the report observed.
A strong international presence in Macedonia proved crucial in supporting the Government and deterring rebels. It remains important that the Kosovar Albanians do everything possible to ensure that ethnic Albanians end terrorist activities in Macedonia. We should remain unequivocal in our support for the Government of Macedonia, which is democratic, legitimate and endeavours to protect the interests of the Albanian minority. It should be little wonder that many Macedonians protested in June when Francois Leotard, the EU representative in Macedonia, stated that the Macedonian Government must hold talks with Albanian guerrillas. That is a difficult problem.
On the point of concern that NATO has not acted rapidly or effectively enough to prevent the flow of arms and men across the border from Kosovo to Macedonia, I remind hon. Members that NATO has been a prominent force for peace in the Balkans for a long time. NATO facilitated a situation wherein the strongest and boldest nations could play to their strength, while accepting that others had different sorts of capabilities. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that NATO must remain at the heart of the debate about European security.
The Committee concludes that Montenegro has the right to seek independence. The decision to recognise the state is a matter for other states to consider, but we must not deny the people of Montenegro an independence for which they voted in free and fair elections.
Javier Solana, the EU High Representative, recently said that Montenegro's chances of gaining entry into the EU would be harmed if it left the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The matter is difficult and I am not clear exactly what he meant in that regard. To echo Lord Patten's comments in the letter, if that is the route that is ultimately taken, I hope and believe it will be possible in the fullness of time to embrace it into the European Union.
Some Members have argued that an independent Montenegro would provoke instability, but the Committee concluded that the problems caused by Montenegrin independence would be slight when compared with other factors contributing to regional instability. I understand that the Serbian and Yugoslav Governments have said that they will accept a legal and peaceful declaration of independence by Montenegro, although there may be an argument about some processes of devolution. I certainly support the Committee's conclusions on Montenegro.
The Committee links the issues of Montenegro and Kosovo. We have long argued that Kosovo's independence, or something close to that, is probably,

147WH
ultimately the only feasible solution, although it is fraught with considerable difficulty. It is a province that has suffered immeasurably, so it is of little surprise that the Committee stated that
"there is no possibility of any form of association between Kosovo and Serbia for the foreseeable future beyond that which already exists."
That bears out the fact that a different approach, backed by the international community, may be needed in Kosovo.
In the light of the desire of all factions to build stability in the region, I urge the Government, as the Committee suggests, to investigate the fate of those Serbs missing in Kosovo. That is important in demonstrating that equality and democracy are alive in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I also urge the Minister to pay heed to the recommendation that the Government should attach a very high priority to providing assistance for the development of an independent and free media in Serbia. We have all too often seen how a free and fair media is central to democracy and stability, and it is an important element for the future democratic development of Serbia.
In conclusion, the conflicts in Kosovo and Macedonia have constituted the latest festering sores on the political landscape of the Balkans. If they are to be the last, the international community must play a facilitating role in the future development of the region. The Committee concluded that the real positive hope for the future of the region will be the development of a democratic and economically reformed Serbian Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I would add that in the Balkans instability breeds instability and always has. We must try to break that cycle. The fall of Slobodan Milosevic and the process of the trial is only a piece, albeit a large piece, in that jigsaw. We have long argued—the Committee's report demonstrates this—that for stability to be achieved in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the international community must adopt a policy that broadly embodies and encompasses an approach to the whole region.
3.2 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I congratulate the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on its excellent report. Members of the Committee who are present will forgive me if I make the obvious point that it would have been much better if we had debated the report when it came out, particularly as it covers such a fast-changing region as the Balkans, and we have had a general election since its publication. One of the difficulties of commenting on the former Yugoslavia is the extraordinary pace of change not only since the report was published but since the Foreign Office responded to it. In some aspects, we are now a long way from the circumstances then.
I want to go back a little further. It is always possible to say that many things are going wrong, but in fact many things are now going right as well—it is important to record that—partly as a result of the international community's action. The history of the region and its future would have been radically different had there not been such intense activity by the international community. We should place on record our strong approval of the activities of NATO and, more generally,
148WH
of other international institutions such as the European Union and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
In 1995—I offer it as a largely arbitrary point half way through the previous decade—optimists would have described Slovenia as a success in the wake of the break-up of Yugoslavia. Ironically, Macedonia might have been next in line for applause. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), who is Chairman of the Select Committee, asked whether Milosevic was seen at the time as the problem or the solution. I had some involvement in the region, and I doubt whether anyone saw Milosevic as the solution. The region was dominated by President Tudjman of Croatia, and if anyone deserved to appear before the war crimes tribunal alongside Milosevic, it was him. I regret to say, however, that he did not.
At that time, anyone would have said that it was impossible to put Bosnia back together, and that its ethnic, religious and other divisions were so intense that it could never make a viable nation in its own right. However, matters have moved forward. Milosevic has gone, Tudjman has long gone and Croatia is arguably a success story. There is a message in Croatia's progress that the rest of the region should bear in mind. During the time of Tudjman and afterwards, it was made clear to Croatia that it would pay a price if it failed to accept a road map to Europe, and that it would be recognised and welcomed if it took a different course to that which it was taking. That had two consequences, one of which was very important. It emboldened some in Croatia to stand up and say that the activities of the Tudjman Government were not in Croatia's interests.
Even during times when the level of control is not what we would want or accept, it is important that we give the strong message to those who oppose such regimes that there are different rewards for different kinds of futures. I strongly endorse the Select Committee's important observation that the role of the free press is fundamental in building democratic institutions in the region. However, it is important that the people of the region be able to discuss their future in the knowledge that there is a proper road map to the Europe of which the region is rightly a part, and from which it can benefit in the longer term. As the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) said, there is no doubt that the European Union and other European institutions beckon for those in the region who are prepared to take such steps.
Bosnia is no longer the basket case it once was. There is now multi-ethnic co-operation, and that is an issue on which I want to concentrate for a few moments. It would help if the Minister could put on the record his own view on where Bosnia is going, and on the problems as well as the successes. Bosnia is still undergoing enormous transformation, but it remains very important to the rest of the region. If Bosnia can get it right, we can dispel the myth of a Balkans that must always have splits and ethnic division. Ironically, that is a very glib reading of the region's history.
Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend might be interested in a summary on Bosnia that we received last weekend from Gary Dempsey, of the Cato Institute in Washington. He said that he was very sceptical about Bosnia. Although billions have been invested, it is still run as a

149WH
protectorate and people have many fewer rights than they had before. The advice that we received was that it was a failed experiment and that the people, and the international community, were not good at nation building.
Mr. Lloyd: I can think of no time when there were not those who were prepared to say of Bosnia, "It's too difficult to handle, let's redraw the Dayton map, or rip it up and move towards mono-ethnic solutions." The problem with mono-ethnic solutions is that they would leave the Balkans made up not of countries recognisable by today's standards but of tiny, ethnically pure enclaves. It would be a Balkans not of countries but of cantons. If my hon. Friend thinks that it is difficult to put a Bosnia back together, she should think about how a region of such cantons could be put back together. That would be massively difficult and not in the interests of stability in the region or more generally.
Mr. Wareing: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most ethnically mixed country in the former Yugoslavia is Serbia itself?
Mr. Lloyd: I do not particularly want to look down my hon. Friend's ethnic kaleidoscope, because I do not think that that would be very helpful. Of course Serbia is ethnically mixed; Sandzak and Vojvodina have been mentioned and some ethnic minorities living in Serbia suffered brutally under previous Belgrade Governments. The future, however, for Serbia and Yugoslavia is as a multi-ethnic country. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that multi-ethnicity must be made to work in Serbia.
Multi-ethnicity must also be made to work in Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia and, although I will not go into the legal structures, Kosovo. There is no future for any of us if we begin to pick and choose which side we are on and which ethnic groups will be the inheritors. Montenegro itself is multi-ethnic. We must say to all parties that there can be no truck with those who look for ethnic solutions. Those days are long gone in the Balkans, and there can be no long-term future that way.
There is a future if we can—I hear the despairing voices—play a part in building a Bosnia with multi-ethnic institutions and politicians who are beginning to grow up. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) made a point about the rise of the extremists in democratic elections in Kosovo. I ask her to cast her mind back to not many years ago when people were saying the same about Bosnia. It was divided, with the extremists in control of almost every part. Since then, Bosnia's people in each ethnic community have begun to say, "No, hang on, that is not a future for us. We are not prepared to have truck with the lunatics who did so much damage to the country." Increasing numbers of Bosnia's people are saying that they want to work with, and will vote for, politicians who campaign on the basis of being part of a multi-ethnic and multi-institutional solution.
Hope for the future lies in saying that those who want to work with civilised, acceptable, democratic values will get support from Governments such as the British
150WH
Government and from the institutions on which Britain and the European Union have influence. That is the right and proper message to give.
There is a similar situation in Macedonia. The international community's work has been tremendously important there. I was at a meeting yesterday at which the High Representative spoke. Questions were put to him by Macedonians and others about the failure of European institutions to put Macedonia back on a firm footing. He rightly pointed out force-fully to all concerned that not many months ago when civil war was on the agenda in Macedonia the international community's work prevented the outbreak of a war that could have seen the whole region consumed by bloodshed.
Of course some unacceptable things took place, but the international community responded rapidly and with certainty about what it wanted to achieve. That is a model of how we should behave as good citizens in this common Europe. On record, I want to congratulate our Government and other Governments. The role that the Germans played in succeeding the British in their peacekeeping role should also be noted. That was a difficult decision for the German people, but they took that step because they recognised that, in modern Europe, Germany must move away from its past to a different future.
I strongly share the view that we must send signals to the whole region that we believe that its future is in the European family and that long-term membership of the European Union is important for each country. That is an important signal to send, but it must be given with the condition that those who want to split up the region will not gain support. That is why I disagree with the Select Committee's conclusions on Montenegro. It would be far more rational to give the signals that I have suggested to the people of Montenegro. Let none of us believe that the issue was ethnicity in Montenegro; it has a huge Serb minority and a mixed population.
One could hold a romantic view of a Montenegro that was once independent, but that is some time in the past. It is more plausible to talk of the future and understand that it would be dangerous to be party to a break-up of any part of the region, or give the signal that we supported or applauded that. We should say that we expect to see increasing co-operation in the Balkans and that rewards will be given to those who are co-operators and who build up common institutions. The economy and polity of that region depends, in every part, on strengthening the common role of the region; its future in a common Europe depends on that message being understood.
I would like the Minister to say whether we can begin to define a road map for the region and show each country that we recognise its difficulties by showing it the steps that it needs to take to strengthen democratic institutions, the free press and the control of the military. Those elements are hallmarks of a movement towards democracy. Under that framework, can we define how progress is to be made towards European institutions? That would be particularly relevant for Serbia. What message will we give to that country, which is inevitably bruised by its recent past? We should say that there is no antagonism or hostility towards the people of Serbia in general, just because it was disastrously ruled by Milosevic for a period and that, for them, the road map will mean a systematic dismantling

151WH
of all of the regime's structures, which were designed to bear down on people. We should say that if Belgrade takes the right steps, rewards will come rapidly and will help movement towards the rest of the region, and Europe.
It is in our hands, through international action, to ensure that we are partners to helping those in the region to build a future, which is democratic and in Europe. We can give that signal and I hope that the Minister will say what the map will be for each nation.
3.18 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: Contributions from hon. Members, and particularly from the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), have already drawn attention to the inescapable fact that the situation in the Balkans changes rapidly and unexpectedly. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Select Committee report of March called for a resolution to the reluctance of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to extradite Milosevic, yet by the time the Government had responded to the report he was already incarcerated in The Hague. The report highlighted concerns over the instability in Kosovo, yet the elections in November brought fresh and hopeful mandates to the new provisional Government.
The report drew attention to the aspirations for independence in Montenegro—that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd)—especially in relation to the potential clash with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia if Montenegro's political establishment continued to pursue those aims, yet elections in Montenegro and the removal of Milosevic have brought a new dimension to these arguments. The Committee was concerned about the fighting that had broken out in the Presevo valley, but those fears have now to some extent been allayed. Nevertheless, the territorial disputes spilled over into Macedonia during the summer, and it is fair to say that so far only a fragile restoration of peace has been achieved through the intervention of our EU forces.
Having studied the report and contributed to it in some small way, I believe that a key factor in the future stability of the region is the economic and political stability of the "new Serbia", as the report describes it. The coalition of democratic parties that swept to power on a promise of widespread economic and political reforms is key to the future of the democracy that is being established. Under the Prime Minister, Mr. Djindjic, the Serbian Government have managed to push through a series of important structural reforms—important enough for the International Monetary Fund to be impressed by their speed and commitment.
However, there is still growing discontent in Serbia at the slow pace of change. Salaries remain very low, strikes are frequent, output has fallen by about 60 per cent. over the past 10 years, unemployment is approaching 50 per cent. —admittedly that relates only to the taxed economy, not the shadow economy, but it still has a significant effect on the tax base of the country—and a 10th of the population are pensioners or refugees. That situation provides fertile ground for the ascendancy of the ultra-nationalist parties that supported Milosevic in the past. With elections due on
152WH
23 December, the Democratic Opposition of Serbia party looks increasingly fragile. It is worth remembering that when we met Prime Minister Djindjic in Belgrade, he said, "We're riding a bike, and if we don't keep pedalling we'll fall off." He meant that in order to keep pedalling the DOS Government were dependent on significant and appropriate aid from the international community.
The EU acted with commendable speed at the end of the war with Serbia. About 200 million euros of emergency aid was dispensed quickly, and in July the international donors pledged some $1.3 billion, of which the EU donated about $445 million. Overall, the EU has committed the staggering sum of 145.3 million euros, to be disbursed to meet essential needs this year. Over the next five years an even more staggering sum of about 4.65 billion euros will go to the region as a whole.
That is pretty impressive by any standards, but the critical factor is how, when and how quickly the aid will be disbursed. I understand from the Foreign Office report that work on a country strategy for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Macedonia is due to be completed by the end of 2001—that is, of course, the end of this month. However, will that allocation of aid be sufficient to restore economic stability in the long term and, more importantly, to maintain political stability in the short term? The President, Mr. Kostunica, tells us that the cost of repairing NATO bomb damage alone is twice the national debt. I do not have a figure for the national debt of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but I suspect that the Minister, who takes great interest in these matters, and is an encyclopaedic fund of knowledge on matters to do with central Europe, will be able to give it to me and put it in the context of the money that we in the west are offering to help restore the country.
Mr. John Randall: The estimate of the cost of damage caused by bombing is $28 billion.
Mr. Chidgey: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It appears that the national debt of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is $14 billion, which is an interesting figure in comparison with the amount of aid that the west is currently offering over a five-year period.
If we shall not have the report on aid strategy for Yugoslavia until the end of this year, and given that elections will be held on 23 December, there is a danger that, given the current economic situation, the ultra-nationalist parties could begin to gain ascendancy, which would damage the fragile democracy that the DOS has established. The disbursement of international aid to Yugoslavia is linked closely, if discretely, to co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The extradition of Milosevic was directly to linked to the United States deciding to withhold its aid programme until the last minute, but the situation is more complicated than that.
The issue is clouded by Yugoslavian political rivalries, which are the bedrock of Balkan politics. Although President Kostunica argued that the rule of law in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia could not accommodate the extradition of Mr. Milosevic, the Prime Minister, Mr. Djindjic, who is a realist if ever I

153WH
saw one, acted pragmatically by delivering Milosevic to secure aid. The dire warnings from President Kostunica that extradition would make Milosevic the people's hero, which would destabilise the Government, have failed to materialise.
Events in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have moved on, and to counter the President's arguments, opinion polls taken over some time show that public opposition to the extradition of indicted war criminals has declined markedly. The pre-eminent issues for the Serbian people understandably concern domestic matters such as employment, wages and the economy. Sadly, there is little political appetite for pursuing the extradition of other indicted war criminals because the political rivals are preoccupied within their internal power struggle, and extradition may be seen as a lever to gain political advantage among the competing parties.
It is interesting to note that Carla del Ponte, the tribunal's chief prosecutor, has criticised President Kostunica for not releasing army files to enable the tribunal to pursue indicted criminals because they may contain state secrets. Although Milosevic's extradition on Djinjic's orders did not destabilise the Government, President Kostunica was reported in The Sunday Times on 25 November to be arguing that. He said:
"These questions are too complicated to move forward without a proper legal framework".
Carla del Ponte claims that the Serbian army is sheltering Ratko Mladic, a wartime commander who has been indicted for genocide. It takes only a brief assessment of the political intrigue that still exists in Serbia to reveal that the situation is more complex than we might think.
Examination of the views currently being expressed in Serbia indicates that there are different opinions on what is happening. On 21 November, the Serbian magazine Reporter published a list of members of the Yugoslavian special police forces who, it alleges, had been indicted by the tribunal for war crimes. Spectacularly, Reporter claims that the list was leaked from President Kostunica's office in a secret deal with Prime Minister Djindjic. We need to remember that the special police forces, or the red berets as they are known, are the same forces that committed the worst atrocities in the course of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, under the direct command and control of Arkan. In Serbia today, there appears to be no one controlling these special police forces. Apparently they are organising strikes and road blockades around Belgrade in protest at the indictment of their colleagues by the tribunal. The question of who controls the red berets is causing deep concern in the Republic of Serbia. There are an increasing number of protests that should be reigned in under the control of the national police force, and not be aligned with nationalist politicians.
The Reporter accuses the Democratic Opposition of the Serbian Government of being unable to contain Arkan's red berets. Yet, according to President Kostunica, they are under the control of Prime Minister Djindjic. I wanted to set out that piece of information to show just how complex and devious politics can be in this region. If the red berets are controlled by Prime Minister Djindjic, it begs the question why Djindjic does
154WH
not follow the example that he set with Milosevic, and order the extradition of the indicted war criminals in the ranks of the special police forces as a matter of priority. Among those ranks are the very people who are suspected of still working with Milosevic. They have a prime aim to destabilise the Government before the elections which are due on 23 December, just two weeks away.
If the UK Government are following the events in "new Serbia" as closely as I hope they are, they will be aware that it is vital to ensure that the aid to support economic stability, and of course political stability, is disbursed quickly and appropriately. They need to do this if they are to be sure that the Government of Serbia will survive and not suffer a major reverse. The timing of aid and extradition is crucial, but the Government must be aware of the pitfalls of overplaying their hand.
In the Foreign Affairs Committee report, the Committee dwelt at some length on Montenegro. It is important to remember that relationship problems between Serbia and Montenegro are still unresolved. Even though the Montenegrin President, Mr Djukanovic, failed to secure a sufficient mandate for independence when he won the elections in April, he still insists on holding a referendum. I understand that the laws to enable one to be introduced are being worked on now, and they are expected to be ready early next year. President Djukanovic is on the record as saying that the question is not whether a referendum will be held on independence in Montenegro, but when and under what conditions.
Members might like to reflect on the fact that Montenegro is already independent in all but name. It controls its own monetary policy, its own foreign affairs, its own security and its own customs. The only things it seems not to control are the army, which is Serbian, and air traffic control, which remains in Yugoslav hands.
We all know that the international community openly opposes independence for Montenegro because it does not fit the ball game; it does not fit the chart that has been mapped out. There is obviously a tremendous fear of a domino effect redrawing the borders and leading perhaps to the Albanians in Kosovo and Macedonia, or even the Serbs in the Republic of Sprska, seeking secession. We should recognise that the Montenegrins see that as unfair. As a former full republic in Tito's Yugoslavia, under the EU's guidelines Montenegrins should claim the same rights as other republics.
Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman is right about the referendum question, but does he have any idea whether the idea of independence is popular among the people of Montenegro?
Mr. Chidgey: I was not suggesting support or otherwise for whether Montenegro should become independent. My point is that we must accept that they will have a referendum. We must accept also that the people of Montenegro have the right to show their feelings and register their views as part of the democratic process.. It is not right for us, in the august chambers of Westminster, to tell people around the world how they should run their own affairs. They have the right to self-expression, including Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and

155WH
Macedonia. They were all republics in Tito's Yugoslavia. We cannot have one form of self-expression without the other.
Mr. Lloyd: That touches on a fundamental point. Many of us grew up with the right to self-determination. My lifelong belief in it is based on the struggle for independence in Ireland—very romantic. However, there is a problem with characterising that right as unlimited, as the hon. Gentleman did. It opens up the question of the right to self-determination of the Serbs in the Republica Srpska and Croatia and, very importantly, that of the Albanians in Macedonia. These issues are very difficult. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the balance between the right to self-determination and the right to maintain the integrity of international borders.
Mr. Chidgey: I chose my words carefully. I spoke about the peoples of those republics, not the ethnic groupings. That is the essential difference. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) made it clear that it is for the people of those areas to express their views, not ethnic groups. It is no good us assuming that the problem will go away. We must accept that these peoples, whatever their ethnic background, will express their views. We must be flexible enough to understand and work with that.
According to the Montenegrins, the international community has changed the rules of the game. It is believed in some quarters that Montenegrin independence would have negative consequences, and that takes precedence in some people's minds. However, no one in Belgrade or Podgorica denies the right of the Montenegrins to vote on their future. Heavy-handed opposition could be counterproductive and could strengthen the independence vote, for obvious reasons. The international community must be prepared to react flexibly, even if it is displeased with the results of the referendum. Failure to do so would be a recipe for future instability.
Kosovo is a major part of the Committee's report. Its status has not yet been resolved, and probably will not be for some time. It will remain for some years under UN administration. However, the mid-November elections were a major step forward in establishing democracy, particularly as Serbs participated in significant numbers for the first time. The elections produced a clear victory for the Democratic League of Kosovo, led by Dr. Rugova, which augers well for the democratic process. Even so, Dr. Rugova, who is known for his pacifism, on winning the election promptly called for Kosovo's independence "Today or tomorrow". That call was approved by 90 per cent. of Kosovo Albanians. Prime Minister Djindjic of Serbia recognises that approval. He was quoted in the Financial Times of 2 July 2001 as saying:
"If the world gave us back Kosovo, what would we do? Send in the police and the army?"
That is clearly not a prospect that he relishes. He is far more concerned with protecting the Serb population that lives mainly in the north of Kosovo. The international community must recognise, and persuade the key players in the region to recognise, that as a quid pro quo for 36,000 NATO troops being deployed to keep the peace in Kosovo, Dr. Rugova should be
156WH
devoting his energies to proving that he can form an effective and stable Government that will fight crime, defend Serbs' property rights and begin reconstruction. If he succeeds in those three basic tasks, debates on independence will be far easier to manage two or three years down the road, by which time we hope that the situation will have stabilised. Meanwhile, whether we like it or not, it is obvious that a long-term commitment for international troops for KFOR will be necessary. The clear message of the election results is that sustained investment in troops and economic aid pays off and that the UN-led, NATO-policed building of a nation can work; but it will require the further commitment of military peacekeeping troops, of international administration and of economic aid.
A number of Members have spoken about the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Macedonia, which is critical. In paragraph 164, the Committee highlights its concern that NATO had not acted sufficiently rapidly to prevent the flow of arms and men across the border from Kosovo to Macedonia. The Committee also pointed out that although Macedonia had been a model in multi-ethnic and democratic government, it could disintegrate into another Kosovo. It called upon the Government to take the most urgent steps to galvanise the international community to counter Albanian extremist violence. In the event, action was taken, and operation Essential Harvest secured a tenuous cessation of wide-scale violence. However, a large question mark still hangs over the political and economic stability of Macedonia.
A major concern must be the withdrawal of the Social Democratic Alliance from the governing coalition. Its departure is likely to strengthen the position of the Macedonian Nationalists, which has taken a hard line on the unrest in the country, and particularly on the ethnic disparity in the north of the country. The rise of the Nationalists will heighten ethnic tension.
Macedonia, too, is suffering from a fragile, unstable economic base. In 1998, more than a third of its working population was unemployed, and more than 80 per cent. of manufacturing and other equipment was obsolete. Inward investment was less that half what it was in 1972. Macedonia's Minister of Finance points out that, among transitional countries, Macedonia is at the bottom of the ladder in terms of inward investment. However, it is clear that investments are unlikely to materialise until there is some certainty that political and ethnic stability can be restored. The situation gives even greater weight to the Committee's recommendation that the Government must give a clear lead by ensuring that measures agreed by the Macedonian Government to give greater recognition to ethnic Albanians—measures essential to reducing ethnic tension—are implemented.
Finally, will the Minister tell us what progress has been made in increasing the proportion of Albanians in the police force from 5 per cent. to the target of 25 per cent.; what progress has been made in introducing the Albanian language into state institutions; and most important, what progress is being made in the investigation of the war crimes allegedly committed by both Government and NLA forces in Macedonia earlier this year? In Macedonia, as in Kosovo, Montenegro and the new Serbia, the Government have a key role to play in trying to bring stability to the region.

157WH
Although the Government's response to the Committee's report is in many ways encouraging, rapidly changing events make it clear that much more needs to be done, both now and in the longer term. It would be folly to underestimate the destruction wrought by Milosevic and his cronies in every sphere, or the effort that is needed now by the international community to help rebuild shattered communities. It must be accepted by our Government and their partners that a long-term commitment is essential. We must continue to deploy peacekeeping forces sufficient for the task to rebuild political institutions and restore democracy, to restore economic stability and, above all, to give all the peoples of the region the right democratically to express their views on, and pursue the determination of, their future.
3.44 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I welcome this opportunity to discuss Yugoslavia. The Committee's report was produced in March and is based on information that is at least a year old. Given that the report concludes that the Government played an important role in bringing about the present situation, we are entitled to know what progress has been made on the many outstanding problems that the report highlights. I hope that the Minister can update us.
Hon. Members know that I do not share the Committee's favourable view of the United Kingdom's role in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. I thank my colleagues for re-electing me to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. My position as a delegate has allowed me to observe events at first hand for a decade, and I know that the picture is not as rosy as the report paints it, despite dwelling on the problems in the former Yugoslavia.
I wish that the report had placed a little more emphasis on refugees. I do not know whether the Committee visited any of the many refugee camps in Serbia, but I have visited one or two. Serbia has the largest refugee problem in Europe, but because the Serbs were so demonised they received the least help from the aid agencies. Those agencies purport not to be political, but they have acted very politically in recent years.
The Yugoslav experience is not a useful model—bombing is not a useful model for anyone to adopt. The Labour party used to have an honourable record on diplomacy. It sought to be a peacemaker rather than to take immediate military action. Now, however, we take so much notice of American foreign policy that we support almost everything with a military outcome.
I want to concentrate, however, on the present and the future. In particular, I want to consider international terrorism and Kosovo. We cannot separate the situation there from current events, nor can we discuss international terrorism without considering Macedonia. Events in Yugoslavia led to the situation in Macedonia.
I have been to Macedonia several times. I recently spoke to Government and non-Government representatives, and I assessed the situation myself. In the recent terrorist attacks—we cannot call them anything else—hundreds of citizens, including moderate
158WH
Albanians, were abducted and killed. Those attacks happened because KLA terrorists entered the country over the border with Kosovo. A large proportion of the terrorists' weapons came from the west, including from the United States and Britain. There is also evidence that the United States trained some of those involved.
I am totally in favour of civil and political rights for minorities in Macedonia and elsewhere. That includes giving the Albanian language more status. However, the Macedonian Government have been doing something about that. Six members of the Cabinet are Albanians. My friends there include both Slays and Albanians, and I have talked with them many times over the years. Education up to secondary level and now at university can take place in the Albanian language. I am not saying that the situation is perfect, but people have been doing something about it. It was certainly not worth taking up arms over. It would be wrong for the Scots or the Welsh to attack London because they wanted greater autonomy for the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly.
Mr. Randall: The hon. Lady will probably be aware that Lord Robertson described the attacks in Macedonia as terrorist incidents when they first happened. Ordinary Macedonians have a little difficulty understanding why the west takes a different view of different forms of terrorism.
Mrs. Mahon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. The KLA was number two on the most wanted terrorist list, and many people in Yugoslavia were amazed when its status suddenly changed when America decided to take its side and bomb Yugoslavia. Suddenly its forces were our allies rather than the second-most wanted terrorists on the State Department's list.
Macedonia has been a model in the region. Paragraph 168 of the report concludes:
"Macedonia has been a model in the region of a multi-ethnic and democratic government…If Macedonia should disintegrate into another Kosovo, Bosnia or Croatia, it would be a massive reverse for the United Nations, the EU and NATO".
That is not altogether to be ruled out, as the Albanian nationalists are not satisfied. The country has de facto been divided. Some of the excuses made in the west for the people who went into another country and encouraged an uprising are shameful.
I want to concentrate on the KLA and terrorism. Kosovo is a lawless state, and not one to be proud of. A direct link between bin Laden and the KLA is well established. At a recent NATO Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Canada, we were given a briefing and a report from Gwen McClure, the assistant director of the criminal organisations division of Interpol, about the Balkans route for drugs and human smuggling. The emphasis of her speech was on the links between terrorism and criminal activity. She said:
"There is a fairly accepted view in the international community that in recent years, direct state sponsorship"
of terrorism has declined. That is important to note with regard to the bombing of Afghanistan, and the threats that Richard Pearl and others keep making about extending the bombing to other Muslim countries, such as Iraq, Somalia and the Sudan.

159WH
The assistant director went on to say:
"therefore terrorists increasingly have to resort to other means of financing, including…drug trafficking, extortion/collection of taxes, armed robbery and kidnappings."
She says that her investigations revealed that
"Albanian organised crime groups are hybrid organisations, often involved both in criminal activity of an organised nature and political activities, mainly relating to Kosovo. There is certain evidence that the political and criminal activities are deeply intertwined. Also, it has become increasingly clear that the Albanian crime groups have engaged in significant cooperation with other transnational crime groups".
She said that the Albanians were
"ideal couriers in the drug trafficking business running through Albania"—
the same applies to Kosovo—
"after the outbreak of war in Yugoslavia as they were able to circumvent….border controls."
We should bear in mind that Afghanistan produces 75 per cent. of the world's heroin supply, even now, despite the Taliban pretending that it would stop that.
The assistant director continued by saying that 80 per cent. of the heroin smuggled into, for example, Sweden and Norway was linked directly to Albanian networks in the region. She said:
"Throughout Europe, around 40 per cent. of the heroin trade seems to be controlled by Albanians."
I hope that, at some point, the Committee will consider the criminal activities in Kosovo. It is now a criminal state. Remember that I am quoting directly from Interpol. Gwen McClure said:
."Intelligence shows that...at a meeting in Albania, which could have also been attended by Osama bin Laden who was believed to be in Albania at the time"—
it was the late 1990s and the Albanian police confirmed his presence, although the Albanian Government later denied it
"many structures and networks were established for propaganda and fund raising activities…another link to bin Laden seems to be the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian jihad organisation and a military commander of Osama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict."
It is ironic that the story had moved on and the KLA's members were no longer the second-most wanted terrorists on the CIA's list, but were our allies. We were acting as the KLA's air force while it might have been plotting some dreadful terrorist act on America or elsewhere. We cannot afford to ignore that serious issue.
On Kosovo and the KLA, the Committee said that:
"KFOR has now reached its full strength of 50,000 troops"
and that
"KFOR's presence helps to create a general climate of security"
Tell that to the Serbs, the Roma and Gorani, who live in the tiny enclaves, or the people who try to protect with tanks the wonderful monastery at Decani. Given the information that we have about the connections between bin Laden and the KLA, should not KFOR be doing something in response and tightening up on the groups that continue to operate? Certainly, it should tighten up on Kosovo's borders with Macedonia, in that regard.
Paragraphs 122 and 123 of the report say that the Kosovar police service is overwhelmingly made up of former members of the KLA, and suggest,
160WH
unsurprisingly, that the Serbs and other minorities in Kosovo have no confidence in it. I can confirm that from my own experience, but what alarms me more is the influence of Agim Ceku, who was rumoured to be sought by the international war crimes tribunal at The Hague for war crimes in the Krajina. He was responsible for Operation Storm, which drove 250,000 Serbs out of the Krajina. I recently visited that region independently and with the Committee and looked at the mass graves that, six or seven years on, are still waiting to be exhumed. I talked to people—Serbs mainly—who had returned and were not having a happy experience.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) mentioned Vukovar and Srebrenica and some dreadful crimes committed by the Serbs, but let us be even-handed and go to Knin and the Krajina and look at the dreadful crimes committed against the Serbs as we bombed them and they were driven out by the Croatian armies. Agim Ceku is now in charge of the renamed Kosovo Protection Corps. As an international community that believes in the rule of law and that war criminals should be tried, we cannot have good terrorists and bad terrorists; we cannot have double standards.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend's last point is right. No observer has any doubt that dreadful crimes were committed by every group. That is the brutal, nasty reality. Atrocities were recently committed in Macedonia by ethnic Macedonians and ethnic Albanians, which gratifies neither side. All those atrocities need condemnation. My hon. Friend is right to say that the tribunal on the former Yugoslavia has a remit that would cover Kosovo.
Mrs. Mahon: I am just coming on to that.
Mr. Lloyd: I agree with my hon. Friend, but those guilty of crimes during the most recent upsurge of violence, whether they are Albanians or Serbs or from any other group, should face that tribunal. However, we should get away from the idea that anyone who condemns Serb violence wants to support Croat or Bosnian violence. That does not follow.
Mrs. Mahon: No, but it would have been helpful if the west had been more even-handed in its statements and in pursuit of criminals from the other groups. I visited the international war crimes tribunal in The Hague with two other people, and had an interview with Carla del Ponte when I returned from Krajina. She assured us that her people would look into the graves, which they know exist—we photographed them—and she wanted to be even-handed. On the wall of her office, however, she had a cartoon of four wanted Serb criminals and, look as I could, I could see no such pictures of anyone from the Muslim or Croatian communities.
Shortly afterwards, we visited Banja Luka in the Republika Srpska and met Mr. Collett, a British policeman from Preston. We chatted, and I was the Chair of the Committee when he briefed us. He said that only Serb war criminals were being sought, so that is on the record.
I return to those people who are operating freely in Kosovo, with our approval. One of them is head of the Kosovo Protection Corps and another is standing for

161WH
office, posing as a democrat. We cannot allow those double standards; they will come back to haunt us. Of course, the Kosovo Protection Corps sees itself as the core of a future Kosovo army, and it is possible that military training has recently been undertaken, unmonitored by KFOR or UNMIK—the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo—which both look the other way.
Just what are those 50,000 troops doing in Kosovo? What good can it do Rugova and the moderates who were recently elected if an army of ex-KLA people is still operating in Kosovo? After all, they found it very easy to stir up trouble in Macedonia and take lots of weapons. Although I would praise George Robertson, the NATO Secretary-General, and President Solana for their efforts in bringing about peace—of course I do—no one is fooled because the real store of weapons is undoubtedly still in the bit of Macedonia that has effectively been taken over by the Albanians.
The recent elections were welcome but, as I said earlier, there has been a drop in turnout since last year and more people voted for extremist parties. It is time that we took control. It is time that we did something about getting many of the returnees back. We have 50,000 troops there; that begs the question of why, with all that protection, does the KLA need an army?
We should be doing something about the Serbs and others who are living in terrible conditions under siege. They are the forgotten victims of the international community; they are second-class citizens. As they made their exodus from Kosovo, driven out and burnt out, many of them were killed. I remind the Chamber that 1,300 of them are still missing, but the Albanians refuse to say anything about them, as does the KLA—I make a distinction between those who support Rugova and those who support Hashim Thaci. When the Serbs were leaving in their tractors, the BBC and other media were shamefully missing. It was not reported—or only in very small numbers.
It is not good enough, as the report suggests, to pat ourselves on the back for deposing Milosevic. I am no supporter of Milosevic. However, he was an elected representative, and it is the Serbian people who deserve credit for getting rid of him—and for voting in large numbers to achieve it. We are partly responsible for the economic mess that the country faces today, and nothing like enough is being put in to put the mess right.
I turn briefly to some other problems. We discussed Montenegro at some length in Washington at the weekend, and the representative from the Yugoslav Government pointed out that they had agreed to abide by a referendum. However, it was pointed out that the general feeling was that a loose federation was wanted; and the west is not supporting separatism.
It is time that we were given a detailed picture of the economic situation, especially in relation to sanctions. I hope that the Committee will support me in seeking an undertaking from the Minister that he will give Parliament an update and lots of information on that in the near future.
We have heard about the bomb damage. It is likely to cost £28 billion. I can testify to that, because I was there during the bombing and I have been many times since.
162WH
Many of the places that were bombed were not military targets, including the bridges over the Danube. I stood on the last bridge over the Danube—a bridge used by the train. A very multi-ethnic group of people was there, including Albanians, ethnic Hungarians, Serbs and many others, in their different costumes, two nights before that last bridge was bombed. That was not an action against a military target; the purpose was to smash Yugoslavia, and it made a very good job of that.
The report says that sanctions were instrumental in bringing about Milosovic's downfall. I believe that they played a role, but the people were more instrumental and we should give them credit for that. Have all the economic sanctions been removed? A modest sanction concerns Yugoslav Airlines—JAT—which has been unable to increase its flights between London and Belgrade. That is creating major problems as the airline tries to compete in a difficult situation. It has tried and failed to claim its rights and our Government Departments have been less than helpful in resolving the problem. I ask the Minister to look into the specific complaints from JAT.
Reports from NATO—I received some this weekend—suggest that, sadly, the stability pact is simply not doing its job. We all had high hopes that it would do some good, but people are very disappointed. The criteria for receiving grants and help are tightly drawn; they do not fit in culturally, and the advice has not been good. People may have to change how they do things culturally, but if the advice is not correct, they feel as if they are operating in a maze and that someone is deliberately sending them round and round.
The memorandum submitted to the Committee by the Serbian Unity Congress said that the situation was still dire earlier this year. I know the people concerned and they are certainly not Milosevic supporters. They kept hope alive in the diaspora and within their country. They campaigned publicly for a number of years to get him out. They are very depressed about the situation and frightened that it might open the door to unpleasant parties that none of us wants to see operating again.
The memorandum submitted by the Serbian Unity Congress in appendix 6 on page 90 of the report states:
"Sanctions were not lifted after the bombing of Yugoslavia … but were tightened instead. The Yugoslav authorities could not buy the necessary equipment and parts from the EU countries with…money for re-construction of war damage. The damage caused by NATO bombing alone is estimated at $30 billion."
That is not too bad, so there was a bit of exaggeration.
I referred to the bridge, but the town where the Zastava factory was has also been destroyed because we fired 21 cruise missiles at the factory. The only part of the factory with any military connections made fancy shooting guns, which are known worldwide. That was left standing, but the remainder of the factory—it made tractors and so on—was flattened and the whole area devastated.
The figures add up to a devastating impact on the daily lives of ordinary citizens, especially the elderly, the sick, children, refugees in particular and displaced people. At one of the camps I visited in Serbia, I met a woman from Bosnia who had been there for nine years and others from Krajina had been there since 1995–96. The irony was that there were also some moderate Albanians of whom the Kosovo Liberation Army had

163WH
not approved because they had been in business with Serbs—they were frowned upon and not looked on as friends—so they had come out with the Serbs. The dire conditions for the Roma must be seen to be believed. The Committee should take on board what is happening to refugees in the heart of Europe.
Finally, what about the environmental clean-up? What are we going to do about the depleted uranium and the cluster bombs that still litter parts of Yugoslavia, particularly Kosovo? Incidents happen every couple of weeks because of the ordnance we dropped.
My message to the Government is that we want the facts about Yugoslavia. We do not want bland assurances now that we have moved on to another military operation and are obsessed with it. We must examine what is still needed in Yugoslavia and we really must get a grip on the criminality in Kosovo.
4.10 pm
Sir John Stanley: The right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) spoke of the mistakes that the international community has made over several years, following the break-up of the Tito empire in Yugoslavia. I agree that, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that mistakes were made. However, as we debate the subject today, my overwhelming feeling is that the situation in the former Yugoslavia could have been much, much worse had not western countries intervened.
In Bosnia, ethnic violence, which was on an appalling scale, has been stopped. A few months ago, Macedonia looked in serious danger of disintegrating with the possible terrible consequences that we had already seen in Bosnia and Kosovo. That possibility has been arrested, and I speak highly of the personal contributions of the Secretary-General of NATO and the EU High Representative in achieving a degree of stabilisation there. Kosovo has just had elections and, against all the odds, there was Serbian participation in them.
As several hon. Members have said, just over a year ago, we saw the hugely brave and effective overturning of the Milosevic regime in former Yugoslavia and its replacement by a genuinely democratic Government. Last but by no means least, we now have Mr. Milosevic where he belongs: behind bars in The Hague, awaiting trial. All those things together form a striking testimony to the overall effectiveness and validity of the policy that the western countries have pursued including, I must say to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) the military interventions.
However, none of us can be remotely complacent. Huge areas of concern remain. I am sure that ethnic violence is festering, probably just below the surface. There is much obscurity about the political long term, especially for Bosnia and Kosovo. The commitment of the international community to that part of the world looks to be almost indefinite, which is not a pleasing prospect. Against that background, there is still much that needs to be done. There is a substantial unfinished agenda. I would like to highlight four areas of that unfinished business.
The first relates to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the ICTY. In its early stages, there was much writing down of the efficacy
164WH
of the ICTY, but it has surpassed the original expectations for it. However, major figures who are the subject of allegations of, and indictments for, crimes against humanity are still at large. The most conspicuous are Karadzic and Mladic. I hope that the Minister can respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) about Carla del Ponte's public Speech saying that Mladic is being sheltered in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. That is a serious allegation, and one assumes that she would not have contemplated making it public without strong grounds for doing so.
Equally significant are Carla del Ponte's allegations about the authorities in Republika Srpska, including the one that they are harbouring Karadzic. Will the Minister say whether the British Government endorse her allegations? If they do, I hope that he can assure the Chamber that, bilaterally and through the international community, the Government will leave the authorities in Belgrade and in Republika Srpska in no doubt that it is wholly unacceptable to harbour those who, allegedly, have committed the major crime against humanity of genocide.
The second big area of unfinished business that I want to highlight is economic reconstruction, to which many hon. Members have already referred. Like other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee who visited the former Republic of Yugoslavia in February, I have an abiding visual memory of what is left of the huge road bridge high over the Danube at Novi Sad. Until its collapse on being hit by an American cruise missile, it must have been an extraordinarily graceful sight. Although a remarkable demonstration of the accuracy of such technology, it has also served as a reminder—as if we need any reminding—that what can be destroyed in moments costs a lot of money to rebuild. In the meantime, the destruction of that bridge has inflicted considerable economic damage on the civilian population, particularly as it bestrode a major transport artery.
Like the right hon. Member for Swansea, East, I am pleased to hear that American aid is being resumed, and that agreement has now been reached on clearance of the Danube. I hope that the Minister will say whether agreement to clear the river and make it navigable again has been accompanied by sufficient funding to enable that crucial bridge and others that cross the Danube at Novi Sad to be rebuilt. What is at stake is not merely the navigability of the Danube, but major arteries, both rail and road, that cross it in the former Republic of Yugoslavia.
Perhaps the Minister could also explain the extent of the present American Administration's willingness to engage in economic reconstruction of the former Republic of Yugoslavia. Several hon. Members have mentioned the scale of the sums involved. We can all recollect that both the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration have said that the cost of reconstructing the former Republic of Yugoslavia after the Kosovo war is essentially a European matter, and that the United States should not be seen to be a major financial contributor.
Donald Anderson: My understanding of the balance between help from the EU and from America on the

165WH
Danube clearance project is that up to 85 per cent. of the funding comes from the EU and only 15 per cent. from other sources, which may include the US.
Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information, and I hope that the Minister will provide further clarification.
The third area of unfinished business is the huge requirement for civilian government capacity building, most conspicuously in Bosnia and Kosovo. In both areas, the situation must be almost equivalent—on a reduced scale, but every bit as critical—to that in Germany post-1945, where to all intents and purposes the existing civilian administration had fallen away and new administrations had to be built up.
In both countries, there is a key need to strengthen the capacity for civilian administration to take over, and to do so without the side effects to which the hon. Member for Halifax referred. Police forces must carry out proper independent policing and not be seen as arm of an ethnic group, whether it be a minority or a majority. A proper system of central and local government administration and tax collection must be established. Those are huge tasks and there is no doubt that the international community will have to make a significant long-term contribution. I hope that the Minister will bring us up to date on what the Government are doing in that respect. Obviously the British Government are just one of many, but I have no doubt, given the quality of the police force and the standards set by the civil administration in this country, that we can make a significant contribution in helping Bosnia and Kosovo.
The final and ultimately most difficult aspect of unfinished business is what is to emerge as the long-term nation statehood of the area covered by the former Republic of Yugoslavia. The most problematic region is the rump comprising Serbia, Kosovo and Montenegro. There is no question but that, beyond the territory of Serbia, the nation statehood of the former Republic of Yugoslavia to all intents and purposes barely exists. Only the most limited writ from Belgrade runs in Montenegro and no writ from Belgrade runs in Kosovo. Speaking bluntly, the Republic of Yugoslavia is substantially a fiction in the territorial area covered by Serbia, Kosovo and Montenegro. It is almost completely a fiction in Montenegro and a total fiction in Kosovo. Although I can understand why it is in the interests of the international community to maintain the fiction for a time, that position will not be sustainable in the long term. It is always dangerous to base a foreign, or an economic, policy on a fiction. Reality will always break through, as it will here.
On Montenegro, the wording in the Committee's report is measured and objective. We set out the issues clearly and dispassionately and came to a unanimous conclusion. Paragraph 92 states:
"Given that the Serbian and Yugoslav governments have said that they will accept a legal and peaceful unilateral declaration of independence by Montenegro, we recommend that the United Kingdom Government should be prepared to recognise Montenegro in the event that it has achieved its independence through a referendum which has been held freely and fairly."
The Government ducked the issue in their reply, saying:
166WH
"The key point is that Montenegro and Serbia should talk about the future of their relationship. A creative way forward within a single state can be found. Not least in view of the deep division within Montenegro about the question of independence, exposed by the 22 April elections, the Government believes that our focus should be on trying to maintain and improve stability and practical co-operation between Serbia and Montenegro, rather than concentrating on hypothetical scenarios."
That got the FCO past the obstacle of replying to the Committee's report.
The Minister will be in no doubt that what he describes as a "hypothetical scenario" will almost certainly become a new feature of life in this part of the world within a matter of months. It appears certain that there will be a referendum on independence in Montenegro next year, and if that referendum comes out in favour of independence, it will be up to the British Government, and other Governments around the world, to make a decision on recognition. The Committee reached the unanimous view that recognition should be granted in those circumstances.
I recognise that the situation is more difficult in Kosovo. It is inconceivable that the Albanian majority would accept a return to sovereignty over their country by Belgrade, and the independence issue has greater potential than that in Montenegro to knock on to the situation in Macedonia. On that matter, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was prepared to go no further than this delphic reply to the Committee:
"As required by UNSCR 1244, UNMIK stands ready to facilitate a consultation process on Kosovo's future status when all the parties, including Belgrade, are ready."
That is a reasonable holding position, but I should like the Minister to focus his attention on the long term, which is admittedly difficult to address. The stark and inescapable long-term choice that must ultimately be made is between granting Kosovo independence or the international community remaining as the ultimate civil and security administration in Kosovo for the foreseeable future. The prospect of Kosovo being an international, governmental and security responsibility for ever more is an unattractive possibility of doubtful sustainability. I accept that as far as Kosovo is concerned the Minister is unlikely to want to deviate from the FCO's response today.
During the many years since the break up of the former Yugoslavia, Tito's death and the rise to power of Milosevic, there has, properly and reasonably, been a difference of view in the House during successive Parliaments. In the past, a minority view has been reasonably expressed—the hon. Member for Halifax eloquently articulated it today. That view is that this is not an area for western military intervention and that, by implication, we can stand on the sidelines to a certain extent. That view has not been confined to Labour Members; members of my party have strongly articulated the view that we should not get involved in the Balkans and should leave it to its own devices.
However, the majority view is that there is the potential for a humanitarian disaster on an even greater scale than has occurred, and that is so compelling and pressing that we cannot stand aside. The majority view has also been that conspicuous circumstances in Bosnia, and later in Kosovo, have meant that western military intervention was the only possible means of stabilising the situation and preventing further bloodshed. I offer

167WH
the Chamber a thought that will not be universally shared: the course of events during the past eight years has wholly vindicated the majority view that we should intervene and that, on occasion, we should do so militarily.
4.32 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) because not everyone who now believes in military intervention, or any intervention, in the area of the former Yugoslavia has always felt that.
In December 1990, I saw the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and told him what I thought would happen in Yugoslavia. I was told that the European Union, or any of the western countries, had no part to play in what was happening in Yugoslavia. That was four months before I received a letter from John Major who agreed that it was for the west, and particularly for our country, to uphold the international integrity of the territory of Yugoslavia. Of course, all that was forgotten when the Maastricht treaty came along and the Conservative Government wanted a quid pro quo to go along with Germany and recognise Croatia as an independent state.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and his Committee on the comprehensive report. It is material that will be used by historians in years to come. I have some criticisms, however, which he no doubt expects. It is a pity that there is so little in the report about Bosnia-Herzegovina. The report refers to Yugoslavia and Government policy towards it since the fall of Milosevic. One myth that must be put to rest is that Milosevic fell because of NATO bombing, as was claimed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). That is not the case. Milosevic remained there until about 18 months after the bombing. The writing was on the wall for Milosevic not because of the bombing, but because of the local elections that took place in Yugoslavia two years earlier. There was some opposition by Milosevic, at first, to recognising the results of those elections.
A comparison, as is sometimes made, between Yugoslavia under Milosevic and a dictatorship along the lines of Hitler's or Mussolini's is, in my view, false. I have visited Yugoslavia many times—I have been in the country more than 40 times during my life. Elections took place when Milosevic was there, and his regime had a stranglehold on the media, but no more so than in Russia in 1996. According to Time magazine the Americans were pouring in money to help Yeltsin, who received almost 100 per cent. support from the media, which was then Yeltsin-controlled. There was nothing particular about Yugoslavia to denote it as a regime like Hitler's Germany.
The report refers to the attitude of the Serbs towards the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. I can well understand the views expressed. Paragraph 32 states:
"Many Serbs view the ICTY as a one-sided attempt by the international community to punish Serbia as a nation for the crimes of individuals. The Serbian Unity Congress writes that 'it
168WH
is a commonly held belief by Serbs in the homeland and diaspora that the Hague Tribunal is one-sided, biased and politically motivated in its alleged pursuit of justice'."
Misha Glenny confirmed that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said, paragraph 33 states:
"The Tribunal's 'refusal to indict the late Croatian President Tudjman…and…to investigate NATO for the possible commission of war crimes' have been identified as two particular decisions which 'were bound to consolidate sentiments among the Serbs that this is not a fair court'. Tim Judah has quoted President Kostunica as saying that crimes committed against Serbs by Kosovo Albanian guerrillas are another category of war crime which 'have never been treated by the court and never would be treated by the court'."
Paragraph 36 points out:
"Far more ethnic Serbs have been publicly indicted...than other ethnic groups. 78 per cent. of those publicly indicted have been ethnic Serbs. Of those publicly indicted...and still at large 96 per cent. are ethnic Serbs."
Paragraph 46 refers to the
"former Croatian general Mirko Norac, who has been accused of the killing of ethnic Serbian civilians in the town of Gospic in Croatia."
He offered to hand himself over to the Croatian courts provided that they agreed not to hand him over to the ICTY in The Hague. Apparently, The Hague was complicit in that situation.
I do not regard the ICTY as not politically motivated. I only wish that the Americans would agree to the setting up of an international criminal court so that there is a proper international institution in future and decisions of international justice, such as these, do not have to be left to a politically motivated and biased tribunal.
There does not seem to be any real reference to the problems of the Serbs in Krajina. There was a large Serb minority in Croatia, including in the capital, Zagreb. They were ethnically cleansed, but we heard very little about that in the western media. We know that in Krajina crimes were committed against Serbs who were trying to get out of the country as quickly as possible to Serbia proper. We know that when, in 1995, the Croats occupied western Slavonia—that part of Croatia had a large Serb majority—they refused the international community any sight of what was happening there. However, Croatia got off fairly well scot free.
Then there is the question whether Milosevic was a problem or a solution. The way in which he was treated by the west during the 1990s is relevant. When the Vance-Owen peace plan was being advanced, together with a small, all-party group, I met Karadzic and I think we played a part in persuading him to sign the accord at Athens. As a start to negotiating the future of Bosnia, the Vance-Owen peace plan had something to be said for it. It was Milosevic who, with the encouragement of the west, went to the Bosnian Serb Parliament, but found that there were no takers. Karadzic could not carry the Bosnian Serbs with him.
The following day, the group of us who had seen Karadzic in Belgrade went to Bosanski Brod in the north of Bosnia, close to the border with Krajina, to try to persuade some Bosnian Serb politicians to accept the Vance-Owen peace plan. However, on that day, 2 May 1993, I saw something that I hope I will never see again. I was witness to the exhumation of bodies from a mass

169WH
grave. Before we left—and they were still digging—there were more than 40 bodies of Serbs and some Muslims who had been murdered when the Croats occupied that part of northern Bosnia three to six months before. I will never forget it. I remember seeing a woman being exhumed. I could tell it was a woman only because she still had her blue skirt, with white spots, around her waist. When they tried to lift her up, very carefully, her head fell off. The smell; the flies; yes, I have seen the result of a war crime. But what happened? The media in this country did not want to know. The present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), who was with me, reported it to a Scottish newspaper and was asked, "Who were these people you are talking about?" He said, "These are Serbs, who were murdered by Croats." "Oh," he was told, "we can't print that." Why not? It would only confuse people.
That was part of the anti-Serb hysteria that we were supposed to go along with throughout the 1990s. Many Serbs wonder why the British should have taken part in bombing their territory. They are confused. Did not we, they say, fight on the same side in the first world war and the second world war? What about the Ustashi and the fascists in Croatia? Not all Croatians, of course, are fascists. Tito was a Croat. The fact is, the word "Ustashi" could be seen as graffiti on the walls of Bosanski Brod, written there by Croats when they had occupied the territory. The HDZ party, which controlled Croatia during the time of Tudjman—is the child of the Ustachi. I am pleased that it is no longer part of the Government, but it still exists and could be elected in future. The party has the same philosophy as those who supported fascism and Hitler during the second world war.
Misha Glenny, whom 1 met in 1991 when the war was beginning, is mentioned a lot in the report. He is an expert on the Balkans and I am glad that the Committee listened to what he had to say. It is a pity that western Governments did not listen more closely to what he had to say during the early 1990s. I remember having a conversation with him sitting outside a cafe in Zagreb in August 1991, when Serb extremists had murdered 19 Croatian policemen in Osijek. Glenny told me that he was concerned about the activities of Vojslav Seslj, who has never been indicted as a war criminal and has certainly not been taken to The Hague. Seslj was responsible for the people who murdered those policemen.
Many of the war crimes committed in Bosnia on all sides—by Serbs, Croats and Muslims—were committed by groups that were not really controlled by the nominal powers in the territories. Seslj and Arkan, whom the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) mentioned, played a leading role in war crimes, particularly in the early part of the civil war.
Mrs. Mahon: People never mention Naser Oric. There is well documented evidence about that man and his gang's activities. He went around rural areas killing
170WH
elderly and young Serbs. He now runs a bar in Tuzla. People know that and use it to illustrate the hypocrisy of the west.
Mr. Wareing: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. I am not surprised by it, because the west took a one-sided view of the situation. Those of us who wanted an even-handed approach were often looked on as pro-Milosevic. That was the sort of thing that was said about us. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was the first Labour MP to meet Milosevic in Belgrade in 1991 and attack him on the situation of the Albanians in Kosovo. That was long before some members of the present Government or the previous one had heard of Kosovo or knew where it was. I was tackling him then. Milosevic was used. He was used at Dayton as an instrument for bringing about the peace agreement. The western powers got him to assist them when it suited them.
The idea that the Dayton agreement will bring lasting stability to Bosnia is poppycock. The Committee's report mentions the events of March 2000. The Croats in Bosnia were appealing for independence. Bosnia is not a state or a nation, but a geographical expression. It consists of Serbs, Croats and Muslims, and even the Muslims are Serbs, because they are descendants of Serbs who converted to Islam during Turkish times. There is no such thing as a Bosnian. One can adopt that fiction, if one likes, but it is not likely to last. After the events in March 2000, the international high commissioner dismissed the members of the Croat leadership in Bosnia. He had taken similar action in the Republika Srpska a few years previously. There had been a democratic election, but the people elected an extreme nationalist so the international high commissioner got rid of their elected representative.
There is as much chance of Dayton bringing long and lasting stability to Bosnia as there was of the Congress of Berlin in 1878 bringing a long and lasting solution. We know what happened then. It is impossible to hold people down for ever. Bosnia and Kosovo are, in essence, NATO protectorates, but the day will come when sense prevails. The Republika Srpska will be allowed to join the rest of the former Yugoslavia, and something similar will happen with the Croats. That may take a few years, but we would be fools to think that the present arrangement is lasting. The report does not tell us how many times the collective Bosnian leadership has met since Dayton. It is supposed to be the supreme body in Bosnia, but what has it done? The answer to that question proves that it is unrealistic to expect the present situation to continue.
I shall say only a few words about Kosovo because other hon. Members have spoken comprehensively about it. The bombing of Kosovo and Yugoslavia was contrived through the Rambouillet ultimatum, which no one has mentioned. Appendix B to that so-called accord was no more than an ultimatum to Milosevic. No leader—whether or not he is a dictator—could agree to an ultimatum that allowed foreign troops simply to walk on to his country's soil, occupy its airports and sea ports, use its roads and to be completely in control. Appendix B provided the excuse for bombing Yugoslavia.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax referred to the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs in Kosovo, although there was ethnic cleansing all around. That could have

171WH
been prevented had one part of the jigsaw—Russia—not been left out. The Russians should rightfully have been given a sector in Kosovo. If they had been, we would have had a better chance of preserving the Serb minority population. I do not know why Russia was left out. I am glad to say that there has been much greater closeness between ourselves and Russia since September 11. However, our actions in Kosovo did nothing to improve confidence and the relationship between our two important countries.
To conclude, I appreciate the report, which will be useful for years to come. Government policy towards Yugoslavia should consider ways and means to restore reality to that part of the world. The rights of Serbs to self-determination and their own state should be recognised as much as the rights of Croats. I agreed with some comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd). Self-determination has a limit but, given the geography of Yugoslavia, it is apparent that it would be possible to have one federal state of Serbs and one of Croats. Until those people attain their nationalist aspirations, there can be no stable or long-lasting peace in the Balkans.
4.55 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): This has been a good debate on a fine report. It was a great pleasure to take up my ministerial responsibilities and have a vade-mekum presented to me in my first red box. I invite the Select Committee to make similar reports on other parts of the world to help Ministers as they try to work their way through the maze of Government policy and choice. I say that not to flatter, but to express real appreciation for the quality and depth of the report.
There has always been a strong British connection to Yugoslavia. One of our historical advantages is that, unlike some of our European partners on the continent, we have not been especially parti pris in favour of one of the nations or communities in that country. We have not been pro-Serb or pro-Croat, and instead have enjoyed a rich relationship.
That is much reflected in our literature. One thinks of Manning and Rebecca West. I remember reading "Eastern Approaches" by Fitzroy Maclean as a boy. I seem to re-read it in almost every ambassador's residence in which I stay in the former Yugoslavia, to see what insights he had. Reference has rightly been made to the contributions of Misha Glenny, Tim Judah, Noel Malcolm, Anthony Lloyd and other British writers who have examined the problems of the area, sometimes from one perspective and sometimes from another. Such literature helps us to come to grips with the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) described Bosnia-Herzegovina as a geographical expression. That phrase was first put into international diplomatic history when Count Otto von
172WH
Bismarck dismissed Italy as merely a geographical expression. We remember what happened to him, and Italy is now a good, solid nation state and community.
Mr. Wareing: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. MacShane: I would rather not.
Mr. Wareing: I merely want to point out that, not being German, I cannot become the German Chancellor.
Mr. MacShane: I shall refer to another German political leader, Peter Glotz, whom I heard address a conference in Montreal in 1988. He referred to a speech made by a Mr. Milosevic at a place called Kosovo Polje, in which he invoked Serb nationalism as the guiding force for his new Serbian politics. Dr. Glotz, then the general secretary of the German Social Democratic party, said that he had thought that he would never hear in Europe language that reminded him so much of the nationalist extremism that led to the disasters of the 1930s. I recall that I was with many trade union colleagues at the time, and we all said, "Miloso-who? Kosovo-where?" We did not understand the references, but Dr. Glotz, as a wise German politician and intellectual, understood the direction in which Yugoslavia was heading.
In 1990, all Yugoslav citizens were far richer than every Pole, Czech or Hungarian. They could travel freely without any visa limitations. The Danube carried $113 million worth of trade in 1990. By 1996, the Danube was carrying a bare $50 million worth of trade, and the other difficulties of the terror that we know about were already well in place. Let it not be said, however, that intervention by the international community caused the current problems. They were there from 1990 onwards.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, was right to say that there were real signs of hope. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) was right, too, when he said that the situation would have been hugely worse without intervention. I can report to the House that this has been a good year for the Balkans. It has not been perfect and much remains to be done, but we now have democratically elected Governments throughout the region committed to the rule of law, international obligations and minority rights.
I shall lift the veil on what sometimes happens behind the closed doors of diplomatic gatherings. Last week, I was in Bucharest, and just before the ministerial conference at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, while taking coffee in one of the anterooms, I saw Foreign Minister Svilanovic of Yugoslavia, Foreign Minister Picula of Croatia and the new Foreign Minister of Macedonia, Mr. Casule. They were talking in an intense huddle, and shared a common language and understanding. I was about to say hello to them when I realised that I was seeing what any democratic politician would have understood. That group of democratically elected men, who were representing their Governments, were trying to sort out their problems. That such a return to political normality

173WH
should not have caused tension, passion and angry headlines is to be welcomed. That was reflected in the report.
It has been an important year for the three Rs of reconstruction, reconciliation and reform. Reconstruction is best symbolised by the rebuilding of the bridge at Novi Sad and the reopening of the Danube to commercial traffic on 29 November. The EU has contributed 85 per cent. of the funding for the Danube Commission, a total cost of about 26 million euros. I understand that there is a proposal to rebuild the Slovodon bridge at a cost of 22 million euros. It is not only the river that is being reopened, but the bridges that cross it.
Much of that arises from the brave decision of the people of Yugoslavia and Belgrade to abide by the obligations of the international commission at the Hague and surrender Mr. Milosevic to the international rule of law and justice. In passing, I ask right hon. and hon. Members to ease some of their criticism of the work of Mrs. del Ponte. She was a distinguished procurator-general of the Swiss confederation, who bravely tackled problems to do with political and financial corruption that touched on the sensitive area of Swiss banking secrecy. She had to deal with some rather entrenched establishments in her own country. She is a distinguished European jurist, and we should listen to what she has to say about her current job. I shall return to that matter in a moment.
The good news is that the crimes, the terror, the pain and the violence of the last decade of the previous century are, on the whole, behind us. The security situation is relative stable despite sporadic attacks on security forces in recent months. Attention has been drawn attention to threats by Albanian extremists with a wider political agenda, and we are aware of those. We must remain vigilant and tackle underlying problems in areas that contain extremism.
My first visit to the region as a Minister was to Pristina. I said on television, face to face with Albanian political leaders and in articles in the press, that Albanian extremism and the use of violence to achieve political ends was wholly unacceptable. I offered the analysis that the transfer of Milosevic from Belgrade had changed the international community's relationships, perceptions and willingness to deal with the Serbian authorities in Belgrade. I said that the time for any indulgence towards the Albanians was over as far as the British Government were concerned.
British troops are patrolling night and day on the Kosovo-Macedonia border. I wish that troops from other nations were as aggressive as ours and that they, too, operated 24 hours a day. However, Kosovo and other countries in the region need fewer troops and more police. The report made that point well. The OSCE's multi-ethnic police force is a key confidence-building measure.
The UK has played its part. I offered a mince pie and a cup of tea to retired police officers in my office on Tuesday. Our police officers retire when they are, in every sense, fighting fit for future duty. Today, they left for Pristina in a chartered plane and will spend their first
174WH
Christmas there. They will add to the professionalism that we need in the streets, communities and towns of Kosovo to rebuild the police.
Mr. Lloyd: I shall pass over the fact that there was only one mince pie among all those people. The slow build-up of the civilian element has been criticised. It is crucial that civilian policing and support for it from outside the region are intensified to encourage the process of normalisation. Can the Minister give us any hope that other countries will recognise their obligations, as Britain has done?
Mr. MacShane: Yes, of course. It is perhaps easier to put together a military force. On the whole, soldiers do the same things in the same way. Police officers come from such different backgrounds and recognise such different norms of law that it is difficult to knit them together.
The four words that one does not here often enough in Kosovo and other parts of the region are "Here comes the judge." There is no robust independent judicial system and no adequate civilian policing system. Many hon. Members mentioned criminal elements, but we do not have enough jails to allow us to put them behind bars, which is where they belong. However, we are emptying prisons of people who should perhaps not be there. Since the beginning of the year, 1,800 out of 2,000 Kosovo Albanian prisoners have been released. According to the Serbian Ministry of Justice, 181 Albanian prisoners are in Serbian prisons on a range of criminal charges, and 34 cases are due for judicial review. I am pressing the Belgrade Government to complete the reviews swiftly, which was one of the report's recommendations. I raised that matter just last week with Foreign Minister Svilanovic during his visit to London on 29 November.
We have discussed independence for Montenegro, but I am not tempted to answer hypothetical questions. That may not satisfy right hon. and hon. Members who believe that Ministers should be able to see into the future, but I hope that they accept my reticence. Any formal suggestion of what the Government's response would be were certain situations to develop constitutes an intervention in that process.
Our concern is to preserve regional stability, which is why the Government and our EU partners are not ready to wave the flag for independence for any particular group or people. Under OSCE rules, we do not support the independence or separatist claims of nations that form part of states elsewhere in Europe. We must wait and see Montenegro's position, and from the discussions that I had in Bucharest with our OSCE partners, that is also the position of Russia, of the OSCE and of the Council of Europe's Venice commission.
Mr. Chidgey: Will the Minister tell us whether the Government would be prepared to accept the Serbian Government's decision on the results of a referendum in Montenegro?
Mr. MacShane: Mr. Solana visited the region at the end of last month, and he put forward a proposal to the federal Serbian and Montenegran authorities to organise discussions to find a way forward on this

175WH
question. A point that I make continually, and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) conveyed the same message when he held these responsibilities four years ago, is that the way out of the different imbroglios in Yugoslavia is fully to engage in Europe. The European road will help Yugoslavia to find peace and resolve its different conflicts.
There have been significant developments in Kosovo since the Committee's report was written, the most important of which were the peaceful, multi-ethnic elections on 17 November. For the first time ever, the people of Kosovo were able freely to elect a truly representative assembly. About 2,000 international observers—the British delegation was headed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence—attended, and they praised the excellent way in which the elections were conducted. I also pay tribute to the strong encouragement from Belgrade, from the Serbian authorities and from the Orthodox Church to Serbian citizens to participate in those elections. There was a 63 per cent. turnout, which included a 46 per cent. turnout by Serbian electors. I do not recall the turnout in right hon. and hon. Members' constituencies in June 2001, but the Serbs in Kosovo may have put one or two right hon. and hon. Members to shame by their participation in elections.
The new assembly will meet for the first time on 10 December. The seven members of the presidency of the assembly, which is essentially the executive committee, will include two Serbs and representatives of five other minority communities. The voice of the Serb community will be heard, and I hope that the political road will be chosen to effect reconciliation.
I accept that we must have greater security for the Serb population in Kosovo. I have seen British soldiers installing panic buttons in Serbian villagers' houses so that if the villagers feel threatened they can send out a signal and a British vehicle with soldiers in it will arrive quickly to give them the assurances that they need.
I have made it clear that any attack on Serbian cultural heritage in Kosovo—the cradle not of Serbian but of European cultural heritage—is wholly unacceptable, just as the burning of mosques was wholly unacceptable. As I have said, KFOR needs to act robustly to counter the flow of personnel and materal across the border from Kosovo to Macedonia. Thanks to the presence of German troops who are maintaining peace and security in Macedonia in the wake of the Lake Ohrid agreement, those operations will become more successful.
Macedonia is a worry for all who are concerned about peace and security in the region. The British Government and Lord Robertson, General Secretary of NATO, can take some credit. Chris Patten, Javier Solana, and Alain Le Roy, who replaced Francois Leotard, are working for the EU to maintain the international community's presence in Macedonia.
I should remark on the high quality of our diplomatic staff and ambassadors in the region. Reference has been made to evidence given to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Ten years ago, we had but one embassy in Yugoslavia; now, we have five fully fledged embassies and a mission in Kosovo. I have been very impressed by
176WH
the hands-on quality of their work, their interventions in the community and their contribution to bringing stability to that troubled region of Europe.
As I have said, we need to implement fully the framework agreement that was signed at Lake Ohrid. The Macedonian Parliament has now endorsed it, and as I
made clear to the Macedonian Foreign Minister, the time has come to stop seeking to rewrite bits and pieces of it, and to get on with building a peaceful community in Macedonia and accept the rights of Albanians in terms of language and administration of the country. Equally, I am happy to use the words terrorists and terror tactics. The behaviour of Albanian extremists who resort to violence is unacceptable, but should one counter it through policing or a heavy-handed military riposte that engenders more violence?
I do not want to stray into talking about other regions of the world, but we should not forget the following lines from a 1930s W. H. Auden poem:
"I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return."
This Government are determined not to see history repeat itself, and that is why we are in the region. The west's policy in the early 1990s of non-intervention, hand-wringing and issuing press releases failed. That is why this and other countries that have Governments who are ready to take a lead and accept their international responsibilities can be proud.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) mentioned the question of ministerial oversight. I have tried to visit all the Balkan capitals, and I shall visit them again, although I have to combine such visits with trips to Asia, Latin America, China, Korea, Australia, New Zealand and about 20 agreeable islands in the Pacific. None the less, I accept that the Balkans, a region which has been visited more times than any other region in the world, is my primary responsibility. More than that, it has been a pleasure to see President Kostunica here, and it will be a pleasure to welcome President Mesic in two weeks.
There was discussion about Bosnia-Herzegovina, and a little over a month ago I was able to give dinner to Prime Ministers Ivanic, Behman and Lagumdjzia, representing the three communities that constitute Bosnia-Herzegovina. They are committed to making that state work. If my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby will forgive me, I shall go with their vision of their own country's future instead of his more gloomy animadversions dating back to the congress of Berlin.
We have a strong British presence in Bosnia-Herzegovina, including 18,000 troops in Bosnia, 3,500 troops in Kosovo, and administrators and colleagues from the Department for International Development, the British Council and non-governmental organisations. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), who went to Macedonia at my invitation in September. They went quietly and behind the scenes with no publicity to talk to Macedonian parliamentarians as fellow parliamentarians, and to urge acceptance of the Lake Ohrid agreement. I am determined that those contacts between parliamentarians and others will be sustained.

177WH
We are looking forward to the role that Lord Ashdown may play in the region. We have all listened to his speeches over the years. He must often have felt like Cassandra standing to discuss in detail the complexities of the region as the House emptied, but I suspect that in his analyses and warnings he was right more often than he was wrong. We are delighted that he has the support of EU countries to become the High Representative in Bosnia later this year.
I turn briefly to the question of economic aid, to which a number of hon. Members referred. It is the key to moving the entire region out of its current difficulties. Economic sanctions were lifted after Milosevic was transferred to The Hague, but I shall look into the question of landing rights for JAT—the Yugoslav airline—and reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), although landing rights at London airport seem to cause a great deal of trouble for more than just the Yugoslav airline.
I have encouraged and continue to encourage business investment in the region, but we must have the right economic conditions. There is far too much economic activity there that no normal democratic market economy would recognise. The Foreign Affairs Committee reported that state firms were privatised and transferred to cronies of Mr. Milosevic and there is a huge amount of criminal activity, particularly involving cigarette production and smuggling, which is politically linked. It would be helpful if hon. Members, in addition to naming war criminals who should be at The Hague, would say loudly and clearly that politics and direct economic business activity, particularly in the area of cigarette production and smuggling, is unacceptable. The Balkans are the through route for drug smuggling, cigarette smuggling, arms smuggling and money laundering. I suspect that all of us know asylum seekers or economic refugees in our constituencies who have come through that route. That is why we need effective stability in the region, and the fullest co-operation with The Hague tribunal.

It is completely unacceptable that Messrs Karadzic and Mladic are not in The Hague. People know where they are. People know where they are. I have no evidence of where they are, but their friends, families, colleagues and contacts must. I am not going to make accusations about governments harbouring and sheltering them, but I think that Mrs. del Ponte made a fair point. As I made that point to the president of Croatia when I was there two weeks' ago, that it also goes for General Gotovina. He is a Hague indictee and he belongs in The Hague. I was told, "He started life in the French foreign legion. You know what these legionaries are like, you seek them here, you seek them there, but gosh, they can hide inside a desert dune." I said, "I'm sorry, Croatia is not the caves of the Hindu Kush or around Khandahar; he is living in a house, he is being fed and watered and he is seeing his family and his friends." This Government or governments of other international communities will not fully normalise relations until there is closure, and the indictees are in front of The Hague. The quicker that they are in front of The Hague, the quicker we can seal that part of the history.
Mrs. Mahon: I take it from what the Minister is saying that he will be following up Interpol reports into
178WH
organised crime and the links with terrorism in Kosovo. They contain a great deal of information. We should be seen as being even handed if we want people to go to The Hague.
Mr. MacShane: In every intervention, I refer to the need to fight organised crime and the links between political forces and groups, yes, even elected politicians, and crime in every part—in Croatia, in Serbia, in Kosovo and in Macedonia. That is what I have been saying since I have been a Minister. Money, which is what that region needs more than anything else, is a coward. Money goes where it feels safe, where it feels that there is some security. As there is not yet acceptance of the need to, in effect, put into operation the recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Committee in co-operation with The Hague tribunal, much of the money that I believe could go into the region, does not arrive there.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk talked about the importance of the free media. I visited a B92 radio and television station, and I am examining ways of expanding support for free media in former Yugoslavia. Perhaps, having been a former president of the National Union of Journalists, I am indulging something that I believe to be important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central asked me about Bosnia. I hope that I have given a suitable reply about the need to define a road map for the region. A road map for the region is very simple, it is called Europe. If there is engagement with European norms, we can find a solution. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) asked about Yugoslavia's debt. It is $12.2 billion. I hope that I answered his question about the investigation of war crimes on both sides. I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax about the question of the Yugoslav air force. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing talked about Karadzic and Mladic, and I could not agree with him more. I will say it publicly and privately and face to face, at state dinners, in informal meetings, in Lancaster house, or in ministries in Zagreb, Macedonia and Belgrade—we need those gentleman and Croatian indictees in front of The Hague. I hope, in one of my future visits, to be able symbolically to paddle a canoe down the Danube, and perhaps cross one of the new bridges that the international community is helping to build.
The story is good. I think that Britain can take some credit in bringing peace and hope to this corner of Europe. I am grateful to the Foreign Affairs Committee's for its thorough report. I look forward to more reports on regions for which I have some responsibility, and I look forward to a continuing dialogue, collectively in this sort of forum, or individually with its members, whose comments, experience and contributions I value highly.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Five o'clock.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Fire Brigade, East Sussex
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will increase East Sussex Fire Brigade's SSA budget in 2002 in order to help meet the demands placed on the brigade as a result of last year's flooding. [19928]

  Number of private homes sold in England, 1996–2000

  Region

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  North East

  36,362

  42,805

  43,070

  45,351

  47,787

  North West

  107,121

  124,420

  124,314

  135,235

  139,192

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  81,043

  92,959

  90,794

  100,401

  102,377

  East Midlands

  76,358

  89,308

  88,009

  98,771

  97,622

  West Midlands

  84,561

  97,957

  93,249

  105,530

  102,041

  East

  115,377

  134,598

  128,142

  147,500

  131,549

  London

  138,336

  163,800

  154,055

  176,843

  156,044

  South East

  160,247

  208,967

  195,148

  220,832

  193,964

  South West

  106,955

  128,897

  122,299

  140,044

  124,908

  England

  906,360

  1,083,711

  1,039,080

  1,170,507

  1,095,484

  Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the elements of the £3.5 billion needed by Railtrack plc in administration, including that sum which was due to be paid to the company by the Government over that period under previous agreements. [19798]

  Mr. Byers
  The sum of £3.5 billion is the Administrator's current estimate of the maximum that would probably be required to meet pre-administration debts to 31 March 2002, including allowances for contingencies.

  The figures are made up as follows:

  £000

  Pre-administration trade creditors

  1,673,498

  Finance parties principal, interest and lease payments

  624,084

  Working capital

  811,000

  General contingency

  170,000

  Insurance premium

  9,000

  Estimated value of subsidiary companies

  31,500

  Provision for utility companies

  79,000

  Losses on close-out of interest rates SWAPS

  118,000

  Purchase of Rail Grinding train

  5,000

  Professional fees

  50,000

  Maximum total estimated funding required to 31 March 2002

  3,571,082

  The Government have paid Railtrack all the moneys that were legally due to the company, and these are being used to meet day-to-day running costs.
  438W
  Dr. Whitehead
  Under the provisional local government finance settlement announced on 4 December, the fire standard spending assessment for the constituent local authorities of East Sussex Fire Authority will be increased by 4 per cent. from £21.646 million to £22.503 million for 2002–03. The figure has been calculated using the funding distribution formula that applies in respect of all fire authorities in England.

  House Sales
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many private homes were sold in each of the last five years, broken down by region. [18913]

  Ms Keeble
  According to HM Land Registry, the number of private homes sold in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list(a) track, (b) signals and (c) other infrastructure, operated as part of the London Underground, which is (i) owned by Railtrack and (ii) used by mainline train operating companies; and if he will place in the Library (A) contract and (B) other documentation associated with the use and maintenance of such infrastructure. [20531]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: This is a matter for Railtrack and London Underground. All track, station and other infrastructure related agreements are commercially confidential between the parties and it would therefore be inappropriate to place them in the Library.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the supplementary note to the original notes of his meeting with John Robinson, as sent to the Transport Sub-Committee, was drafted. [20421]

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date the supplementary note to the official minute of his meeting with the chairman of Railtrack on 25 July was(a) drafted, (b) circulated for comments and (c) agreed by him. [20377]

  Mr. Byers
  The information requested is exempt from disclosure under Section 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which(a) officials and (b) special advisers in his Department were consulted

  439W
  on the content of the supplementary note to the official minute of his meeting with the Chairman of Railtrack on 25 July. [20533]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: The information requested is exempt from disclosure under Section 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Bus Operators (Fuel Duty)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the criteria are for paying fuel duty rebate to bus operators providing scheduled services; and in what circumstances it can be withheld. [20021]

  Ms Keeble
  To be eligible for the receipt of this rebate a bus service must be registered with the Traffic Commissioner as a local service. It must also meet a number of other strict criteria to ensure that it is a service available to the general public and that it stops at registered stopping places.

  The payment of rebate can be withheld if there is doubt that these conditions have been met or about the amount of entitlement. Examples of the latter are where an operator's estimates of FDR eligible mileage or fuel consumption appear unreasonably high in view of the operator's performance in recent years, where an operator consistently over estimates, where an operator fails to submit a certified claim form within the time allowed and if an operator fails to maintain adequate daily records of mileage run and fuel consumption.

  Housing (Isle of Sheppey)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent infrastructure analysis has taken place of(a) general practitioners, (b) police, (c) school places and (d) public transport on the Isle of Sheppey with regard to new build housing schemes. [20510]

  Ms Keeble
  The assessment of the need for local facilities is a matter for the local planning authority and the service providers. The Government's policies in Planning Policy Guidance note 3: Housing seek to create a more sustainable pattern of housing development and deliver accessibility to transport, health, education and other facilities. It is for the county and district councils to consider these issues and work with service providers when drawing up the development plan. The availability of services should also be taken into account when considering individual proposals for housing schemes.

  The Government have already announced the new bridge across the Swale making the Isle of Sheppey more accessible. We are also investing £5 million, through the Sure Start scheme, to help children in two of the most deprived areas on the Island.

  On-Shore Windfarms
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps the Government have taken to reduce the delays in planning decisions concerning on-shore windfarms. [20635]
  440W
  Ms Keeble
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave her on 21 November 2001,Official Report, columns 285W–86W.

  Housing
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answers of 29 October 2001,Official Report, column 479W on housing, and of 13 November 2001, Official Report, column 611W, on affordable housing, on what basis he stated that Chorley borough council considered Eaves Green unsuitable for affordable housing. [20527]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: This information was based on Chorley borough council's local plan, review (revised deposit edition, September 2000). Under policy HS5 this edition considered sites suitable for affordable housing. The Eaves Green site was excluded.

  Track Lines
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reasons the SRA have stopped publishing punctuality figures for track lines. [20747]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) continue to publish detailed public performance measurement data quarterly; in their twice-yearly "OnTrack" publication, and on two other occasions to coincide with their quarterly "National Rail Trends" publication.

  M4
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what reasons he based his decision that it would be inappropriate to widen the M4 between junctions 3 and 4b; for what additional external factors he took into account other than the recommendation of the Planning Inspector set out in paragraph 87 of the summary of the inspector's report on Heathrow Terminal 5; and if he will make a statement. [20536]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: The Secretary of State's decision to approve the development of Terminal 5 and the reasons for it are set out in full in his decision letter dated 20 November 2001. Paragraphs 56 and 57 of that decision letter deal with the inspector's conclusions and recommendation in respect of the M4 widening and the reasons for the Secretary of State's agreement that the draft scheme and orders relating to the M4 widening should not be made. I cannot add anything to what is said in the decision letter.

  Electoral Pilots
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether local authorities applying to run electoral pilot schemes in the May 2002 elections will be required to demonstrate how their schemes will be accessible to(a) visually impaired and (b) other disabled people before receiving approval. [19844]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: Enabling greater access for sections of the community currently less likely to vote is one of the criteria for

  441W
  selecting local authorities to pilot electoral innovations in the May 2002 local elections. Local authorities will be expected to demonstrate how their proposed pilot meet this criterion, including in the case of people with a visual impairment or other disability, as part of the selection process.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether his Department intends to initiate discussions with disability organisations over the accessibility of electoral pilot schemes for the May 2002 local elections to(a) visually impaired and (b) other disabled people. [19845]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: My officials, together with representatives of the Electoral Commission, are meeting RNIB and SCOPE early in the new year to discuss, among other things, progress with the 2002 local election pilots.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the e-voting equipment to be procured by his Department for the electoral pilots in the May 2002 local elections will include an(a) screen magnification software, (b) screen reader software, (c) Braille displays and (d) other adaptive technology for visually impaired people. [19843]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: Enabling greater access for sections of the electorate less likely to vote is one of the criteria for selecting e-voting pilots for the May 2002 local elections. Local authorities and suppliers chosen as pilots will be expected to show how they meet this criterion. At this stage the Government do not want to anticipate the outcome of these pilots about the best technology to help people with a visual impairment, but technologies such as screen magnification software and Braille displays could well feature in proposals put forward by local authorities and suppliers.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make statement on the SRA' s responsibility for providing electrical power. [21110]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack together with the electricity generating industry are responsible for the supply of electrical power to railways. The Strategic Rail Authority has a primary role in evaluating the case for new investment in railways which may include the choice of motive power.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the London Underground activities for which he is responsible; what responsibility he has for London Underground's advertising; and if he will make a statement. [21107]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Responsibility for the activities of London Underground Ltd., as a subsidiary of London Regional Transport (LRT), lies with the board of LRT. London Underground's activities support those of LRT, whose general duty is to provide or secure the provision 442W
  for Greater London of public passenger transport services by railway in accordance with principles approved by the Secretary of State.

  The responsibilities of the Secretary of State under the LRT Act 1984 are limited. He has powers designed for specific purposes such as issuing approvals, consents, determinations and directions to LRT. He does not have power to direct LRT's day to day business.

  The Secretary of State has no responsibility for London Underground's own advertising.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the Deloitte and Touche report on the PPP for the London Underground's commentary on the concept of reputational externalities; and if he will make a statement. [18690]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 10 May 2001,Official Report, column 255W. Deloitte and Touche' s report is a matter for Deloitte and Touche.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what maintenance teams London Underground has dedicated to working around the clock to clean(a) buildings and (b) trains affected by graffiti; and how many staff are employed to perform these functions; [20732]

  (2) when (a) he and (b) one of his ministerial colleagues last met a mystery shopper employed to survey the environmental state of London Underground's stations and trains; and whether (i) he and (ii) they have ever accompanied such a person while performing their duties under the normal conditions experienced by those who commute to London; [20726]

  (3) what conclusions he and his ministerial colleagues have drawn from the conference held last March with experts from New York and with officials from the Home Office on tackling graffiti on the London Underground; [20730]

  (4) what recent discussions he has had with Transport for London about graffiti on the underground; [20723]

  (5) whether he expects Mr. Bratton to pursue a zero tolerance policy on graffiti on the London Underground; [20734]

  (6) if it is possible to measure accurately changes in the level of recorded litter at London Underground's stations and to include the weighted results of surveys by mystery shoppers in the public-private partnership contracts; [20728]

  (7) how many representations he has received from the Greater London Assembly, from London boroughs and other organisations since June on the need to tackle graffiti on the London Underground; and if he will allow local authorities to remove graffiti from London Underground's buildings and then to recover the costs from London Underground; [20729]

  (8) what formal qualifications are required for appointment as a mystery shopper employed to survey the ambience of London Underground's environment; [20727]
  443W
  (9) how those mystery shoppers appointed to undertake periodic surveys of graffiti at London Underground stations measure its level; [20733]

  (10) how many high-pressure (a) jet washers and (b) gritting devices London Underground possesses for cleaning graffiti from bridges and brick walls at its stations; and what use has been made of them in the last three years for which figures are available; [20731]

  (11) if he will list the criteria used by the mystery shoppers employed to survey the levels of graffiti and litter at London Underground stations; and how their findings are weighted in order to calculate the quarterly average score for ambience at particular stations; [20724]

  (12) how often London Underground's stations and trains are subjected to environmental surveys by mystery shoppers; and whether these surveys are checked simultaneously. [20725]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The management of litter and graffiti and the conduct of the mystery shopper survey are operational matters for London Underground (LU). I understand from LU, that they have contracted NOP, an independent market research agency to conduct the mystery shopper survey on their behalf for the next couple of years. The results of the survey are collected and reported every three months. Under LU's tube modernisation plans, one of the factors which will determine the level of payments to the infrastructure companies will be their performance in keeping stations and trains clean.

  Underground Environment
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 November 2001,Official Report, column 750W, on the underground environment, if he will list the equipment used to measure the factors to make up the values of QUTAS j and QUTAS k; and which factors will be the product of human judgment. [20548]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for London Underground. I understand that QATAS j and QATAS k represent scores for different aspects of the passenger environment on the underground. The attributes included in QATAS j are measured by Mystery Shopper Surveys. The attributes included in QATAS k include public address audibility, ride quality, in-car noise, train lighting and in-car heating and ventilation. London Underground intends that these should be measured by physical tests, using the appropriate equipment for measuring these attributes. Initially, however, they too will be tested using mystery shopping techniques.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 November 2001,Official Report, column 750W, on the underground environment, what are the (a) values and (b) limits of the letters applied to the weights which are in turn applied to London Underground to calculate a weighted average. [20547]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for London Underground. The letters referred to represent different attributes of the passenger environment of the underground. Where these attributes are measured by Mystery Shopper Surveys then they are scored out of 10. Where they are 444W
  measured by physical tests, the attributes are given a score between 0 and 100. The weights applied to these attributes are calculated by London Underground according to the importance given by passengers to the attribute and the station or train on which the attribute is being measured. A higher weight is given to busier stations and trains on more heavily used lines.

  Electric Train Units
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list by region for each of the next 10 years the planned change in electrical power available to power electric train units. [21109]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No specific figures are available. This will depend on progress with development of infrastructure within the 10 year plan.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he list by region for each of the last 10 years the electrical power available to power electric train units. [21108]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Rate Relief (Village Businesses)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary. of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, (1) pursuant to the answer of 29 November 2001,Official Report, columns 1094–95W, on rate relief (village businesses), what was the (a) total number and (b) proportion of sole village pubs and petrol stations of a rateable value of £9,000 or less that have received rate relief since April, [20942]

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 29 November 2001, Official Report, columns 1094–95W, on rate relief (village businesses), what is the (a) total number and (b) proportion of food shops with a rateable value under £6,000 in designated villages of less than 3,000 population. [20943]

  Dr. Whitehead
  These figures are not kept centrally.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date the most recent head count of rough sleepers took place; and what requests were made by her Department to shelter providers to extend the nights in shelter over the period of the head count. [21224]

  Ms Keeble
  The street count figures were placed in the Library of the House on 3 December 2001 and show the dates that street counts took place. Local authorities in partnership with local charities organised the latest round of street counts in England, which took place from 19 September 2001 to 29 November 2001.

  The results announced on 3 December confirm the success of the Government's strategy in reducing rough sleeping by more than two-thirds ahead of time.
  445W
  Outreach sessions occur every night including nights when there is a count, and it is never the intention at any time to move a person off the streets for only a single night.

  Organisations were not asked by the RSU to keep clients in for an extra night purely for the purpose of keeping them off the streets on the night of the counts.

  Pensions (Fire Authorities)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what consideration he has given to the future pension costs of English fire authorities; if he will list the total costs for the three financial years up to 2000–01; and what he estimates those costs to be in each of the three succeeding years. [20907]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Total net expenditure under the firefighters' pension scheme is as follows:

  £million

  1998–99

  214.5

  1999–2000

  221.6

  2000–01

  1249.9

  1Provisional

  In its report for the period 2001–02 to 2003–04 the local authorities' Fire Service Expenditure Forecasting Group provided the following estimates of pensions expenditure under the Central/local Partnership process.

  £million

  2001–02

  275

  2002–03

  302

  2003–04

  332

  Local Authority Assets
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list those local authorities that have failed to sell assets at best value within the last 10 years; and what discussions his Department and its predecessor have had with them on this subject; [20789]

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) the Local Government Association and (b) its predecessors on selling assets for best value; and if he will make a statement. [20790]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department does not maintain a central record of those local authorities that have sold assets at less than the best consideration reasonably obtainable. Local authorities do, however, have discretionary powers under Part VII of the Local Government Act 1972 to dispose of land at an undervalue with the Secretary of State's consent. The Secretary of State has issued general consents for particular classes of disposals of land, for less than the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained, without needing specific ministerial consent.

  The Department issued revised general disposal consents in December 1998 following consultation with interested bodies including the Local Government Association.
  446W
  This consent regime is one of a number under review with a view to abolition. The Secretary of State has had several discussions with the Local Government Association in central/local partnership meetings about the review in the context of broader deregulation.

  National Association of Local Councils
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the National Association of Local Councils on the subject of developing partnerships; and whether this includes new funding arrangements. [20906]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My Department works closely with the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) on a number of issues including: best value, quality parishes, accounting and audit regulations and a national training strategy for town and parish councils.

  Discussions have covered financial assistance for NALC, such as the recent research project on the development of Performance Indicators for town and parish councils.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the National Association of Local Councils on the question of restoring a share of the uniform business rate to(a) parish and (b) town councils. [20905]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We have had no discussions with the National Association of Local Councils on this issue. Parish and town councils have never had a share of the revenue from the national non-domestic rate—or uniform business rate—since its introduction in 1990. Their main source of funding is the council tax.

  Amateur Sports Clubs
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what financial help his Department is giving to local authorities who grant(a) mandatory and (b) discretionary rate relief to community and amateur sports clubs. [20944]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced on 30 November 2001 Official Report, column 1150W, that Community Amateur Sports Clubs may now apply for charitable status. The Charity Commission has said that they will now recognise the following activities as charitable purposes: the promotion of community participation in healthy recreation by the provision of facilities for the playing of a particular sport; and the advancement of the physical education of young people not undergoing formal education. Those community sports clubs which meet the criteria for charitable status can benefit from mandatory rate relief of 80 per cent., which is already available for all premises used wholly or mainly for charitable purposes and is fully funded by central Government. Local authorities have discretion to increase the amount of rate relief to 100 per cent. in these cases, with central Government meeting 25 per cent. of the cost of this element of rate relief.
  447W
  Local authorities also have discretion to give rate relief of up to 100 per cent. to other non-profit making bodies, including community amateur sports clubs whose activities are not regarded as charitable. Central Government contribute 75 per cent. of the cost of rate relief in these cases. To qualify, the organisation must be philanthropic, religious, or concerned with education, social welfare, science, literature or the fine arts, or the property must be occupied by a non-profit making body and wholly or mainly used for the purpose of recreation.

  Galileo Global Satellite
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement about the UK's membership of the Galileo global satellite navigation system. [21223]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Galileo global satellite navigation system is a joint initiative by the European Community and the European Space Agency and the UK participates through its membership of both organisations. But the UK has a number of concerns about the project, including its costs and how these could be funded through a viable public-private partnership, and the benefits that the system would provide to users. A study by PricewaterhouseCoopers on behalf of the European Commission published only on 22 November reinforces these concerns.

  The Transport Council at its meeting on 7 December is scheduled to consider the release of Community funds and the establishment of a Joint Undertaking to manage and procure the development and validation phase of Galileo. We will seek a deferment of the decisions on the basis that further work as highlighted by the study should be carried out.

  Night Flights
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will ask the Civil Aviation Authority whether there has been an increase in(a) air traffic using and (b) night flights in the corridor four miles either side of Detling Beacon in Kent since 11 September. [20412]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Civil Aviation Authority has advised that it is not aware of any increase in either air traffic users or night flights in the corridor four miles either side of the Detling Beacon since 11 September.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many local councillors there are in each unitary authority with a population of less than 100,000. [20545]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There are two unitary authorities in England with an estimated population of less than 100,000— Rutland and Hartlepool with 20 and 47 councillors respectively.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the applicable community charge or council tax charged by each unitary authority with a population of less than 100,000 (i) in the year immediately preceding their creation and (ii) in the following year. [20544]
  448W
  Dr. Whitehead
  The information is given in the tables.

  Hartlepool borough council—unitary status created April 1996

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Average band D council tax:

  The year before creation (£)

  The following year Percentage (£)

  Percentage change

  Hartlepool1

  155

  791

  —

  Cleveland county council

  558

  —

  —

  Cleveland police authority

  45

  46

  —

  Total area council tax2

  759

  837

  10.3

  Rutland county council—unitary status created April 1997

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Average band D council tax:

  The year before creation

  The following year Percentage

  Percentage change

  Rutland1

  103

  741

  —

  Leicestershire county council

  483

  —

  —

  Leicestershire police authority

  45

  52

  —

  Total area council tax2

  632

  793

  25.5

  1Figures are not on a like-for-like basis because each authority did not have responsibility for upper tier functions, such as education or social services, before reorganisation took place

  2Figures rounded to the nearest pound

  The other English unitary authorities created during local government reorganisation have a population of over 100,000.

  Ministerial Resignations
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will resign. [20953]

  Mr. Byers
  No.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the condition of the lining of the Millennium Dome; and what the estimated cost is of cleaning the lining. [21364]

  Ms Keeble
  I understand from English Partnerships, who assumed ownership of the dome from 1 July 2001, that the roof of the dome is in good condition. There are three small holes in the internal lining, which do not need repairing. However, English Partnerships, will of course keep under review all matters relating to management and maintenance of their assets.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what dates(a) he and (b) other Ministers in his Department have visited (i) the Millennium Dome and (ii) the site surrounding the Dome since 1 July. [21363]

  Ms Keeble
  I visited the Greenwich Peninsula, including the dome, on 10 September 2001, as part of my visit to the Greenwich Millennium Village. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the
  449W
  Regions, has also frequently visited the Greenwich Peninsula, but not the dome, since 1 July 2001, as a constituency MP and as a private individual. No other DTLR minister has visited the dome or the Greenwich Peninsula recently.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which of the unsuccessful bidders for the Millennium Dome have had(a) any and (b) all of their costs reimbursed; and if he will publish the names of each such bidder together with the amount of their reimbursement. [21365]

  Ms Keeble
  None.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to use the Millennium Dome over the Christmas period; and if he will open it as a refuge for the homeless. [20247]

  Ms Keeble
  While the process of securing a long-term sustainable use is continuing, English Partnerships is following up expressions of interest it has received about possible events at the dome. The first of these will be the Ministry of Sound event on new year's eve. As preparation works will be under way in advance of this event, it will not be possible to accommodate any other uses during this period.

  Primary School Location (Road Speed Limits)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of how many primary schools in England are on roads with speed limits in excess of 30 miles per hour. [17446]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Fire Appliances
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many available fire appliances are(a) less than one, (b) between one and three, (c) between three and five and (d) over five years old; and if he will make a statement; [20615]

  (2) how many fire appliances have been in road accidents while on operational duty in (a) 1994, (b) 1995, (c) 1996, (d) 1997, (e) 1998, (f) 1999 and (g) 2000; and if he will make a statement; [20616]

  (3) how many fire appliances are available in each (a) county and (b) London borough; [20612]

  (4) how many of the total number of fire appliances are in active service. [20613]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The number of fire appliances available in fire brigades in England and Wales at 31 March 2001 are shown in the following table. The pumps provide fire cover as required by the Fire Services Act 1947. Special appliances include hydraulic platforms, turntable ladders, foam tenders, emergency tenders, control units, hose laying lorries, chemical incident units and fire boats.

  The cost of determining the age of each appliance would be disproportionate but a brigade would expect to replace appliances over 12 to 15 years.
  450W
  In 2000 there were 1,534 accidents involving appliances. It is not known how many of these were due to road accidents while on operational duty. Again the cost of determining this for 2000 and for earlier years would be disproportionate.

  Number of front-line and reserve fire appliances in fire brigades in England and Wales at 31 March 2001

  Pumps

  Front-line Specials

  Pumps

  Reserve Specials

  Avon

  37

  21

  8

  0

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  22

  19

  4

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  31

  12

  4

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  38

  11

  6

  0

  Cheshire

  37

  22

  5

  0

  Cleveland

  23

  7

  3

  0

  Cornwall

  43

  35

  8

  0

  County Durham and Darlington

  27

  6

  5

  0

  Cumbria

  50

  12

  6

  1

  Derbyshire

  44

  13

  6

  0

  Devon

  81

  20

  9

  1

  Dorset

  41

  26

  6

  1

  East Sussex

  38

  13

  5

  1

  Essex

  71

  21

  16

  1

  Gloucestershire

  33

  13

  5

  0

  Greater Manchester

  67

  30

  14

  8

  Hampshire

  76

  44

  14

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  42

  18

  6

  0

  Hertfordshire

  43

  9

  6

  1

  Humberside

  50

  13

  9

  0

  Isle of Wight

  16

  9

  3

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  2

  3

  0

  1

  Kent

  87

  23

  13

  4

  Lancashire

  63

  17

  7

  2

  Leicestershire

  33

  17

  4

  0

  Lincolnshire

  48

  11

  4

  0

  London

  170

  43

  43

  15

  Merseyside

  42

  13

  10

  0

  Mid and West Wales

  72

  36

  12

  0

  Norfolk

  52

  11

  9

  0

  North Wales

  54

  31

  9

  1

  North Yorkshire

  45

  18

  5

  2

  Northamptonshire

  28

  9

  4

  0

  Northumberland

  23

  0

  3

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  36

  9

  6

  3

  Oxfordshire

  36

  8

  6

  1

  Royal Berkshire

  24

  10

  6

  1

  Shropshire

  33

  15

  3

  1

  Somerset

  40

  17

  5

  0

  South Wales

  64

  57

  12

  3

  South Yorkshire

  32

  8

  6

  1

  Staffordshire

  48

  17

  7

  0

  Suffolk

  47

  18

  4

  0

  Surrey

  36

  19

  9

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  33

  9

  7

  2

  Warwickshire

  26

  8

  4

  1

  West Midlands

  62

  13

  14

  6

  West Sussex

  46

  28

  6

  0

  West Yorkshire

  66

  14

  10

  3

  Wiltshire

  38

  18

  6

  0

  Total

  2,296

  874

  382

  61

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  School Discipline
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of levels of indiscipline in(a) state primary and (b) state secondary schools since the abolition of corporal punishment. [13396]

  Mr. Timms
  Corporal punishment was abolished in state schools in 1987 and we have no plans to reintroduce it. Data on levels of indiscipline are not available on a
  451W
  consistent basis since 1987, so it is not possible to give an assessment of how levels of discipline have changed since then.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children there were in classes of 30 or more, by year group, in each of the last five years. [20181]

  Mr. Timms
  The following is the information:

  Number of pupils in classes of 30 or more, by year group, in maintained primary and secondary schools

  Maintained primary1

  2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  Reception

  102,892

  113,773

  147,223

  163,243

  Year group 1

  111,542

  134,987

  152,845

  189,117

  Year group 2

  111,793

  146,357

  191,460

  217,346

  Year group 3

  195,681

  224,968

  228,135

  216,348

  Year group 4

  222,042

  226,862

  212,128

  197,954

  Year group 5

  213,879

  201,652

  188,442

  192,969

  Year group 6

  192,371

  186,438

  196,775

  175,773

  Year group 7

  4,357

  987

  1,472

  3—

  Mixed

  320,592

  374,445

  419,725

  482,822

  Maintained secondary

  20011

  20002

  19992

  19982

  19972

  Year group 5

  8,423

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Year group 6

  8,837

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Year group 7

  131,250

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Year group 8

  163,879

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Year group 9

  146,462

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Year group 10

  73,741

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Year group 11

  65,838

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Year group 12

  1,299

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Year group 13

  485

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Mixed

  28,489

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Aged under 14

  3—

  427,000

  399,939

  355,465

  317,647

  Aged 14 and 15

  3—

  133,596

  124,759

  115,926

  104,866

  Aged 16 plus

  3—

  2,566

  1,974

  2,419

  2,219

  (a) New sixth forms

  Year/name of school

  LEA

  LSC area

  Average point score per student based on 2001 A/AS/AGNVQ results

  2001

  Kesgrave High School

  Suffolk

  Suffolk

  n/a

  2000

  Hamstead Hall School

  Birmingham

  Birmingham and Solihull

  16.6

  The Axe Valley Community College

  Devon

  Devon and Cornwall

  n/a

  St. Edwards RC/CofE VA School

  Poole

  Bournemouth/Dorset/Poole

  15.2

  1999

  The Compton High School and Sports College

  Ealing

  London West

  4.7

  Filsham Valley School

  East Sussex

  Sussex

  10.3

  (b) Closed sixth forms

  Name of school

  LEA

  LSC area

  2001

  St. Edmunds Catholic School

  Portsmouth

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  Normanton Freeston Voluntary Controlled High School

  Wakefield

  West Yorkshire

  The Petersfield School

  Hampshire

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  Hull Trinity House School

  Kingston upon Hull

  Humberside

  452W
  1Includes middle schools

  2Excludes middle schools

  3Not available

  Note:

  Information on class sizes by year group in primary schools was not collected prior to 1998

  Schools Adjudicator
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the right of hon. Members to make representations to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator about constituency issues. [20773]

  Mr. Timms
  The role of the Schools Adjudicator is to decide on LEA school organisation plans, and individual school proposals and admission arrangements, where it has not been possible to reach agreement locally and there has been a statutory objection. Adjudicators must consider each case on its merits, taking into account all the information available to them and the views expressed by all interested parties. Hon. Members do not have statutory objection rights but are free to make representations to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator on cases under consideration, in the same way as any member of the public with a local interest. Decisions of the Schools Adjudicator are binding on the parties concerned.

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools(a) opened a new sixth form and (b) closed their sixth form in each of the last three years; in which learning and skills councils area they are located; and what the average A level points score was of each school listed under (a). [18380]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Proposals have been approved for the following schools to open new, or close existing, sixth forms during the past three years.
  453W

  (b) Closed sixth forms

  Name of school

  LEA

  LSC area

  2000

  Beaumont Leys School

  Leicester City

  Leicestershire

  Breckfield Community Comprehensive School

  Liverpool

  Merseyside and Halton

  Campion Catholic High School

  Liverpool

  Merseyside and Halton

  St. Benedict's Catholic High School

  Wirral

  Merseyside and Halton

  1999

  Babington Community Technology College

  Leicester City

  Leicestershire

  Malory School

  Lewisham

  London East

  Our Lady's Catholic High School

  Liverpool

  Merseyside and Halton

  Broadoak Community School

  North Somerset

  West of England

  n/a = not available

  Learning and skills Council
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria she has established for the distribution of the Learning and Skills Council's standards fund in 2002–03.[19617]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: The Learning and Skills Council is responsible for setting the criteria for distribution of its standards fund. The council will publish the criteria to post-16 providers in time for the 2002–03 financial year.

  School Links
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assistance is available to schools wishing to establish links with other schools in the(a) European Union and (b) Commonwealth. [20867]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: The Department for Education and Skills provides assistance for schools to establish links with schools in the EU, Commonwealth and worldwide through its funding of organisations such as the British Council. Programmes include practical help with finding a school as well as a range of assistance to help with the cost of visiting the partner school.

  Increasingly, school links are being made by utilising information and communication technology. For instance, schools seeking partner schools anywhere in the world can consult the Windows on the World website on the

  Arm

  Liability1

  Strength

  Deficit

  Percentage

  Officers

  Royal Armoured, Corps/Household, Cavalry Regiment

  861

  823

  -38

  -4.4

  Royal Artillery

  1,062

  1,028

  -34

  -3.2

  Royal Engineers

  1,139

  1,112

  -27

  -2.4

  Infantry

  2,766

  2,795

  +29

  +1.0

  Army Air Corps2

  459

  411

  -48

  -10.5

  Soldiers

  Royal Armoured, Corps/Household, Cavalry Regiment

  5,011

  4,916

  -95

  -1.9

  Royal Artillery

  7,439

  6,923

  -516

  -6.9

  Royal Engineers

  7,662

  7,401

  -261

  -3.4

  Infantry

  23,971

  22,561

  -1,410

  -5.9

  Army Air Corps2

  1,309

  1,324

  + 15

  +1.1

  1 Liability figures quoted are In-Year.

  2 Pilot shortfalls in the AAC are made up by attachees from other Arms and Services. At any one time there are approximately 100 attachees, which are not reflected in the table.

  454W
  internet at http://www.wotw.org.uk or the Montage Plus website at http://www.montageplus.co.uk which supports joint curriculum projects between schools in this country and abroad.

  EU funding is also available through the Socrates Programme, the European Action Programme in the field of education that focuses specifically on schools in the EU through the Comenius action. The programme is open to the member states of the EU as well as all the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe, Cyprus and Malta. Contact seminars for schools wishing to find partners are held regularly across Europe. The British Council publicises the action, and holds UK regional briefing meetings on the Socrates Programme to advertise the opportunities. The Partbase database (partbase.eupro.se) provides schools with an on-line search facility for finding Comenius partners.

DEFENCE

  Combat Arms
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on undermanning in the Army's combat arms. [20631]

  Mr. Ingram
  Combat arms are those which are trained and equipped to be in contact with the enemy and those who provide direct offensive and combat support. Manning in these arms as at 1 November is given in the table.
  455W
  The Army remains committed to achieving full manning by around 2005. We have always said that returning the Army to full manning would be a long haul and recognise that this represents a significant challenge. It requires a three pronged approach; maximising recruitment while reducing wastage during training and improving the return of service of trained personnel. The package of measures we have introduced has already delivered some benefits with improvements in retention and we are pursuing a number of recruitment initiatives at regional and national level.

  Students (Defence Research)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements his Department has in place to assist school students researching defence topics. [21302]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is important that young people—the voters and taxpayers of tomorrow—should have an understanding of defence. In addition, defence has much to offer the curriculum. The Ministry of Defence produces a wide range of publications which are available to assist school students in their research, or to inform members of the public who wish to find out more about defence. These include a series of leaflets on various aspects of defence activity, a new series of leaflets describing the impact of defence activity in each region of the country, and a series of booklets including one—Defence Matters—that is tailored specifically for students and has been sent to schools across the country. All our publications are available on demand and can also be found on the MOD website together with a wide range of other material about defence.

  In addition, each of the services has a student presentation team or teams, which visit schools and colleges across the country, and we are currently in the process of appointing a schools adviser who will develop a range of defence related material that can be used to help deliver the curriculum.

  Army Recruitment (Scottish Regiments)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) establishment strength, (b) actual strength

  Scottish regiments as at 1 November 2001

  Establishment

  Strength

  Percentage

  Scots Dragoon Guards

  590

  498

  -15.6

  One Scots Guards

  620

  687

  +10.8

  One Royal Scots

  620

  512

  -17.4

  One Royal Highland Fusiliers

  620

  544

  -12.3

  One Kings Own Scottish Borderers

  620

  642

  +3.5

  One Black Watch

  741

  640

  -13.6

  One Highlanders

  667

  1614

  -7.9

  One Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  620

  593

  -4.4

  1 Includes 108 personnel in the Gurkha Reinforcement Company (GRC).

  Defence Spending (Scotland)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the defence budget was spent in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available(a) in actual terms and (b) as a percentage of the total defence budget. [21358]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of
  456W
  and (c) level of undermanning in percentage terms of establishment against actual strength was for the (i) Highlanders, (ii) Black Watch, (iii) Royal Scots, (iv) Royal Highland Fusiliers, (v) King's Own Scottish Borderers, (vi) Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, (vii) Royal Scots Dragoon Guards and (viii) Scots Guards on 1 November; what initiatives are under way in Scotland to address issues of (A) recruitment and (B) retention; and if he will make a statement. [18931]

  Mr. Ingram
  The establishment and actual strengths and level of undermanning in percentage terms for each of the Scottish regiments listed is shown in the table.

  We recognise the need to maximise recruiting levels across the Army as whole. The Army launched a major recruiting campaign in autumn 2000 aimed at targeting a more diverse and well-qualified audience as well as encouraging those who have already expressed an interest in the Army as a career to make the commitment. We are also aiming at reducing the number of recruits withdrawing during training by combining Phase I and Phase II Infantry Training.

  As part of the overall recruiting campaign, the Army appointed a Glasgow recruiting company, Search, to manage all the Army's recruitment in the Glasgow area for an initial one-year trial period from the beginning of April 2001. Search will undertake promotional and marketing activity to highlight the many different career opportunities available in the Army with the aim of boosting the numbers of young people choosing the Army as a career.

  Retention levels among soldiers have held steady over the last 12 months or so. However, we are not relaxing our efforts in this area and have introduced several Operational welfare initiatives including: Guaranteed Post Operational tour leave, electronic blueys and 20 minutes free telephone call per week for personnel on Operations. We also recognise the importance of providing soldiers and their families a decent standard of accommodation and have several projects in hand to effect improvements to current housing stock.

  State for Defence on 15 October 2001, Official Report, columns 959–60W.

  Operation Veritas
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of RAF flying hours accrued for Operation Veritas. [18404]
  457W
  Mr. Ingram
  As of 3 December, the RAF had accrued over 2,600 flying hours during Operation Veritas. Approximately 1,100 of these flying hours related to reconnaissance missions and almost 1,500 to air to air refuelling flights. Hours accrued during other RAF missions, primarily resupply flights from the UK, are not included in this figure.

  Polish Pilots
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the exclusion of Polish pilots from the Battle of Britain war memorial at Dover; and if he will make a statement. [20993]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has received no representations about the exclusion of Polish pilots from the Battle of Britain war memorial at Dover.

  DARA
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been carried out in the Defence Aviation Repair Agency which recommends the closure of(a) Fleetlands, (b) St Athans and (c) Sealand in Flintshire. [20915]

  Mr. Ingram
  No studies have been carried out that recommend the closure of any of the DARA sites.

  C-17s
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if C-17s have the capacity to drop cargo by parachute. [20392]

  Mr. Ingram
  The C-17 aircraft is capable of dropping cargo by parachute and it is used in this role by the United States Air Force. However, the UK does not currently envisage using the aircraft in this role and has not sought the clearances necessary to do so.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if paratroop insertion for C-17s is possible. [20394]

  Mr. Ingram
  The C-17 aircraft is capable of dropping paratroops and it is used in this role by the United States Air Force. However, the UK does not currently envisage using the aircraft in this role, and has not sought the clearances necessary to do so.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flying hours are permitted per annum for C-17s. [20393]

  Mr. Ingram
  Our lease contract for the RAF's four C-17s does not restrict flying hours. However, the contracted support package is based on an assumed annual fleet usage rate of 3,000 hours. Additional flying hours will give rise to an additional charge for the associated support

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the operation of the C-17s is constrained by the Health and Safety regulations; and if he will make a statement. [20395]

  Mr. Ingram
  C-17 aircraft have been in service with the United States Air Force for several years. Nevertheless, prior to the aircraft entering service with the Royal Air Force, the Ministry of Defence contracted an independent safety assessor to undertake a risk-based 458W
  safety analysis in relation to UK Health and Safety legislation. This analysis contributed to the overall safety case on the basis of which the aircraft was cleared for operational service.

  Weapons
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what dense metals are used in the hard-target penetrators of the(a) GBU-24, (b) GBU-32 (upgraded), (c) GBU-37, (d) AGM-86D, (e) AGM-65G, (f) AGM-154C and (g) M220-TOW weapons systems. [20340]

  Mr. Ingram
  Only two of the weapons listed—a variant of the GBU-24 and a variant of the AGM-65—are in service with UK armed forces. Neither use depleted uranium or any other "dense metal" in their warheads.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what dense metals(a) are and (b) have been used in the (i) development, (ii) testing and (iii) operational use of the BEe/RO BROACH MWS warhead systems. [20333]

  Mr. Ingram
  The only dense metal contained in the BROACH MWS is a tungsten-based alloy. No other dense metal is or has been used in its development or testing. The BROACH MWS is not forecast to enter service before August 2002.

  Forces Personnel (Health Care)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many armed forces personnel have been treated in the independent health care sector at his Department's expense in each of the last eight years; and if he will make a statement; [18431]

  (2) how much has been spent on treatments in the independent health care sector by his Department in each of the last eight years. [18432]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information is not readily available for the costs and numbers of personnel treated in the independent health care sector for the period of the last eight years. However, a series of initiatives undertaken in 2000 and 2001 have covered in total some 2,600 personnel at a cost of £4.7 million. These figures include investigations and out-patient appointments as well as treatment.

  UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the time scale for ratification of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; and what plans the Government have for the deployment of under-18s after its ratification. [19534]

  Mr. Hoon
  Officials in both the Ministry of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Office are actively working on ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, and we aim to ratify as soon as possible. We hope this will be in early 2002. The UK made a statement on signature of the Optional Protocol in September 2000 clarifying its understanding of the obligation on states (Article 1) to take all feasible measures to prevent the direct participation in hostilities of personnel under 18 years of age. The current work is aimed at finalising the detailed administrative guidelines for the armed forces which will give form to that
  459W
  commitment. Meanwhile, we take great care of the types of duty on which personnel under the age of 18 may be employed and ensure that none are deployed unless fully trained.

  No service personnel under the age of 17 are deployed on operations. No personnel under the age of 18 carry out operational patrols in Northern Ireland, although 17-year-olds can be based in the Province. Also, under-18s are not deployed as aircrew or in submarines and, in line with UN policy, we do not deploy personnel under the age of 18 on UN peacekeeping operations.

  The UK believes that, if it is widely ratified and its provisions properly implemented, the Protocol will represent a major step towards preventing the exposure of children, sometimes as young as seven or eight, to appalling danger and brutality, often by forceable recruitment into non-government forces.

  Key Point Defence
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment of key point defence he has made since 11 September; what the outcome was(a) in Scotland and (b) in the rest of the UK; and what assessment he has made of the resources available in the UK to guard key points in the event of an emergency; [20887]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of volunteer reserves in Scotland to undertake key point defence. [20888]

  Mr. Ingram
  The security and defence of key points within the UK is a matter for the police. Should the threat warrant additional security, beyond that which a particular constabulary are able to provide, they can call on assistance from other police forces across the country and, ultimately, from the armed forces. Under current arrangements, regular service personnel would be used to augment the police. Arrangements for mutual aid between police forces and for military support to the police are the same throughout the UK.

  All counter terrorist contingency plans, including those relating to key points in the UK as a whole, are being reviewed to ensure they remain robust and relevant in the light of the terrorist attacks of 11 September. As part of work on the New Chapter of the Strategic Defence Review, consideration is being given to a possible increased role for the armed forces including the Territorial and Reserve Forces, in homeland security.

  Nuclear Liabilities
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the value of liabilities owed by his Department arising from radiological contamination at or arising from(a) nuclear submarine bases and berths, (b) nuclear weapons manufacture, (c) nuclear weapons design and developments, (d) military nuclear materials production and processing, (e) radioactive waste conditioning and storage, (f) nuclear weapons explosive testing within the United Kingdom and abroad and (g) nuclear propulsion reactor research, development and manufacture. [19882]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 31 March 2001, the Ministry of Defence's nuclear liabilities amounted to £3,574,809,000 (representing the liabilities discounted at 6 per cent. and 460W
  expressed in 2000–01 money values) or £16,039,639,000 (undiscounted) mainly arising from the areas noted. A more detailed breakdown is not available in the form requested.

  Provision for liabilities and charges is included in the MOD's annual Departmental Resource Account. The Account for 2000–01 will shortly be published and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications British military personnel located in Afghanistan have had with the US Marines based near Kandahar. [20241]

  Mr. Hoon
  British forces in Afghanistan are in regular contact with the US Marines based near Kandahar.

  Saif Sareea
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of desert-proofing equipment used by the UK military in Oman; and if he will make a statement. [12399]

  Mr. Ingram
  The vast majority of the UK military equipment deployed to Oman for Exercise Saif Sareea required no modification in order to operate in the climatic conditions encountered during the exercise. Although individual units may, at modest cost, have taken measures to prepare equipment for the exercise, a decision was taken not to fully desertise all major items of equipment. An example of individual unit measures was the fitting of sand filters and protective blade strips to RN helicopters, the costs of which could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  SA80 Mk II Rifle
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of the SA80 MK II rifle in the Army. [20632]

  Mr. Ingram
  The main deployment of the SA80 A2 rifle is due to take place between early 2002 and mid 2006. However some weapons have already been issued to elements of two UK based Brigades on standby for Operation Veritas. The Service Shooting Teams have also received rifles as part of an early deployment programme and have successfully used them in international competitions.

  Early Warning Radar
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work is to be undertaken under the programme for upgraded early warning radar support in the UK, allocated to the US ballistic missile defence organisation in their 2002 fiscal year budget. [20523]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have received no request from the United States for the use of facilities in the UK for missile defence purposes. The US ballistic missile defence organisation's 2002 fiscal year budget is a matter for them.
  461W

  Armed Forces Headquarters
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the dispersal of(a) brigade and (b) divisional permanent headquarters. [20886]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Strategy for the Army (SFTA), a copy of which is in the Library of the House, stated that the Army should be based progressively in the UK over time, becoming more regionally focused, whenever opportunities present themselves. Decisions on the future basing of Army units will be made against this background.

  Transport Ships
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the cost of placing the order for four new roll-on, roll-off transport ships for the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement. [18814]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: Negotiations continue to finalise a 25-year private finance initiative contract for the Department's strategic sealift with AWSR as the preferred bidder. This will cover the operation, support, maintenance, and crewing of up to six roll on/roll off ferries to be available for the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to use at varying periods of notice. It is estimated that routinely the MOD will require only four of the six vessels and when not being used by the Department they will be available to the owners, AWSR, for commercial purposes. The total value of the contract is estimated to be worth around £950 million with some 85 per cent. being spent within the UK. The cost of the ship-build element will be contained within the overall strategic sealift service contract. We hope to be in a position to complete negotiations shortly.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the Eurofighter and (b) the Joint Strike Fighter and when they will be in service. [21621]

  Mr. Hoon
  Both Eurofighter and the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will be essential components of the UK fast jet inventory. They will complement each other. Eurofighter is optimised for the air superiority role, while JSF is primarily a strike aircraft, with a secondary air defence role. The current forecast in service dates for Eurofighter and JSF are 2002 and 2012 respectively.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Trade International
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will announce details of the overseas trade fairs, seminars and outward missions programme to be supported by British Trade International from 1 April 2002. [21322]

  Ms Hewitt
  Details of a £21.7 million British Trade International programme of support for participating in overseas trade fairs, seminars and outward missions, in the form of supported groups, will be placed in the Libraries of the House. Organisations that bid for support are being informed.
  462W
  These activities continue to be central to trade development work world wide. We are conscious of sponsor organisations' need for a greater degree of flexibility on how these funds are allocated, particularly for overseas trade fairs and seminars to reflect the ways in which conditions in some markets and sectors may change in the course of the year. British Trade International will seek to observe this need for flexibility, within the overall budget provision, in administering the 2002–03 programme.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance she has given to trading standards officers in local authorities throughout the United Kingdom to ensure that fireworks comply with British Standard 7144. [21474]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have made it a requirement under the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1977 that fireworks must comply with BS7114. In addition, we have issued guidance to trading standard officers and others through our firework safety toolkit on the requirements of the 1997 regulations including the importance of BS7114.

  Government Office for the North-West
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) advice and (b) support was provided to Thomas Whitter Ltd. by the Government office for the north-west after the company was taken into administration. [20874]

  Alan Johnson
  No advice or support has been sought by or given to Thomas Witter Ltd. by the Government office for the north-west.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what decisions were taken by the north-west development agency in relation to support for Thomas Whitter Ltd. following the actions taken by the Government office for the north-west. [20873]

  Alan Johnson
  No decisions have been taken by the north-west development agency about support to Thomas Witter Ltd. The agency has been in contact with the company, but the company does not feel that the agency can do anything to help. The agency remains willing to discuss support should that position change.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 29 November 2001,Official Report, column 1047W, on the Government office for the north-west, what (a) support and (b) advice the Government office for the north-west provides to companies in non-assisted areas on management buy-outs. [20877]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government office for the north-west can provide advice on a range of issues associated with management buy-outs, either directly or indirectly, by referring the company to one of its partner organisations, such as the Small Business Service or the north-west development agency. The Government office cannot provide direct financial support to companies in non-assisted areas.
  463W
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what files the Government office for the north-west holds on concerns raised by hon. Members on behalf of local companies. [20876]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government office for the north-west holds files where concerns raised by hon. Members have led to some substantive action being taken.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the criteria for companies to receive(a) advice and (b) support from the Government office for the north-west when placed in administration. [20875]

  Alan Johnson
  Any company may seek advice from the Government office for the north-west, regardless of its situation. A company may be eligible for financial support from the Government office if it is located in an assisted area and is investing in capital expenditure. This can apply to a company in administration where the legal entity of the company changes.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on standards of conduct and competence concerning the advertising and selling of hearing aids to elderly and vulnerable customers; and if she will make a statement on the plans for independent scrutiny of the hearing aid industry. [18992]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The private supply of hearing aids is regulated by the Hearing Aid Council. The operation of the Hearing Aid Council was recently reviewed. The Government are considering its recommendations.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to change consumer protection legislation relating to the purchase of motor insurance policies following the provisional liquidation of Sussex Insurance Services. [10830]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The DTI investigated this company and the Secretary of State petitioned successfully for its provisional liquidation. Responsibility for insurance regulation, which protects consumers in this area, rests with the Treasury and the FSA.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to encourage the growth and development of small businesses in areas of high unemployment. [19932]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service (SBS) was established in April 2000 as a single Government agency dedicated to help small firms and represent their interests. One of the key aims of the SBS is to stimulate enterprise, particularly in areas of deprivation, including those with high levels of unemployment.

  Working through a national network of Business Link operators, the SBS provides information, advice and access to expertise on just about everything needed to start and grow a business. An element of the funding provided to Business Link operators is allocated on the basis of relative levels of deprivation.
  464W
  Under the Phoenix fund, we are providing support to 96 projects aimed at stimulating enterprise among under-represented and disadvantaged groups. A number of these projects are in areas of high unemployment.

  Enterprise grants of up to £75,000 are available in the assisted areas and other specified areas of England to support growing small and medium-sized businesses. In addition, larger grants are available through regional selective assistance in assisted areas to help create and safeguard jobs.

  The whole Wansbeck district is covered by the enterprise grant scheme and much of it by assisted areas.

  Under the new deal, help is available to all long term unemployed people who want to become self-employed.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Human Rights (Nigeria)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment her Department has made of human rights in Nigeria; and what actions her Department is taking to improve human rights in Nigeria. [20637]

  Clare Short
  We welcome steps taken by the Nigerian Government and the National Assembly towards ratification of the Convention against Torture, the drafting of a National Action Plan on Human Rights, strengthening of the National Human Rights Commission and the removal of existing laws that contravene international human rights obligations. There remain areas of concern including the handling of tensions between ethnic groups, the use of capital and corporal punishment, prison conditions and the high numbers of Nigerians that live in extreme poverty.

  I recently approved a £30 million programme to support Nigerian efforts, at both federal and state level, to enable poor people to obtain rapid and fair justice. This involves the whole justice system—courts, police, prisons, legal aid, and traditional and informal mediation. We will focus this programme in our four partnership states. These are Benue, Ekiti, Enugu and Jigawa. We will ensure that the assistance programme is taken forward in all four states in ways that uphold international human rights standards.

  We are also providing £2.4 million to civil society organisations in Nigeria working for better governance and the realisation of the rights of the marginalised people in Nigeria.

  In order to address the economic and social rights of poor people in Nigeria, we are currently designing and implementing a range of programmes (in basic health, support to the electoral process, state and local government reform, among others) with a probable value of some £140 million.

  We are working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to establish a high-level bilateral human rights dialogue with the Nigerian Government on issues such as child and women's rights (including trafficking issues), and international and regional human rights obligations.
  465W

  African Trade and Poverty Programme
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which African countries will benefit from the UK's contribution to the African Trade and Poverty Programme; and what criteria were used to decide these countries. [20970]

  Clare Short
  Through the Africa Trade and Poverty Programme (TPP) we are making available funding of £7.5 million to work in up to 12 countries across sub-Saharan Africa, as well as in regional organisations, to build capacity for trade reforms which serve poverty reduction objectives.

  Trade and Poverty Programme projects are expected to start in 2002 in Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi and Botswana (as well as with the East Africa Community). The main criteria for selection of these countries have been strong demand for TPP within the country, and consistency of the TPP approach with DFID' s other work on poverty reduction. Exploratory visits have been made to nine other countries. This may lead to further country projects being developed during 2002.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the aid agencies that are active within Afghanistan; where they are operating; and what level of food aid they are providing. [20811]

  Clare Short
  Information on which agencies are working where in Afghanistan, and the kind of relief goods that they are distributing can be obtained from the Humanitarian Information Centre (HIC) in Islamabad, set up by the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) with technical and financial assistance from my Department. Regularly updated activity maps can be found on their website at www.hic.org.pk.

  The UN world food programme (WFP) is the lead agency in terms of emergency food assistance. Before 11 September, they were transporting enough food into Afghanistan to feed 5 million people. Since then, despite significant constraints on the operating environment, they have continued to dispatch increasingly large amounts of food into the country. WFP currently has food distribution contracts with 61 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working inside Afghanistan.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what discussions are taking place between the Government and aid agencies on how to gain entry to Taliban-controlled areas; [20810]

  (2) if she will make a statement as current aid provision for Afghanistan, with particular reference to the parts of the country which (a) are receiving aid and (b) are not. [20809]

  Clare Short
  Humanitarian agencies, particularly the world food programme (WFP), continue to make good progress in transporting humanitarian relief into Afghanistan. Some international staff of humanitarian agencies have now returned to the country and are working with national staff to reach those in need of assistance. However, despite the best efforts of humanitarian agencies, some areas of Afghanistan are proving difficult to access. We are in regular contact with aid agencies about how to gain access to vulnerable 466W
  people living in insecure areas of Afghanistan, whether Taliban-controlled or otherwise. Areas of particular concern, where vulnerable people are in need of food and other relief supplies, and access is constrained by insecurity, are the western and central highlands; southern Afghanistan, particularly the area around Kandahar city; and Badghis and Faryab Provinces.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  House of Lords Appointments Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council what recent discussions the House of Lords Appointments Commission had concerning the criteria they use for selecting people's peers with the objective of making the House of Lords more representative. [20408]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I understand that the Appointments Commission asked for feedback on the criteria which it used for its first round of appointments. It has considered responses to this request, and has concluded that the criteria it originally adopted remain relevant. The commission's criteria are set out on its website www.houseoflordsappointmentscommission.gov.uk.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council how many civil servants and at what grade are working(a) full-time and (b) part-time for the House of Lords Appointments Commission. [20406]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I understand that one member of the senior civil service works part-time for the House of Lords Appointments Commission. One other member of staff works full-time at Cabinet Office range A level. There is a full-time administrative support post which is currently vacant.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council how many days per month members of the House of Lords Appointments Commission devote to their Commission duties. [20407]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I understand that on average the members of the House of Lords Appointments Commission devote two to three days a month to their duties.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council when the printed version of the annual report for 2000 of the House of Lords Appointments Commission will be lodged in the Library. [20404]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I understand that the House of Lords Appointments Commission's annual report will be lodged in the Library when it is published in the new year. The report will cover the period May 2000 (when the Commission was set up) to November 2001.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Contract Staff
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) special advisers and (b) press officers were employed (i) full time, (ii) part time and (iii) on a contract basis by his Department in each year since 1992. [6933]
  467W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 340W.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ministerial decisions were made where authority for the same derived from the royal prerogative for the most recent calendar month for which information is available. [9367]

  Mr. MacShane
  Records are not kept of the individual occasions on which powers under the royal prerogative are exercised nor could it be practicable to do so.

  Unallocated Funds
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the total unallocated funds within his departmental expenditure limit(a) at the start of the financial year and (b) to date; and what was the month seven forecast on outturn underspend against his departmental expenditure limit in (i) real and (ii) percentage terms. [19448]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office allocated its full 2001–02 provision, other than on conflict prevention, where we hold a departmental unallocated provision (DUP) of £27,849,000. This figure is set out on page 130 of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's departmental annual report for 2001–02. There has been no draw-down of this DIP to date.

  Outturn against our six-month forecast for each request for resources will be published in the Winter Supplementary Estimates Summary request for supply as usual.

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs further to his answer of 5 November 2001,Official Report, column 1W, on departmental assets, if he will make a statement on what (a) quantities, (b) countries of origin and (c) maximum bottle price of fine wines are available for use at home; and what was the cost by Department for the last year. [19799]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 14 November 2001,Official Report, columns 746–47W.

  Wines from many different countries of origin are represented in the Government Cellar including, England, Wales, Portugal, United States, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Germany, Spain, Italy and France.

  It is not possible to give a detailed break-down of wine costs by Department; such a breakdown would incur disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the basis of the criticisms of the competence of the authors of the report prepared for the European Parliament's Scientific and 468W
  Technological Option Assessment Programme on possible toxic effects from nuclear reprocessing plants at Sellafield, that the Attorney General put before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on 19–20 November.[19880]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government, in their submissions before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in the MOX plant case, drew attention to criticisms that had been made of the Wise report regarding its possible lack of objectivity. As these statements were made in the context of legal proceedings, I would not wish to paraphrase them. I refer my hon. Friend to the full verbatim transcripts of the statements made by the Government to the Tribunal during the hearings on 19 and 20 November. These are available on the website of the Tribunal at http://www.itlos.org.

  The relevant sections from the transcripts are as follows:

  Transcript of public sitting held on Monday, 19 November 2001, at 3.00 p.m.

  Page 23, lines 34–41

  http://www. itlos.org/case_documents/2001/document_en_194.pdf

  Transcript of public sitting held on Tuesday, 20 November 2001, at 9.30 a.m.

  Page 5, lines 43–50, page 6, lines 1–17, page 29, lines 4–41

  http://www.itlos.org/case_documents/2001/document_en_195.pdf

  Transcript of public sitting held on Tuesday, 20 November 2001, at 3.15 p.m.

  age 20, lines 22–27

  http://www.itlos.org/case_documents/2001/document_en_196.pdf

  Alternatively, these transcripts may be accessed by starting from the home page of the Tribunal's website (http://www.itlos.org) and making the following selections:

  English

  Proceedings and Judgments

  Docket

  Case No.10 (The MOX Plant Case)

  Oral proceedings

  ITLOS/PV.01/07,

  ITLOS/PV.01/08, and

  ITLOS/PV.01/09.

  The above page and line references are to the uncorrected versions of the transcripts which are currently displayed on the Tribunal's website. When the Tribunal replaces these with the corrected versions, there might be some slight changes in the line numberings of the relevant text. If these are material I will write to my hon. Friend to inform him.

  Overseas Territories Consultative Council
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Government Ministers attended the Overseas Territories Consultative Council meeting in September; on what basis and for how long on each occasion each Minister attended; what subjects were discussed; and if he will make a statement. [20243]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The third meeting of the Overseas Territories Consultative Council took place on 24 to 26 September 2001. Baroness Amos chaired the Council. Ministers from DFID, the Home Office, HM Treasury,
  469W
  DTLR, DFES and DEFRA also participated. In all, seven UK Ministers represented HMG at sessions on subjects for which their Department had lead responsibility. The duration of each session was approximately 90 minutes. The topics discussed included; constitutional and governance issues, immigration and nationality, financial issues, aviation safety and security, education, strategic development planning, realisation of human rights and environmental issues.

  Catherine Meyer
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to assist Catherine Meyer to be reunited with her sons. [20255]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Catherine Meyer is currently pursuing legal proceedings before the German Constitutional Court to be reunited with her sons. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has provided consular support and assistance to Catherine Meyer with her case in the past and, as with any such case, we continue to provide consular assistance whenever we properly can.

  Andorra
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with Andorran(a) parliamentarians and (b) officials in the last three years. [20878]

  Peter Hain
  The British Ambassador to Spain, in his capacity as non-resident Ambassador to Andorra, has visited Andorra three times within the last three years. The most recent trip was on 15 October 2001, when he met separately with the Andorran Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. In addition, the Ambassador has also had separate meetings with the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister in both Madrid and Paris during this period.

  HM Consul-General in Barcelona, in his capacity as Consul-General to Andorra, has made three trips to Andorra in the last two years, the most recent in June 2001.

  The previous (non-resident) Andorran Ambassador to the Court of St. James made occasional visits to the United Kingdom for discussions with Foreign Office officials. The last visit was on 9 April 2001. The new Andorran Ambassador has yet to present his credentials and has not therefore visited officially.

  At all meetings, discussions focused on issues relating to the bilateral relationship.

  Azerbaijan
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Azerbaijan on journalists' freedom. [20884]

  Peter Hain
  We continue to raise the issue of media freedom in Azerbaijan through a number of channels; most recently on 4 December in London with senior Azeri Foreign Ministry officials. The Ambassador in Baku has also raised specific issues of concern with Azeri Ministers and Presidential advisers; the UK has participated in joint EU representations in Baku.
  470W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Azerbaijan on their compliance with the founding principles of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. [20883]

  Peter Hain
  We raise compliance with Council of Europe founding principles regularly with the Azeris, including with the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Azeri Parliament (the deputy leader of the PACE delegation). These matters have also been raised with President Aliev's legal adviser bilaterally and through the Council of Europe monitoring group. The Government have pledged £50,000 to help Azerbaijan with compliance issues.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of the Governor of Gibraltar concerning the policing of Gibraltar.[21366]

  Peter Hain
  Under the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution the Governor is responsible for the internal security of Gibraltar, including the Royal Gibraltar Police.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many inquiries his Department has received concerning the future of Gibraltar since 7 June. [21370]

  Peter Hain
  Since 7 June, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received some 224 items of correspondence concerning the future of Gibraltar. These include letters from Members of Parliament, and e-mails, faxes and letters from members of the public. In addition the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received the outcome of a write-in campaign on Gibraltar organised by a national newspaper—an estimated 11,000 coupons.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Governor of Gibraltar about delays in crossing the border with Spain. [21367]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not recently discussed with the Governor of Gibraltar the issue of delays in crossing the border with Spain. However, my most recent discussion of this issue with the Governor took place on 29 November.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had about the dual use of Gibraltar's airport. [21369]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Discussions under the Brussels Process are aimed at overcoming all the differences between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar and at promoting co-operation on a mutually beneficial basis, including on aviation matters.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs discussed issues of co-operation when they met under the Brussels Process in Barcelona on 20 November.

  Copies of the joint press communique have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The Government remain keen to see progress on the development of Gibraltar

  471W
  airport and believe that this would bring economic and commercial benefit to the people of Gibraltar and the neighbouring region in Spain.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Governor of Gibraltar on Spain's access to the airport in Gibraltar. [21368]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not discussed with the Governor of Gibraltar the issue of Spain's access to the airport in Gibraltar.

  Israel
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring systems are in place to guarantee that UK manufactured and licensed equipment, components and spares are not used against civilians in Israel's Occupied Territories; and if he will make a statement. [R] [19563]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We assess all export licensed applications on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria in light of circumstances prevailing at the time. We are keeping the situation under close review. We have no evidence that equipment manufactured in the UK and licensed for export by this Government has been used by Israeli forces against civilians in the Occupied Territories during the recent and continuing violence. We would be concerned if such evidence came to light.

  We use information supplied by a number of sources to check that British equipment is not being used against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, including information gathered by our embassy and non-governmental organisations among others.

  However, the surest way of preventing UK defence exports from being misused is to refuse an export licence if it is assessed that an unacceptable risk of misuse or diversion exists, among other reasons. To this end, the Government have also taken steps to strengthen the process of risk assessment when considering export licence applications for any destination. For example, we have improved our procedures for gathering information on end-users of potential concern from UK overseas posts. We also take into account reliable information received about end-users of concern from a variety of external sources, including international reporting bodies and non-governmental organisations.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to encourage the setting up of an international monitoring presence in Israel's Occupied Territories; what specific proposals have been put forward by the British Government; and if he will make a statement. [R] [19564]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We condemn the suicide bomb attacks in Israel over the weekend, and regret the cycle of violence now taking place in the region. It is clear that Israel and the Palestinians must return to dialogue as the only means of securing a just and lasting peace in the middle east. It remains our view that third-party monitoring, accepted by both parties, would serve their interests in implementing the Mitchell recommendations.472W
  In common with the US and our EU partners, we stand ready to contribute to monitoring if both parties agree to their presence.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role the Government are playing at the Bonn Conference on the future of Afghanistan. [20808]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Bonn conference concluded successfully on 5 December with an agreement on a power-sharing transitional government. We congratulate the Afghan participants and the United Nations, particularly the Secretary General's Special Representative, Mr. Brahimi, on this significant achievement which will, we believe be the first step towards a peaceful and stable Afghanistan. We have played an important role behind the scenes in encouraging the interested parties to strike a deal. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had a number of conversations with key figures to this end, the British Office in Kabul has engaged directly with United Front leaders, and a senior diplomat, Robert Cooper, attended the Bonn conference. The Royal Air Force facilitated the travel of some of the delegates from Kabul.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Russian Government on its decision to place troops within Afghanistan. [20807]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are not aware of any decision by the Russian Government to place troops within Afghanistan. The Russian personnel who have been deployed there are from the Emergency Situations Ministry (EMERCOM) and are setting up medical facilities and a humanitarian centre. The United States, through CENTCOM, were aware of their inbound flights.

  Visas
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many appeals have been lodged since October 2000 by overseas visitors against refusal of visas; of these, how many have requested(a) oral and (b) written appeals; and what is the success rate in both categories. [19642]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Immigration Appellate Authority has received 4,040 family visit visa appeals in the period from 2 October 2000 to 31 October 2001. Of that total, 1,982 appeals were received for an oral hearing and 2,058 for a determination on the papers alone.

  The success rate of appeals determined by an Adjudicator over the same period is as follows:
  Oral cases—73 per cent. Successful
  Paper cases—38 per cent. successful.

  The Immigration Appeal Tribunal (IAT), the higher tier of the Authority, has received 110 substantive appeals. Of these, 13 were for oral hearing and 97 for determination on the papers alone.

  The success rate of appeals determined by the IAT is as follows:
  Oral cases—75 per cent.
  Paper cases—81 per cent.
  473W

SCOTLAND

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she has received over(a) the retail price of petrol distributed through the oil companies' own forecourts and (b) the wholesale price for petrol charged to independent retailers of fuel. [6078]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: The price of motor fuel is a subject on which I receive a considerable amount of correspondence from many parts of the community. However I have not received any substantive representations on the issue referred to by the hon. Member.

  If the wholesale or retail price for petrol raises competition concerns it should be brought to the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading, who is responsible for investigating allegations of anti-competitive behaviour.

  The Director General has investigated differential pricing by oil companies and has found that the competition legislation has not been breached.

  As a result of concerns which have been expressed about the operation of the fuel market in those areas, the Office of Fair Trading undertook investigations in the Highlands and Islands and Western Isles, covering a range of matters, including information regarding the wholesale and retail pricing of fuel.

  The OFT published reports in July last year and October this year, which concluded that, in the Highlands and Islands area as a whole and also in the Western Isles, there was no evidence of any sustained widening of pump price differentials as compared with the rest of the UK.

  Special Advisers and Press Officers
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) special advisers and (b) press officers were employed (i) full time, (ii) part time and (iii) on a contract basis by her Department in each year since 1992.[6921]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In the former Scottish Office there were two full-time special advisers in post as any one time in the financial years 1992–93 to 1997–98 and three in 1998–99. The number of press officers employed was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1992–93

  29

  1993–94

  28.5

  1994–95

  29.5

  1995–96

  28.5

  1996–97

  29.5

  1997–98

  30

  1998–99

  33

  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. In 1999–2000 and 2000–01, there were three special advisers in post at any one time (one unpaid). The Department currently has two special advisers. Since 1 July 1999, the Department has had four press officers.
  474W

  Departmental Properties
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will estimate the total running costs for buildings used, owned or rented by her Department for each nation and region of the UK, and estimate the average cost per square metre for properties used by her Department as a whole, and by region and nation of the UK. [6807]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The estimated running costs for the buildings rented by my Department in Scotland for 2001–02 is £742,000. The running costs for the Department's building in London is estimated to be £571,000.

  The estimated average cost per square metre for properties occupied by the Department is £294; this comprises £352 per square metre in Scotland and £242 per square metre in London.

  Housing Debt
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland under what Treasury heading, and by what mechanism, moneys would be paid by HM Treasury to(a) the City of Glasgow council and (b) the Scottish Executive for the clearance of overhanging housing debt in the event of a Glasgow residents' vote in favour of the current housing stock transfer proposals; and if she will make a statement. [7796]

  Mrs. Liddell
  If the current Glasgow housing stock transfer proposals are agreed, my Department will provide appropriate additional funding to the Scottish Executive as part of the block grant for devolved services. It will then be for the Executive to make appropriate arrangements with the city of Glasgow council. The proposals in relation to housing debt in Scotland where a stock transfer takes place are on the same lines as the arrangements in England and Wales.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the cost to the economy of foot and mouth disease has been incurred in(a) Scotland and (b) Dumfries and Galloway. [19985]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: In March 2001, the Scottish Executive formed an Economic Impact Assessment Group to collect evidence for decisions on relief and recovery measures following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

  A reliable assessment of the final cost of the foot and mouth disease cannot be made until the Impact Assessment Group, in collaboration with Whitehall and the other devolved Administrations, completes its assessment, in summer next year.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Communications Data
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests last year there were by the Metropolitan Police of(a) British Telecom and (b)

  475W
  other private sector communications organisations for information in respect of communications traffic data. [20446]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that between November 2000 and November 2001 the Metropolitan Police Service made an estimated (a) 10,500 requests of British Telecom and (b) 13,000 of other private sector communications organisations.

  Firearms
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegally-held firearms were(a) recovered other than by seizure and (b) seized by police forces, in each year since 1990. [20540]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: Information about illegal firearms seized by police forces is not collected centrally. During the firearms amnesty in 1996, nearly 23,000 firearms were surrendered to the police, but not all of these would have been illegally held.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the scope of section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 to include airguns. [20447]

  Mr. Denham
  High powered air rifles (those with a muzzle energy greater than twelve foot pounds) are already subject to the control of section 1 of the Act. High powered air pistols (those with a muzzle energy greater than six foot pounds) are prohibited under the terms of section 5(1)(aba).

  The Government do not believe that a certification regime for low powered air weapons would be justified. It would be costly to introduce, would be cumbersome to operate and would impose a considerable administrative burden on already stretched police firearms licensing departments.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Tribunal
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) financial, (b) personal and (c) administrative resources are available to the regulation of investigatory powers tribunal to enable it to undertake its work. [20444]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: For the financial year 2000–02, £167,000 has been budgeted for the investigatory powers tribunal. This includes Secretariat staff salaries, fees and expenses for tribunal members and salary for one Commissioner. The Secretariat to the tribunal consists of few officials and a part-legally qualified Registrar.

  Prisoner Data
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of(a) men and
  (b) women in prison in England and Wales on 10 June in each of the past three years were jailed for (i) fine default and (ii) drug offences related to personal use. [20289]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: The information requested is given in the tables.
  476W
  The proportion of males and females in prisons in England and Wales who were jailed for fine default is as follows:

  Percentage

  As at 30 June

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Proportion of Males

  0.16

  0.14

  0.07

  Proportion of females

  0.16

  0.21

  0.05

  Information on drug offences is given for all types of drug offence. The proportion of males and females in prison in England and Wales who were sentenced for drug offences is as follows:

  Percentage

  As at 30 June

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Males

  Unlawful Supply

  4.0

  4.2

  4.4

  Possession with intent to supply

  3.5

  3.5

  3.6

  Possession

  0.9

  1.0

  0.9

  Unlawful import/ export

  3.0

  3.1

  3.3

  Other drug offences

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  All drug offences

  11.6

  12.0

  12.4

  Females

  Unlawful supply

  5.8

  6.9

  7.0

  Possession with intent to supply

  4.9

  4.7

  5.2

  Possession

  1.2

  1.1

  0.9

  Unlawful import/ export

  15.1

  15.1

  16.7

  Other drug offences

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  All drug offences

  27.1

  28.2

  30.0

  Downview Prison
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many occupants of Downview prison have been transferred(a) to more secure category prisons or (b) out of the south-east in the last 12 months. [20123]

  Beverley Hughes
  The exact information requested is not available. In preparation for the change of role of Downview to a women's prison, 340 male prisoners were moved from the establishment between 17 July and 1 September. No prisoners were moved out of the south-east, and none had their security category increased, as part of this process.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rehabilitation and education programmes were being run at HMP Downview on 17 July; how many prisoners were on each programme; and where those prisoners completed their programmes. [19517]

  Beverley Hughes
  The available information will take some time to compile. I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Electronic Tagging
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many electronically tagged offenders there are(a) in the UK, (b) within Teesside and (c) within Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. [19970]
  477W
  Beverley Hughes
  As at midnight on 30 November 2001, a total of 3,527 persons were electronically tagged in England and Wales. 28 were within Teesside, and five of these were within Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency.

  Stalkers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken in the past five years to strengthen the protection from stalkers available for women. [18668]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 28 November 2001]: The Protection from Harassment Act came into force in June 1997. The Act not only protects women from stalking, but all those subjected to repetitive and alarming or distressing behaviour, among others: children from bullies, victims of domestic violence and witnesses from intimidation.

  Police Authorities (Civilian Staff)
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civilian staff were employed by each police authority in England in each year since 1979(a) in total and (b) per head of population. [15239]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is readily available only since 1989. A table has been placed in the Library which shows the answer in the form of population per officer.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) operational police officers per head of population there are in each police authority in England. [15238]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the table in the form of population per police officer. Operational officers are defined by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary as any member of staff, including covert staff, whose primary role (ie over 50 per cent. of their time) is directly to deliver the overarching aims of the police service. To 'directly deliver', the role must involve routine and immediate interface (either face to face or by telephone) with the public, including covert operations; staff in such roles can be considered as front line service providers.

  Police force

  Population per police officer1

  Population per operational police officer1

  Avon and Somerset

  507

  531

  Bedfordshire

  543

  595

  Cambridgeshire

  559

  643

  Cheshire

  491

  555

  Cleveland

  395

  433

  Cumbria

  469

  496

  Derbyshire

  534

  609

  Devon and Cornwall

  535

  566

  Dorset

  511

  540

  Durham

  380

  423

  Essex

  560

  583

  Gloucestershire

  479

  542

  Greater Manchester

  373

  403

  Hampshire

  518

  547

  478W

  Police force

  Population per police officer1

  Population per operational police officer1

  Hertfordshire

  543

  587

  Humberside

  460

  498

  Kent

  478

  544

  Lancashire

  438

  476

  Leicestershire

  460

  501

  Lincolnshire

  523

  559

  London2

  285

  325

  Merseyside

  344

  380

  Norfolk

  561

  626

  Northamptonshire

  537

  576

  Northumbria

  368

  404

  North Yorkshire

  573

  605

  Nottinghamshire

  467

  490

  South Yorkshire

  407

  467

  Staffordshire

  498

  581

  Suffolk

  595

  618

  Surrey

  522

  614

  Sussex

  531

  613

  Thames Valley

  571

  608

  Warwickshire

  548

  627

  West Mercia

  585

  684

  West Midlands

  354

  403

  West Yorkshire

  439

  461

  Wiltshire

  545

  590

  England

  416

  472

  1 Full time equivalents

  2 Figures for the City of London and Metropolitan police have been combined

  Notes:

  1. Population figures are as at mid 1999 and are provided by the Office for National Statistics

  2. Police numbers figures are as at 31 March 2001 (Home Office Statistical Bulletin—Police Service Strength)

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target concerning the model to assess the levels and routes of supply of drugs within prisons. [16930]

  Beverley Hughes
  The scope of this work has now been agreed and the project is under way, with a provisional completion date of June 2002.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the efficiency of the Probation Service in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [16929]

  Beverley Hughes
  Analysis of the currently available financial information indicates that the Probation Service achieved an estimated efficiency saving of 0.6 per cent. in 2000–01, against the target of 4 per cent. This followed estimated savings of 17 per cent. during the three year period from 1995–96 to 1998–99, significantly above the target requirement. The reduction in the level of estimated savings between 1995–96 to 1998–99 and 1999–2000 to 2000–01 recognised the substantial additional investment provided to the Probation Service from 1998 to secure and improve effective service delivery.

  The public service agreement target for the National Probation Service in 2001–02 is 3 per cent. The National Probation Service has issued efficiency savings targets to each of the 42 local probation boards for 2001–02. Boards are required to include a statement of their proposed

  479W
  efficiency savings in their annual plan. Boards are also being required to report on their achievement of efficiency savings targets for 2001–02.

  The National Probation Service recognises that the achievement of efficiency savings is critically important and it is also vital to have proper arrangements for measuring efficiency savings. The National Probation Service is therefore committed to developing a new comprehensive model to measure efficiency savings that takes into account the very considerable changes that are being made to the arrangements for dealing with offenders, such as the introduction of accredited programmes.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for completions of accredited offender behaviour programmes in prison; [17068]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for completions of accredited offender behaviour programmes for sex offenders. [17067]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Public Service Agreement target for completions of accredited offender behaviour programmes in prison was published in 'Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform, Accountability'. The target was to increase the number of completions of accredited offender behaviour programmes run by the Prison Service from 3,000 to 6,000 a year by 2001–02, including an increase from 680 to 1,100 in those completing sex offender programmes.

  Completions of offending behaviour and sex offender treatment programmes are key performance indicators for the Prison Service. Performance for the period 1999–2002 is listed in the table.

  Offending behaviour programmes

  Sex offender treatment programmes

  1999–2000

  4,664

  585

  2000–01

  5,986

  786

  2001–021

  2,613

  164

  1Performance for the year 2001–02 is for the period April 2001-October 2001. These data are provisional and subject to change.

  Data on accredited offending behaviour programmes and other key performance indicators are published in the Prison Service annual report and accounts and Her Majesty's Prison Service Corporate and Business Plan.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target of reducing violent crime against vulnerable groups; [17312]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target in respect of domestic violence. [17311]

  Mr. Denham
  There are no specific public service agreements to reduce domestic violence or to reduce violent crime against vulnerable groups, but as part of the Government's determination to reduce violent crime overall we are committed to taking steps to tackle the problem of violence against all sectors of the community.
  480W
  Between 1999 and 2000 the British Crime Survey shows that the number of violent crimes has decreased significantly, by 19 per cent. The survey shows a 34 per cent. decrease in the incidents of domestic violence over that period.

  We have taken a number of steps to address domestic violence including issuing a new Home Office circular to the police, issuing multi-agency guidance for addressing domestic violence, and providing over £10 million funding under the Crime Reduction Programme to the Violence Against Women initiative. Further consideration is currently being given across government as to what further strategic measures are needed to ensure there is adequate provision for domestic violence survivors, the Criminal Justice System response to domestic violence is robust and effective, and to reduce incidents of domestic violence and repeat victimisation.

  We have also taken steps to strengthen the protection of children as part of our major reform of the law on sex offences, and to target hate crime with new racially aggravated offences and legislation to ensure that the courts treat evidence of racial hostility as a factor in sentencing.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the Crime Reduction Programme. [17313]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no specific public service agreement (PSA) target for the Crime Reduction Programme. However a number of the initiatives being funded under the programme contribute towards the PSA targets for reducing domestic burglary, robbery and vehicle crime, as well as contributing to a reduction in the fear of crime.

  Offending Behaviour Programme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the cost in 2001–02 of the Accredited Offending Behaviour Programme. [17324]

  Beverley Hughes
  In 2001–02, the cost of developing and implementing accredited offending behaviour programmes in the community is projected to be £44 million. £15.3 million of this came from the 2000 Spending Review settlement, with the remaining £28.7 million coming from efficiency savings as a result of replacing old programmes with the new, accredited ones.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prison population for each prison; and what overcrowding there is in each prison. [17208]

  Beverley Hughes2
  The total population and number of overcrowded prisoners in each establishment at the end of October is listed in the table. Data are provisional and subject to validation by prisons.
  481W

  Prison name

  Population

  Total overcrowding

  Acklington

  761

  0

  Albany

  443

  0

  Altcourse

  817

  0

  Ashfield

  397

  0

  Ashwell

  378

  0

  Askham Grange

  128

  0

  Aylesbury

  343

  0

  Bedford

  435

  172

  Belmarsh

  839

  345

  Birmingham

  840

  120

  Blakenhurst

  839

  186

  Blantyre House

  116

  0

  Blundeston

  420

  0

  Brinsford

  452

  76

  Bristol

  612

  90

  Brixton

  760

  242

  Brockhill

  156

  0

  Buckley Hall

  385

  0

  Bullingdon

  884

  303

  Bullwood Hall

  173

  0

  Camp Hill

  520

  230

  Canterbury

  292

  220

  Cardiff

  666

  534

  Castington

  322

  0

  Channings Wood

  580

  8

  Chelmsford

  456

  84

  Coldingley

  364

  0

  Cookham Wood

  146

  46

  Dartmoor

  574

  0

  Deerbolt

  383

  0

  Doncaster

  1,080

  638

  Dorchester

  255

  150

  Dovegate

  585

  0

  Dover

  190

  0

  Downview

  144

  0

  Drake Hall

  229

  0

  Durham

  709

  320

  East Sutton Park

  95

  0

  Eastwood Park

  320

  66

  Elmley

  936

  236

  Erlestoke

  316

  0

  Everthorpe

  465

  64

  Exeter

  478

  348

  Featherstone

  589

  0

  Feltham

  653

  0

  Ford

  444

  0

  Forest Bank

  840

  0

  Foston Hall

  213

  0

  Frankland

  645

  0

  Full Sutton

  583

  0

  Garth

  593

  0

  Gartree

  285

  0

  Glen Parva

  798

  432

  Gloucester

  296

  166

  Grendon

  453

  0

  Guys Marsh

  504

  66

  Haslar

  155

  0

  Hatfield

  167

  0

  Haverigg

  545

  0

  Hewell Grange

  169

  0

  High Down

  704

  174

  Highpoint

  873

  0

  Hindley

  439

  0

  Hollesley Bay

  335

  0

  Holloway

  498

  0

  Holme House

  929

  118

  Hull

  578

  0

  Huntercombe

  328

  0

  Kingston

  183

  0

  Kirkham

  515

  0

  Kirklevington

  165

  0

  Lancaster

  229

  0

  Lancaster Farms

  536

  92

  482W

  Prison name

  Population

  Total overcrowding

  Latchmere House

  167

  0

  Leeds

  1,228

  898

  Leicester

  353

  320

  Lewes

  468

  28

  Leyhill

  369

  0

  Lincoln

  537

  318

  Lindholme

  611

  0

  Littlehey

  628

  28

  Liverpool

  1,395

  488

  Long Lartin

  406

  0

  Low Newton

  284

  90

  Lowdham Grange

  482

  0

  Maidstone

  366

  0

  Manchester

  1,188

  744

  Moorland

  757

  40

  Morton Hall

  182

  0

  Mount

  729

  80

  New Hall

  375

  72

  North Sea Camp

  179

  0

  Norwich

  740

  364

  Nottingham

  508

  228

  Onley

  531

  0

  Pare

  860

  0

  Parkhurst

  422

  0

  Pentonville

  1,159

  402

  Portland

  469

  0

  Preston

  550

  440

  Ranby

  719

  96

  Reading

  246

  170

  Risley

  791

  34

  Rochester

  239

  0

  Rye Hill

  597

  0

  Send

  219

  0

  Shepton Mallet

  172

  0

  Shrewsbury

  331

  294

  Stafford

  625

  0

  Standford Hill

  323

  0

  Stocken

  573

  52

  Stoke Heath

  543

  0

  Styal

  420

  12

  Sudbury

  506

  0

  Swaleside

  745

  0

  Swansea

  329

  240

  Swinfen Hall

  313

  0

  Thorn Cross

  229

  0

  Usk

  327

  178

  Verne

  567

  40

  Wakefield

  561

  0

  Wandsworth

  1,361

  480

  Wayland

  640

  52

  Wealstun

  618

  0

  Weare

  386

  0

  Wellingborough

  500

  0

  Werrington

  113

  0

  Wetherby

  328

  0

  Whatton

  265

  0

  Whitemoor

  397

  0

  Winchester

  570

  290

  Wolds

  405

  0

  Woodhill

  675

  100

  Wormwood Scrubs

  964

  0

  Wymott

  793

  0

  Source:

  Figures for Northhallerton are currently not available

  Overcrowding includes prisoners held two to a cell designed for one, those held three in a cell designed for two and those overcrowded in larger dormitories and other accommodation units where population exceeds the uncrowded capacity.
  483W
  Overcrowding is not evenly dispersed across the prison estate; it is particularly concentrated in local prisons. Local prisons are those which serve the courts of a specific area.

  The Prison Service key performance indicator on overcrowding measures the number of prisoners held two to a cell designed for one. The target for this financial year is not to exceed 18 per cent. of the average population. The provisional April 2001 to October 2001 performance is better than target and stands at 16.9 per cent.

  Merseyside Police
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in Merseyside police in each year since 1992. [19559]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Year as at 31 March 2001

  Police officers1

  Civilian support staff1

  1992

  4,621

  1,578

  1993

  4,669

  1,625

  1994

  4,693

  1,639

  1995

  4,659

  1,595

  1996

  4,411

  1,560

  1997

  4,230

  1,343

  1998

  4,216

  1,502

  1999

  4,211

  1,356

  2000

  4,085

  1,458

  2001

  4,081

  1,418

  1Full time equivalents

  I understand that the Merseyside police has a budgeted work force total of 4,272 officers for 31 March 2002.

  Special Hospitals
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of the recommendations of the Tilt report concerning security at special hospitals and the amount of money so far spent on implementation by his Department. [16620]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 22 November 2001]: Responsibility for special hospitals lies with the Department of Health. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Health on 22 November 2001, Official Report, column 418W.

  Police Shootings
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Police Complaints Authority review of police shootings since 1998 will take into consideration the need for appropriate procedures when the potential aggressor is known by the police to suffer from a mental disorder. [19777]

  Mr. Denham
  The terms of reference set by the Home Secretary for the review does not prescribe specific areas for consideration; it sets the coverage as all shootings by the police since 1998 that resulted in death or injury. However, the terms of reference do include the planning, control and conduct of these operations.
  484W
  There is guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers that firearms officers should take account of when called to deal with a situation involving a person with a mental disorder. If any of the cases under review did involve such a person then the Police Complaints Authority will consider the appropriateness of this guidance to the situation, how well it was followed and its affect on the planning, control and conduct of the operation and will make recommendations.

  Police Training
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training is given by police forces in England and Wales to help their officers deal with mental health crises. [19778]

  Mr. Denham
  The basic training received by all recruits to the police service includes an element designed to raise awareness of mental illness and to highlight the importance of communicating effectively and sensitively with people suffering from a mental disorder. Individual forces also provide further training for their officers on these issues. Details are not held centrally of such local provision.

  Best Value
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost in the latest available year of the best value regime to (a) his Department and (b) police authorities. [19597]

  Mr. Denham
  The best estimate of costs falling to the Home Office in 2000–01 is in the region of £500,000. This covers estimated staff time based on average salary costs. It also includes travelling and subsistence costs for Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary when they are carrying out best value inspections.

  The costs of implementing best value, which falls to police authorities, is not collected centrally.

  Stolen Vehicles
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many stolen vehicles have been recovered through use of the Schengen Information System. [19591]

  Mr. Denham
  None. Article 100 of the Schengen Convention relating to data on motor vehicles which have been stolen, misappropriated or lost has not yet been implemented.

  Credit Card Fraud
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidance he gives to credit card issuers on reporting credit card fraud; [18999]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the level of under-reporting of credit card fraud in each of the last five years; [18996]

  (3) what estimate he has made of credit card fraud in each of the last five years (a) by level and (b) by number of incidents. [18998]
  485W
  Mr. Denham
  No Home Office guidance is given to credit card issuers on reporting credit card fraud. However, I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers' National Working Party on Cheque and Card Fraud has agreed guidelines on reporting cheque and payment card fraud to the police to encourage best practice in combating credit card fraud.

  No estimates of the level of under reporting of credit card fraud have been made by the Government. However, a National Economic Research Associates Report commissioned by the Home Office recognised under reporting of all frauds.

  Information on the number of offences of cheque and credit card fraud recorded by the police is available for the last two financial years only, as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1999–2000

  173,857

  2000–01

  148,252

  The Association of Payment Clearing Services has estimated the cost of reported losses due to credit card fraud over the last four yeard as:

  Year

  £million

  1997

  122.0

  1998

  135.0

  1999

  188.4

  2000

  292.6

  Source:

  APACS Fraud in Focus 2001

  Proof of Age Card
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will give approval for a proof of age card in a standardised format. [19461]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government have no plans to develop a standard format for a proof of age card or to introduce a single national proof of age scheme. The Government welcome the recent initiative by the British Retail Consortium proposing to develop agreed standard design criteria and methods of accreditation for the various proof of age cards which currently exist so that retailers can be assured of the status of the cards presented to them.

  Court Appearances
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time was between arrest and court appearance of a person charged with an offence in England or Wales in the last 12 months. [20434]

  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not possible to provide figures for the average time between arrest and court appearance as details of arrest dates are not collected. I am, however, able to provide figures for the average number of days between charge and first listing, the first appearance in court, for all defendants charged with indictable cases for the period September 2000 to September 2001.
  486W
  The figures are taken from the Magistrates Courts Time Intervals Survey, which is published quarterly by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Survey date

  Average number of days from charge to first listing

  September 2000

  6

  December 2000

  5

  March 2001

  6

  June 2001

  6

  September 2001

  6

HEALTH

  Commission for Health Improvement
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the change in expenditure and manpower that will result from the CHI' s proposed new functions. [16614]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 22 November 2001]: Any significant change in expenditure and manpower resulting from the Commission for Health Improvement's proposed new functions will be assessed in the context of decisions on budgets for next year which will be announced in due course.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to share with the Scottish Executive the interim evaluation results of the 20 First Wave NHS trusts that are providing digital hearing aids. [18008]

  Jacqui Smith
  Officials from the Department are in regular contact with officials in the Scottish Executive and the results of the evaluation will be made available to them.

  Stem Cells
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the operation of commercial services to members of the public to collect and freeze blood from umbilical cords with a view to stem cell use to treat children later in life; and what proposals he has to regulate commercial firms offering these services. [19299]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: Informal representations have been received from commercial cord blood banks and numbers of concerned health professionals. The Department has implemented an accreditation scheme to ensure the safety and quality of traditional human tissues that are supplied to the national health service via tissue banks. Measures needed to regulate emerging technologies such as stem cell technology are being kept under review by the Department.

  Patient Consultations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued on the
  487W
  recommended average length of patient consultation times with (a) general practitioners and (b) hospital consultants. [19292]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: The Department does not issue guidance on how long general practitioners or hospital consultants should spend on consultations. It is up to clinical judgment how long they should spend on a consultation, as patients' needs differ on an individual basis.

  Housing
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanism is used to reallocate health funding to effect changes in population levels predicted in the Government's housing targets. [19480]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: The populations used to calculate health authority allocation targets are based on Office for National Statistics population projections. These are updated to take account of trends in births, deaths and migration.

  Decisions on the level of housing required are for local planning authorities. Trends in population growth are taken into account when these decisions are taken. Issues concerning the provision of housing are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many and what proportion of letters received by his Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to(a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days; [18578]

  (2) how many letters his Department received from hon. and right hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18558]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Replies—20 June to 20 July

  Replies sent within

  Number of replies

  Percentage

  Ministerial replies:

  15 days

  527

  34

  20 days

  436

  28

  30 days

  202

  13

  40 days

  186

  12

  Over 40 days

  202

  13

  Total

  11,553

  100

  Official replies:

  15 days

  1,581

  67

  20 days

  379

  16

  30 days

  264

  11

  40 days

  67

  3

  Over 40 days

  74

  3

  Total

  22,365

  100

  1 In addition 199 letters were transferred to other Government Departments or no reply required.

  2 In addition 250 letters were transferred to other Government Departments or no reply required.

  488W

  Pathology Services
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where pathology services will be placed in the new NHS structures under the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill. [20010]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: In future primary care trusts will commission pathology services alongside other services. Pathology services are currently provided by national health service trusts. Through the Pathology Modernisation Programme, the Department is currently working with the NHS to develop a planning guide for pathology modernisation. As part of this process, we are considering the appropriate model for pathology services in the light of "Shifting the Balance of Power" and the proposed changes to NHS structures under the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill. We aim to issue these proposals for wide consultation in spring 2002.

  NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if draft orders emanating from the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill will be published before 18 December. [20011]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: No. These orders will be drafted in due course.

  Health Service Standards
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on which health services he defines as world class, indicating what their characteristics are. [20397]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan and the National Service Frameworks set out our vision for the high quality service we intend to deliver. The 10 core principles reflected in the NHS Plan are set out in the preface to the document.

  Nurses Pay
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the average weekly earnings of a qualified nurse in 2001–02. [21101]

  Mr. Hutton
  The average weekly earnings of a full-time qualified nurse working in the national health service, including all additional payments and allowances, in 2001–02 are estimated to be £450.

  Source:

  Department of Health's August 2000 NHS earnings survey.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Violence Statistics
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those persons who have(a) died and (b) been injured in suspicious circumstances since the Belfast Agreement was concluded, indicating which are (i) known to be as a result of terrorist or paramilitary activity and (ii) known not to be as a result of terrorist or paramilitary activity. [11054]
  489W
  Jane Kennedy
  The police do not keep information on people categorised as injured in suspicious circumstances. Listed are the statistics on deaths and injuries as a result of the security situation since 10 April 1998.

  There have been 76 deaths and 4,558 injuries as a result of the security situation since 10 April 1998. A breakdown of the injuries is as follows:

  Number

  RUC

  1,836

  Army

  140

  Civilian

  2,582

  Total

  4,558

  The causes of the injuries were:

  Percentage

  Explosions

  13

  Shootings (mainly paramilitary type)

  11

  Assaults (paramilitary style beatings)

  11

  Others (mainly public disorder)

  65

  Total

  100

  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the implications are for other recruits in the event of Catholic recruits to the Police Service of Northern Ireland failing to complete recruit training. [19772]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are no implications for other recruits in the event that Catholic recruits fail to complete training. The 50:50 requirement applies only to the appointment of recruits. It does not apply after police trainees have taken their place on the training course.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  BSE
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she first learned of Professor Bostock' s concerns about the possible contamination of samples of sheeps' brains on which tests were being conducted for evidence of BSE; [10595]

  (2) how many checks were made, and on what date, into whether samples of brain matter collected in the 1990s and investigated by the Institute of Animal Health in relation to BSE in sheep contained bovine material. [10596]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: It has been known since the experiments began that there were some doubts about whether the brains involved could be cross-contaminated with bovine material. The sheep brains used in the study were not collected under the stringent sterile procedures normally used for such material. the possibility of contamination was raised by Professor Bostock and discussed by the Spongeform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee in February 2000. It was recognised in the public statement made by the Food
  490W
  Standards Agency on 2 August 2001, which explained that the possibility of contamination of the samples with BSE infected cow brains needed further investigation.

  DEFRA first approached an independent laboratory asking if they would be able to conduct tests to determine whether the scrapie brain pool (collected in the early 1990s and used in the Institute of Animal Health experiment) contained bovine material in June 2001. Results of the work were reported to DEFRA on 17 October.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list by county the number of applications for livestock movement licences under the foot and mouth disease control restrictions made during the periods(a) 1 March to 30 May, (b) 1 June to 31 August and (c) 1 September to date; and how many licences were issued in the same periods. [11420]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of applications for livestock movement licences under foot and mouth disease controls and licences issued for the periods involved are available in the Library of the House. Table 1 covers the period 1 March to 17 September 2001 when licences were issued primarily for slaughter and for welfare reasons. Table 2 covers the period 17 September to 28 November 2001 for licences issued under the Autumn Movements Arrangements.

  The differences between the numbers of applications received and number of licences issued, is partly due to some applications being withdrawn and partly because the licensing procedures are a combination of manually and computerised processing.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the information given in the letter of 4 August from the Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Vale of York concerning the bases on which premises subject to foot and mouth culling are decided and the advice given to farmers on cleaning of fields (refs 4430, 4431). [12072]

  Mr. Morley
  My letter of 4 August provided the following information:"On 12 July you tabled two parliamentary questions which I was unable to reply to before the House rose for summer recess. You asked on what basis are premises subject to contingency foot and mouth culling decided and what advice is given to farmers on how to clean a field that has held infected livestock.
  I am sorry that I was unable to reply, but had I done so, I would have said any decision to cull animals is based on the following criteria:
  All foot and mouth susceptible animals (normally cattle, sheep, pigs and goats) on a farm where foot and mouth disease is confirmed either on clinical grounds or laboratory tests (an Infected Premise) should be slaughtered within 24 hours of the infection being reported.
  Susceptible livestock on farms adjoining an Infected Premises (Contiguous Premises) should be culled within 48 hours although local vets have some discretion not to slaughter cattle or rare breeds of sheep or pigs if it is considered that the level

  491W
  of biosecurity on the contiguous premises means that the risk of the animals having been exposed to foot and mouth infection is very low.
  Animals which have been in contact with infected stock in some way, either directly, indirectly or which are on premises which have been exposed to infection are traced and slaughtered as dangerous contacts.
  Susceptible livestock are also slaughtered where animals show signs which suggest foot and mouth disease is present but which are not sufficiently consistent with the signs of FMD to confirm the diagnosis on clinical grounds. In such cases, samples are submitted to the laboratory and animals on contiguous premises are not culled unless a positive laboratory test is obtained.
  The following procedures should be applied to fields and pastures used by susceptible animals on an infected premises.
  Items likely to attract vermin or scavenging animals must be removed from the land and either destroyed or soaked in disinfectant.
  The land should be cleared of all equipment and structures (e.g. troughs, arks, temporary fencing etc.) and left for 42 days to enable maximum exposure of any surface contamination to the environment.
  Land that had been grazed by susceptible stock, where possible, be harrowed to break down and disperse waste material e.g. dung.
  The cleansing and disinfection of the paddock(s) or land can then be considered complete. However, re-contamination of pastures by vehicles, personnel etc. is feasible unless they follow the biosecurity measures when they leave the other parts of the premises that have not been cleansed and disinfected.
  Detailed guidance in respect of individual premises is available to farmers through the local animal health office. In addition, general guidance on biosecurity is available on the DEFRA website."
  A copy of this letter was placed in the Library of the House.
  Our policy for the slaughter of animals suspected of being infected of foot and mouth has changed slightly. We have introduced a further category. This is for cases where the clinical picture on the farm suggests that disease is not present (i.e. there are insufficient grounds for slaughtering on suspicion the entire herd/flock) but where we want to be sure we have not missed something. We have the option of placing the herd/flock under official movement restrictions while laboratory test are carried out.
  The advice on fields and pastures has not been updated.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will update and publish the information given in the letter of 8 August from the Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Vale of York in response to questions concerning biosecurity measures in areas where culling takes place, closure of local roads and the impact of Thirsk Auction Mart (refs 4050, 4047, 4044, 4045, 4048, 4046). [12069]

  Mr. Morley
  My letter of 8 August provided the following information:"On 11 July you tabled 6 parliamentary questions which I was unable to reply to before the House rose for summer recess. You asked what representations had been received that those involved in the culls were not observing the strict biosecurity measures; what representations had been received on actions by officials on an infected site covered by biosecurity provisions, what criteria are used to decide on road closures in an infected zone; what measures will be taken to ensure that local roads are closed when culling is taking place; what assessment has been made of the
  492W
  impact on Thirsk Auction Mart of its closure as a collection centre; and what representations have been received on the three kilometre restriction zone from an infected area.
  The Government's key priority is to eradicate foot and mouth disease as quickly as possible and vigilance and high standards of biosecurity are crucial. It is therefore imperative that DEFRA staff are seen to be applying good biosecurity measures at all times and at every available opportunity officials are reminded of this. Any breaches will be treated with the utmost seriousness.
  A number of allegations have been made that recommended biosecurity measures have been breached by DEFRA officials. All such allegations are investigated. So far most cases have been found either to be groundless or to be lacking in sufficient detail to enable a thorough investigation.
  One case was proven where animal parts were left on a holding. The site was subsequently fully cleared and the staff reminded of the vital importance of maintaining full biosecurity and thoroughness in performing culling operations. The Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983 allows a Ministry or local authority inspector to prohibit the entry of any person onto any land or into any agricultural building that lies within an "infected" area. This power could be used to close roads. However, veterinary judgment has been that, except in very rare cases, to do so would be disproportionate to the risk involved. Such recommendations are normally based, for example on epidemiological assessment where a road passes through the middle of an infected premise that has not yet been disinfected or where it is not possible to screen a cull from the public's view.
  Nonetheless, to ensure that inspectors have sufficient powers to control the current outbreak, additional powers have been inserted in the Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983 by the Foot and Mouth (Amendment) (England) (No 4) Order 2001 which would allow an inspector of the Ministry or a local authority (with prior written authority of the Minister) to close roads within a controlled area. It is a veterinary judgment as to whether a recommendation should be made to the local authority for a particular road to be closed pending a cull. This would happen if a road passed through or, particularly close to, an infected premise where culling was to occur and where there was no means of ensuring that the cull and all related activity could be screened from the public's view.
  No assessment has been made on the impact of closing the Thirsk Auction Mart as a collection centre. Responsibility for authorising collection centres rests with the local authority which in this case, is North Yorkshire county council. However to be licensed as a collection centre strict guidelines laid down by the State Veterinary Service must be met. The Thirsk Centre was no longer able to meet the required criteria owing to the outbreak of the disease in that area. The situation will be kept under review but Thirsk is now subject to tight biosecurity emergency procedures announced by my noble Friend Lord Whitty on 23 July.
  The three-kilometre zone (the Protection Zone) is required by EU legislation, and is based on scientific and veterinary advice and experience in dealing with this disease."

  A copy of my letter was placed in the Library of the House.

  Biosecurity remains an extremely important issue and there will need to be a continuing discussion with all interested parties on the lessons that need to be learned on disease prevention measures to be followed by those responsible for livestock. As regards the biosecurity observed by DEFRA staff during the outbreak, no further examples of breaches have been proven by our investigation.

  The disease situation is now much improved in Thirsk. North Yorkshire has had no outbreaks since 18 August although it remains an "at risk" county for the purposes of the Animal Movements Licensing Scheme. Thirsk Auction Mart was re-licensed as a collection centre on

  493W
  4 October and operates as such on Mondays. For the remaining days of the week, except Sunday, it operates as a cleansing and disinfection centre.

  SSSIs
  Malcolm Bruce
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of sites of special scientific interest were in (a) good, (b) fair and (c) poor condition in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998, (iv) 1999, (v) 2000 and (vi) 2001. [16537]

  Mr. Meacher
  : Information on the condition of sites has been collected since April 1996. The features are assessed as being favourable; unfavourable but improving; unfavourable with no change; unfavourable and declining; and destroyed.

  English Nature reports on SSSI condition in its annual reports, copies of which are available in the House Library. Figures from the reports are set in the table.

  Percentage

  Year

  Favourable/ improving Good

  Unfavourable/no change Fair

  Declining or destroyed Poor

  April 1996—March 1997

  67.2

  22.9

  9.9

  April 1997—March 1998

  72.0

  15.7

  12.3

  April I998—March 1999

  71.8

  16.9

  11.3

  April I999—March 2000

  58.8

  29.6

  11.6

  April 2000—March 2001

  58.0

  27.0

  15.0

  Nature conservation is a devolved matter, and the National Assembly and Scottish Parliament hold information for Wales and Scotland respectively.

  English Nature has a programme of monitoring SSSIs, which started in 1997. It will inspect each site at least once every six years. By March 2001, English Nature had inspected 66 per cent. of sites and assessed them against a common standard, giving the figure of 58 per cent. in good condition. Thus the figures for later years are more accurate than earlier estimates and do not necessarily show that actual deterioration has taken place. The programme of inspections was disrupted this year due to restrictions on access to land; however, English Nature plans to complete the cycle by the end of 2002–03 to give comprehensive data on all sites.

  The Department has adopted a public service agreement target of aiming to deliver 95 per cent. of SSSIs in favourable condition by 2010. This is a challenging target. Deterioration through neglect of management was addressed in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and EN now has new tools available. We will also need to secure policy changes which will remove the causes of poor condition of sites, with the co-operation of other Government Departments.

  Waste Management
  Dr. Kumar
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what impact impending EU legislation will have on the UK waste management strategy. [19053]

  Mr. Meacher
  : There are a number of EU Directives still in the developmental stage or in the process of being transposed into UK law, including those relating to End of Life Vehicles, Batteries, and Waste Electrical
  494W
  and Electronic Equipment, which will extend producer responsibilities. These should encourage producers and distributors to internalise costs of disposal and lead to more efficient use of resources.

  The EU Landfill Directive of 1999 requires us to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill to 75 per cent. of 1995 levels by 2010, 50 per cent. by 2013 and 35 per cent. by 2020.

  In order to achieve this, the national waste strategy, published in May 2000, prioritises waste minimisation, re-use and recycling. This year we have set challenging statutory recycling targets for each local authority to achieve and are supporting the delivery of these with additional funding, including a £140 million pot on which consultation is currently under way.

  Livestock Industry (Wales)
  Mr. Wiggin
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to support the Welsh livestock industry. [19895]

  Mr. Morley
  : This is a matter for the Minister for Rural Affairs at the National Assembly for Wales.

  Bathing Water Directive
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the Bathing Water Directive on(a) rural beaches and (b) tourism policies. [19542]

  Mr. Meacher
  Water quality has been improved considerably at both resort and rural beaches to meet the requirements of the Directive. Compliance with the Directive's main mandatory standards in England was 98 per cent. this year, compared with 79 per cent. in 1990. Of the 388 bathing waters in England which passed this year, around three-quarters are rural. The enhanced reputation of our beaches will enable more to obtain Blue Flags and Seaside Awards and make our coasts and seaside resorts even more attractive to the millions who visit every year.

  White Goods
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice has been issued by her Department to consumers on buying fridges and freezers before the issue concerning the disposal of their ozone-damaging contents is resolved; and what action she is taking to prevent the dumping of fridges and freezers. [19553]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department has issued an information note for householders regarding the safe disposal routes for fridges and freezers. This will shortly be made widely available and can already be found on my Department's website. The information note is intended to reduce the likelihood of fly-tipping. The illegal disposal of waste on a site without a waste management licence or registered exemption is a criminal offence. Local authorities and the Environment Agency have powers to remove fly-tipped waste and to recover their costs from those responsible.
  495W

  Hunting with Dogs
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the temporary cessation of hunting with dogs on the level of predation of livestock by foxes. [20656]

  Alun Michael
  : There is no information collected centrally which could provide the basis for an answer to this question.

  Portland Cement
  Charlotte Atkins
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage the British manufacturers of Portland cement has agreed to improve their energy efficiency by 2010 under their climate change levy sector agreement. [20516]

  Mr. Meacher
  The four major UK-based manufacturers of Portland cement constitute the climate change agreement with the British Cement Association. The cement sector target is to achieve specific primary energy consumption of 1.25kWhikg of cement by 2010. This represents a 25.6 per cent. reduction from the 1990 performance of 1.68kWhfkg of cement.

  Charlotte Atkins
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which of the British producers of Portland cement have signed a climate change agreement; and what percentage of that industry sector they represent. [20606]

  Mr. Meacher
  The following British producers of Portland cement have entered into the climate change agreement between the Secretary of State and the British Cement Association:

  Blue Circle Industries;

  Buxton Lime Industries Ltd.;

  Castle Cement Ltd.;

  The Rugby Group Ltd.

  These companies represent very nearly 100 per cent. of the UK Portland cement manufacturing sector.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's fisheries policies, and in particular on the common fisheries policy of the EU. [20752]

  Mr. Morley
  Our primary objective for the Common Fisheries Policy must be for a policy which is both economically and environmentally sustainable and one which involves stakeholders more closely in management decisions affecting them. Only in that way will the CFP attract support and credibility from fishermen, ensure responsible stock management and give the promise of a viable future. I strongly agree with the Commission's conclusions in their Green Paper on the operation of the CFP that it is not meeting its objectives. It is failing to provide an adequate living for many fishermen and is failing to conserve fish stocks. The forthcoming review of the CFP will give the opportunity not only to put right what has gone wrong but also to consider how the CFP should develop over the coming years.
  496W

  Livestock Markets
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects that livestock markets will be reopened. [19742]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: Some livestock markets have reopened in Scotland reflecting the lower number of FMD cases there. A decision to reopen livestock markets in England and Wales will be made in the light of scientific and veterinary advice on progress with the eradication of foot and mouth disease. It is not possible to give a precise date but it is expected to be in the early part of 2002, provided there are no further outbreaks.

  Flood Defence
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many local authorities have completed their review of flood defence assets and provided that data to the Environment Agency. [21415]

  Mr. Morley
  I intend to publish this information once it has been validated.

  Rural Initiatives
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 29 November 2001,Official Report, column 1090W, on rural affairs, how many people received support through the England Rural Development Programme in 2001–02, broken down by category and amount. [20940]

  Alun Michael
  Because applications are still being processed, figures on the number of new land-based agreements under the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) in the current financial year are not available.

  My answer of 29 November 2001,Official Report, column 1090W, gave the number and value of agreements approved under the ERDP project based schemes since they were launched in October 2000. Of these, the equivalent figures for 1 April to 31 October 2001 are:

  Scheme

  Numbers of agreements

  Total value of grant approved(£ million)

  Rural Enterprise Scheme

  122

  7.7

  Processing and Marketing Grant

  17

  4.8

  Vocational Training Scheme

  21

  1.0

  ERDP agreements typically provide a wider environmental, economic and social benefit than is apparent from the payment of grant to a single individual or business. It is not possible however to quantify precisely the number of people who benefited indirectly from the ERDP.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 29 November 2001,Official Report, column 1091W, on rural affairs, which organisations received support through each scheme of the Vital Village Programme grants in 2001–02; and how much each received. [20941]
  497W
  Alun Michael
  Information on which organisations have received funding, and how much they have received under the Parish Plans Scheme and the Community Services Grant have already been lodged in the Library of the House. Details on which organisations have been offered funding under the Parish Transport Scheme are as follows:

  £

  Description

  Grant offered

  Holy Island Parish Transport Grant

  2,692

  Ellingham Travel Voucher Scheme

  1,771

  Arkholme bike racks and bus shelter

  7,909

  Melling with Wrayton Bus shelter

  4,555

  Nuthall Community Bus

  9,439

  Evergreen Club Transport

  750

  Ryton On Dunsmore Community Bus

  10,000

  Bicton Bus Shelter

  2,372

  Rockland St. Mary (Year 1)

  2,475

  Surlingham Rural Bus Service

  7,524

  Ventnor Town Council Parish Scheme

  5,800

  Feock Bus Shelter

  4,403

  Winford Parish Transport Grant

  450

  Blockley Hedgehog Bus service

  1,864

  Total

  62,004

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce a rural equivalent of the Excellence in Cities scheme; and if she will make a statement. [20911]

  Alun Michael
  The Excellence in Cities scheme, which has been promoted by the Department for Education and Skills (DFES), is already being extended outside major cities, through the Excellence Clusters. These will tackle smaller areas of disadvantage, including some rural areas. By September 2002 there will be 24 clusters, including some serving areas in West Cumbria, County Durham and Lancashire. More clusters will be announced in subsequent years. Ministers and officials at DEFRA will strongly support the lead given by colleagues at DFES in spreading this excellent initiative to rural areas rather than establishing a new initiative in competition. We welcome the success of the Excellence in Cities initiative, which is designed to address disadvantage through a programme of support including learning mentors, learning support units and a programme for gifted and talented pupils, and the way the initiative focuses on the needs and aspirations of pupils and their parents. It currently involves 58 authorities and by 2003–04 some £300 million will be spent in EiC schools. The extension of the programme to Excellence Clusters started in September 2001. Excellence Clusters are smaller groups of schools outside major cities which work together to implement the EiC programme.

  Veterinary Medicines
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking on the EU' s proposals to make veterinary medicines dependent on prescription; and what assessment she has made of their impact in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland. [20949]

  Mr. Morley
  This proposal forms part of a much wider set of proposals produced by the European Commission to amend the procedures for the authorisation and control 498W
  of both human and veterinary medicines in the EU. This particular proposal concerns veterinary medicines for use in food-producing animals. In its present form it could result in farmers in England, Wales and Scotland, having to pay more by incurring veterinary surgeons' fees when obtaining those medicines that are currently available without veterinary intervention. Furthermore, it could restrict the number and types of veterinary medicines that may be supplied by registered agricultural merchants and saddlers, to a limited range of products for dogs and cats. This could have significant adverse effects on those businesses.

  In considering the proposal the Government have taken account of its likely impact on the supply of veterinary medicines and have agreed that, during negotiations, UK officials should seek to modify the proposal to enable a flexible approach to the distribution of veterinary medicinal products that takes advantage of existing national practices, so long as consumer protection and animal welfare can be demonstrably assured.

  Rural Business Campaign
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received from the UK Rural Business Campaign concerning the level of compensation available to rural businesses affected by foot and mouth disease; and if she will make a statement. [20662]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: I am not aware of any recent representations from the UK Rural Business Campaign on this specific issue. The Government do not accept a liability to compensate businesses affected by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and the measures taken to control it. The Government have put in place a package of measures to help affected businesses, including the £74 million Business Recovery Fund, enhanced central support for hardship rate relief granted by local authorities, and interest-free deferral of income tax, VAT and national insurance contributions.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Websites
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he has taken to ensure that Government and agency websites are easily accessible to disabled users.[20950]

  Mr. Leslie
  It is our policy that all new or redesigned websites are made accessible. To achieve this we have adopted the World Wide Web Consortium's Web Accessibility Initiative, and web managers are asked to comply with level 1 of their Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Ministerial Decisions (Appeals)
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list each of the statutory provisions where a person wishing to appeal against a decision of a Minister must, when lodging the appeal, pay the Minister a sum of money. [20815]
  499W
  The Solicitor-General
  The following are examples of where the making of an application or the lodging of an appeal is accompanied by certain formalities, including the payment of a fee.

  Section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations to prescribe fees for most types of application under planning legislation. The Secretary of State had made regulations under this section setting fees.

  Part V of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 establishes a regime setting up the Immigration Services Commissioner, whose functions include the registration of persons providing immigration services and advice. Paragraph 5 of schedule 6 to the Act empowers the Secretary of State by order to specify fees for the registration or continued registration of persons on the register. The Secretary of State has so ordered.

  Part IV of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides for immigration appeals, and Section 60(1) empowers the Secretary of State by regulations to make provision requiring a family visitor exercising a right of appeal under section 59 to pay such fee as may be fixed by the regulations. The Secretary of State has made such regulations.

  It is not possible to list all statutory provisions falling within the category defined without a complete survey of statute law which would involve a disproportionate cost.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) single pensioners have taken out free television licences, (b) pensioner couples have taken out such licences, (c) pensioners are entitled to such licences but have not taken them out and (d) pensioners have no television. [20951]

  Dr. Howells
  Free television licences are issued to named individuals but also cover anyone else living at the specified address. The information held by TV Licensing does not therefore distinguish between free television licences issued to over-75s living on their own and those living as couples.

  No accurate information is available on television ownership by age group. It is therefore not possible to establish the number of pensioners who do not own a television set, nor the number of people eligible for a free licence but who have not applied for one.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many and what percentage of households in the United Kingdom(a) pay for and (b) receive a free television licence. [21381]

  Dr. Howells
  At the end of October 2001, television licences were in force for 23.725 million domestic premises. Fees were payable in respect of 20.059 million of these premises or approximately 85 per cent. of the total, including 200,000 Accommodation for Residential Care (ARC) units, for which the fee is £5. 3.666 million premises or approximately 15 per cent. of the total benefited from free television licences for the over-75s.
  500W

  Office of Communications
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to ensure all regions of the United Kingdom are represented on the content board of the Office of Communication. [20551]

  Dr. Howells
  Details of the arrangements for the regulation of content by the Office of Communications and how the interests of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom will be taken into account in those arrangements will be contained in the draft Communications Bill to be published in spring 2002.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what appointment criteria she proposes for the content board of the Office of Communication. [20550]

  Dr. Howells
  The draft Communications Bill to be published in spring 2002 will contain details of the proposed form the regulation of content by the Office of Communication will take.

  Historic Buildings (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action the Government are taking to facilitate the provision of accessible WCs for people with disabilities visiting historic buildings. [21003]

  Dr. Howells
  The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was introduced to ensure that people with disabilities are offered the same services and facilities as everyone else. Planning Policy Guidance Note; planning and the historic environment (PPG15) states that it is important that people with disabilities should have dignified easy access to and within historic buildings. This includes the provision of suitable WCs.

  English Heritage is the Government's statutory advisor on all matters concerning the historic environment in England, as well as being responsible for 409 historic properties and sites which are visited by over 11 million people each year. It is currently undertaking a programme of access audits, to be followed by works to increase physical access. The programme covers all 409 sites and will make all reasonable physical adjustments, including the provision of accessible WCs where appropriate. It will be implemented according to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. English Heritage also provides guidance to others who own or manage historic buildings and other heritage properties on how to improve accessibility.

  English Heritage, as well as the National Trust and other bodies, also produce special publications with information for visitors with disabilities and also include this in their general guides.

  Television Sets
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of the(a) number and (b) percentage of people living in the United Kingdom who have a television at their primary place of residence. [21384]

  Dr. Howells
  Statistics on television ownership relate to premises rather than individuals. The estimated number of domestic premises with a television set is
  501W
  24.585 million or 97.25 per cent. of all such premises. The available statistics do not distinguish between primary and other residences.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of(a) the number and (b) the percentage of (i) people and (ii) households in the United Kingdom that (A) receive and (B) can receive digital television by (1) digital terrestrial, (2) digital satellite, (3) digital cable and (4) other means; and what the equivalent figures are for reception at people's primary place of residence. [21386]

  Dr. Howells
  The information available is as follows:

  (A) Digital television take up

  Nearly 8 million UK households (30 per cent.) have switched on to digital television since 1998, made up of some:

  5. 5 million satellite (Sky Digital);

  1.22 million terrestrial (ITV Digital);

  over 1 million cable (NTL and Telewest);

  others using terrestrial free-to-air only broadcasts and other technologies (eg ADSL).

  (B) Digital television coverage

  The latest figures available from the Independent Television Commission are as follows:

  (1)Digital terrestrial television (DTT) as at July 2001

  UK coverage

  Percentage of population

  Number of homes

  Multiplex 1 BBC

  81

  20,261,000

  Multiplex 2 Digital 3 and 4

  80

  19,851,000

  Multiplex A SDN

  78

  19,455,000

  Multiplex B ITV Digital

  79

  19,546,000

  Multiplex C ITV Digital

  76

  18,963,000

  Multiplex D ITV Digital

  74

  18,441,000

  Core coverage1

  68

  16,929,000

  1Core coverage is the ability to receive all six multiplexes

  The BBC and ITC, who are responsible for the DTT transmission network, are considering, in consultation with Government and stakeholders, how to improve coverage of all DTT multiplexes across the UK.

  (2) Digital satellite is predicted to reach about 98.2 per cent. of the UK population.

  (3) Digital cable passes 6.2 per cent. of UK homes.

  (4) Data are not available for other technologies.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what is her estimate of the number of(a) analogue and (b) digital television sets bought in each of the last five years; and how many sets there are in the United Kingdom; [21382]

  (2) if she will estimate the number of (a) analogue and (b) digital (i) radio and (ii) television sets in the United Kingdom. [21383]

  Dr. Howells
  The Independent Television has advised that there are estimated to be 40–50 million analogue television sets in the UK and 210,000 integrated digital television sets.

  Estimates of television sales in the last five years are as follows:
  502W

  Analogue TV sales(million)

  Digital TV sales(thousand)

  1997

  4.3

  nil

  1998

  4.7

  2

  1999

  5.5

  27

  2000

  6.2

  94

  20011

  4.6

  87

  1To October.

  Equivalent figures for radio are not available, but the Radio Authority has advised that there are estimated to be in excess of 100 million analogue radio sets currently in use in the UK and some 40,000 digital radio sets.

  Digitally Originated Graphics
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the use of on-screen digitally originated graphics to identify and promote(a) television channels, (b) programme strands, (c) internet links and (d) other programmes. [21372]

  Dr. Howells
  Electronic Programme Guides (EPG) (both with and without digitally originated graphics), will make it easier for viewers to access an increasing number of television programmes and channels on offer through digital television.

  Under the proposals outlined in the Communications White Paper, Ofcom's powers to promote competition and protect consumers will apply to EPGs and similar new systems. Ofcom's powers must be sufficiently flexible to address new competition issues as they emerge. It is also proposed that Ofcom should be able to regulate EPGs so that Public Service Broadcasters are given due prominence.

  BBC Charter
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on(a) the process and (b) the timing of the renewal of the BBC Charter. [21373]

  Dr. Howells
  The current Charter will expire in 2006 after a term of 10 years. We expect to start the review process in 2004 and will make an announcement on the process and timing in due course.

  Digital Radio
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of the(a) number and (b) percentage of (i) people and (ii) households in the United Kingdom that can receive (A) publicly and (B) commercially funded digital radio by any means; and what are the figures for reception at people's primary place of residence. [21385]
  503W
  Dr. Howells
  The Radio Authority advise that:BBC national digital radio services cover around 60 per cent. of households (estimated to be around 14,700,000 households in total). The BBC has just announced that it is resuming its roll-out of digital radio;
  BBC local digital radio services (which include the National Regions) cover between 40 and 50 per cent. of households (estimated to be between 9,800,000 and 12,300,000 households in total);
  Commercial national digital radio services cover over 80 per cent. of households (estimated to be around 19,600,000 households in total);
  Commercial local digital radio services cover between 40 and 50 per cent. of households (estimated to be between 9,800,000 and 12,300,000 households in total), and the Radio Authority continues to advertise new multiplexes, working towards a target of 80 per cent. in this phase.

  There are no data for reception at a primary place of residence, or for the number or percentage of individuals (as opposed to households) who can receive digital radio.

  Films (Funding)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will(a) make a statement on (i) direct and (ii) indirect Government funding of films and (b) publish a list of films that have received such funding in each of the last five years. [21371]

  Dr. Howells
  We have contacted a number of organisations that provide funding for film to request the information required, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  BBC Broadcast
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects to announce her decision on plans for BBC Broadcast. [21376]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has received an application from the BBC under Article 3(u) of the Charter seeking approval for the proposed incorporation of BBC Broadcast Ltd. The application is currently being assessed against the published guidelines for BBC commercial approvals and we expect to make a decision shortly.

  Apsley House
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what provisions exist for the private hire of Apsley House; and which events have been held there in the last 10 years. [20870]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the Wellington Museum Act 1947 all private hire events are subject to the consent of the Duke of Wellington.

  There have been 84 private hire events at the museum since 1 January 1991.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make it her policy to exclude members of the Wellesley family from sitting on the proposed private trust for Apsley House. [20869]

  Dr. Howells
  The proposed Apsley House Trust will be independent of Government. However the scope of its proposed membership has been discussed with Ministers 504W
  who have indicated that there should not be more than one member of the Wellesley family out of a current total of five trustees on the Trust. The Duke and his family have a right to occupy the private apartments at Apsley House and the consent of the Duke of Wellington is required for the holding of certain events in the public apartments. In these circumstances, we believe that, if the Trust were to be successful in a bid to carry out various functions of the Secretary of State in relation to Apsley House, a formal link with the family would make good operational sense.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what annual financial contribution is made by the Wellesley family towards the upkeep of Apsley House. [20871]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the terms of the Wellington Museum Act 1947, the Secretary of State has a duty to maintain the forecourt of Apsley House, the fabric of its exterior and the parts of the building used as a museum. The Duke of Wellington is not required to make any contribution in respect of the duties of the Secretary of State, but he does have a duty to keep the portions of Apsley House which he is entitled to occupy in good repair and to maintain the garden of the House. In addition the Wellesley family are responsible for making their own arrangements for the supply of utilities to their apartments.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what accommodation is provided for the Wellesley family in Apsley House; and what rent is paid. [20868]

  Dr. Howells
  The Duke of Wellington and his family have the right of occupation, under the Wellington Museum Act 1947, to live at Apsley House in private apartments which comprise just over half the house and to occupy and maintain the garden. These rights of occupation are rent free (subject to the duties of repair and maintenance) in perpetuity.

  Pools Industry
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what percentage of pools industry money went to the(a) Foundation for Sport and Arts and (b) Football Foundation in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02; and what the percentage will be for 2002–03; [20988]

  (2) what estimate has been made of the income to the (a) Foundation for Sport and the Arts and (b) Football Foundation from the pools industry in 2002–03. [20989]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under the terms of the Government's agreement with the Littlewoods and Vernons Pools each company has made donations equivalent to 3 per cent. of stake money to each of the Foundations for Sport and the Arts and the Football Foundation in 2000–01 and 2001–02. The agreement was due to end on 31 March 2002. As announced by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget Report, following discussions between officials and industry representatives, the two pools companies have agreed to continue their funding for the two Foundations for a further two years at a rate equivalent to 2 per cent. of gross profits.
  505W
  The Football Foundation retains only an element of the donations made to it as the pools donations are for UK-wide purposes while the Foundation is an England only body. The Foundation currently retains 72.8 per cent. of the funds donated to it by the pools companies for its own purposes less £250,000 directly allocated to Supporters Direct by the Government. The rest is passed to bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland specified by the devolved Administrations.

  My Department's provisional estimates are that pools donations to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and Football Foundation will be in the region of £1.25 million. In the case of the Football Foundation this will mean in the region of £1 million for its own purposes in 2002–03. Of course, the final figures are tied to the success of both companies over the year.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judges' Lodgings
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average cost of running judges' lodgings per judge accommodated for financial years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [20653]

  Mr. Wills
  The average cost of running judges' lodgings per judge accommodated for the four years in question is set out on three bases:

  £

  Year

  Cost per judge accommodated

  Total cost of lodgings

  1997–98

  56,865

  1998–99

  64,604

  1999–2000

  53,772

  2000–01

  61,047

  Cost of lodgings1

  1997–98

  52,581

  1998–99

  58,253

  1999–2000

  47,233

  2000–01

  52,326

  Costs solely attributable to judicial occupation

  1997–98

  26,587

  1998–99

  28,322

  1999–2000

  24,673

  2000–01

  24,676

  1 Excluding the Treasury capital charge payable on all freehold properties

  Note:

  The figures for 2000–01 are yet to be audited and may therefore be subject to slight change

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average cost of running judges' lodgings per night of accommodation provided for the following financial years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–2001. [20652]

  Mr. Wills
  The average cost of running judges' lodgings per night of accommodation provided for the four years in question is set out on three bases:
  506W

  Total cost of lodgings

  £

  Cost per night of accommodation

  1997–98

  777

  1998–99

  846

  1999–2000

  782

  2000–01

  896

  Cost of lodgings (excluding the Treasury capital charge payable on all freehold properties)

  £

  Cost per night of accommodation

  1997–98

  719

  1998–99

  763

  1999–2000

  687

  2000–01

  768

  Costs solely attributable to judicial occupation

  £

  Cost per night of accommodation

  1997–98

  364

  1998–99

  371

  1999–2000

  359

  2000–01

  362

  The figures for 2000–01 are yet to be audited and may therefore be subject to slight change.

  Judiciary (Corruption)
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many members of the judiciary (1) were convicted of corruption in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000; [20494]

  (2) were charged with corruption in (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000; [20495]

  (3) cautioned in the course of an investigation for corruption in (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000. [20498]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information sought is not recorded and held in a manner which would make it possible to answer these questions with absolute certainty. However, the Lord Chancellor is not aware of any member of the judiciary being charged with, cautioned for or convicted of corruption between 1996 and 2000; he is aware of a Circuit Judge who, during the period, was charged with, but not convicted of, fraud relating to his activities before he became a judge.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of the increase in the departmental expenditure limit from 2001–02 to 2002–03 will be accounted for by wage costs. [20666]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The level of wage costs within departmental budgets this year and in future years will be dependent upon negotiations. Departmental reports published next spring will give full retrospective costs.
  507W

  House of Lords (Reform)
  Mr. Miliband
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will publish the series of background papers on reform of the House of Lords promised in the Government's White Paper, "The House of Lords—Completing the Reform". [21864]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is today issuing a single report, entitled "The House of Lords—Completing the Reform—Supporting Documents", that contains all of the background papers. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies of the report have also been placed in the Vote Office.

  Further copies of the report may be obtained from:

  The House of Lords Reform Team

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Room 815

  Millbank Tower

  21–24 Millbank

  London SW IP 4QP

  The report is also available on the LCD website at www lcd.gov. uk/

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reasons the Government have not established a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the reform of the House of Lords; and if he will make a statement. [19636]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government proposed a Joint Committee in their manifesto for the 1997 election, which they stated would focus on the parliamentary aspects of reform. During the course of the last Parliament, they made strenuous efforts to set up such a Committee. However, it was not possible to reach agreement with the other main political parties as to the terms of reference for the Joint Committee.

  There was no commitment in the 2001 manifesto to the creation of such a Committee. The 2001 manifesto committed the Government to the introduction of the second stage of reform of the House of Lords, by the most effective implementation possible of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on reform of the House of Lords.

  The Government's proposals were published on 7 November in the White Paper "The House of Lords—Completing the Reform" (Cm 5291). They are subject to consultation; the consultation period ends on 31 January 2002.

  Victims of Crime
  Andrew George
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in which types of cases victims' personal statements may be used in court cases since 1 October. [20325]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Victim Personal Statement scheme is intended to give victims of crime a more formal opportunity to say how they have been affected by the crime. The statement will become part of the papers and should help all Criminal Justice Agencies subsequently dealing with the case to take more informed decisions. All personal victims of crime, or serious road traffic incidents, are covered by
  508W
  the Victim Personal Statements (VPS) scheme and will be offered the chance to make VPSs which can be used in court.

  The term "victim" includes the bereaved relatives or partners (including same sex partners) in fatal road traffic cases leading to criminal action; the bereaved relatives or partners (including same sex partners) in homicide cases; partners or carers where the primary victim is a child or vulnerable adult; and small businesses (such as small shops, but not large retailers or corporations).

PRIME MINISTER

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what legislation has resulted from the establishment of the Performance and Innovation Unit. [21245]

  The Prime Minister
  The implementation of PIU reports is taken forward by the relevant Government Departments. In many cases, the wide-ranging nature of PIU reports means that it is not possible to identify specific pieces of legislation that have arisen from those reports. However, examples include the PIU "Encryption and Law Enforcement" report which influenced the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and the PIU "Recovering the Proceeds of Crime report" which contributed to legislation in the Proceeds of Crime Bill.

  NHS Spending
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is his policy to increase the level of spending on the NHS to the European average level by 2005; and if he will make a statement. [20305]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 5 December 2001,Official Report, columns 325–30.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish(a) the standard form of contract for and (b) the disciplinary procedures for special advisers; and if he will state where these differ from those of career civil servants. [21356]

  The Prime Minister: All special advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Copies of the model contract are in the Library of the House. Clause 15 of the contract sets out the disciplinary procedures that apply.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what information he collates on the amount and frequency of payments into stakeholder pension schemes. [20955]
  509W
  Mr. McCartney
  Information is supplied by the Inland Revenue, derived from returns made by scheme administrators when claiming tax relief, on the amount of contributions to stakeholder pensions. Information for the first quarter of the financial year is published on its website. Information on the frequency of payments is not available.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pension schemes have been closed to new members in each year since 1997; and what the size is of each of the schemes that has been closed. [15149]

  Mr. McCartney
  Further to the answer given to the hon. Member for Havant on 10 April 2001,Official Report, columns 623–24W, inaccuracies occurred in the information provided. The information in the text of the answer and column (a) were correct at the date of the original answer. The information given in column (c) for years prior to 1990 was unreliable, but was accurate for subsequent years. Information has been subsequently supplied which increases the numbers in columns (a) and
  (c). The information in column (b) supplied at the time was incorrect. The correct information is contained in table 1.

  Table 1

  (a) Number of schemes with commencement dates in that year

  (b) Number of occupational schemes closed within a particular year

  (c) Number of schemes that wound up in that year

  1979

  4,781

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  4,693

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  4,637

  n/a

  n/a

  1982

  5,723

  n/a

  n/a

  1983

  6,770

  n/a

  n/a

  1984

  8,620

  n/a

  n/a

  1985

  10,974

  n/a

  n/a

  1986

  11,038

  n/a

  n/a

  1987

  12,436

  n/a

  n/a

  1988

  22,299

  n/a

  n/a

  1989

  11,511

  n/a

  n/a

  1990

  7,820

  n/a

  n/a

  1991

  12,881

  n/a

  657

  1992

  8,156

  n/a

  758

  1993

  6,614

  n/a

  968

  1994

  7,541

  n/a

  1,248

  1995

  6,614

  n/a

  1,675

  1996

  8,354

  1—

  3,132

  1997

  6,221

  2176

  25,525

  1998

  5,053

  283

  6,825

  1999

  3,743

  310

  8,161

  2000

  3,502

  322

  5,596

  1 The total number of schemes that closed prior to 2 April 1997 was 2,021. This may include schemes closed before 1979, but still in existence when schemes were required to register in 1991.

  2 Figure covers the period 2 April 1997 to 31 December 1997

  Column (a) is based on scheme commencement date until 1991 and then registrable date. Schemes with at least two members have been required to register since 1991. Schemes already in existence in 1991 had to provide the date of scheme commencement on registration.

  Column (b) shows numbers of schemes closed to new members during the year. The Pension Schemes Registry did not require schemes to provide the date of closure
  510W
  prior to 2 April 1997, although some schemes did. Therefore, in most cases, it is not possible to identify the individual years in which schemes closed prior to this date.

  Column (c) is based on the wound-up date of the occupational pension scheme. Many of these schemes will have begun the winding-up process in an earlier year. Figures for years before 1991 are not available.

  The Pension Schemes Registry (PSR) records the number of closed schemes (that is schemes closed to new members but which still have active members accruing benefits) but it would be disproportionately expensive to identify the size of each individual scheme. The information in tables 2 and 3 identify the number of schemes according to the membership bands used by the PSR to assess a schemes levy liability.

  Table 2: Occupational pension schemes closed from an effective date within each year

  Levy membership band

  19971,2

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20013

  2–11

  72

  127

  135

  106

  85

  12–99

  56

  77

  69

  94

  73

  100–999

  39

  65

  89

  110

  71

  1000–4999

  4

  10

  12

  12

  16

  5000–9999

  4

  3

  1

  0

  1

  10000+

  1

  1

  4

  0

  2

  Table 3: Personal Pension schemes closed from an effective date within each year

  Levy membership band

  19971

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  2–11

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  12–99

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  100–999

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1000–4999

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5000–9999

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10000+

  1

  1

  1

  0

  4

  1 The PSR computer system is not able to identify the year of closure of schemes prior to 2 April 1997

  2 2 April to 31 December

  3 To date

  1The PSR computer system is not able to identify the year of closure of schemes prior to 2 April 1997

  2April to 31 December

  3To date

  Notes:

  1.Schemes with one member are not required to register and are therefore not included in the figures

  2.The schemes listed as closed are those which still have active members

  Deaf Awareness
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research his Department is undertaking into the take-up of disability living allowance among deaf adults. [20792]

  Maria Eagle
  The number of disability living allowance (DLA) recipients with deafness as their principal disabling condition has increased by around 200 per cent. (8,700 to 26,500) since 1993, twice the increase in the overall caseload over the same period. More generally the number of people getting DLA is increasing by some 3 to 5 per cent. each year. Estimates of and research into the take up of DLA are not routinely undertaken, but the take-up of the benefit is kept under general review.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to ensure that disability living allowance medical reports based on assessments in which(a) a deaf examinee was not

  511W
  provided with communication support or (b) the examiner was not experienced in the problems of deaf people are set aside. [20793]

  Maria Eagle
  Arrangements exist for the rescheduling of a medical assessment if a claimant has not previously indicated the need for an interpreter, but it later transpires that the assessment cannot proceed without one. The same would apply should there be a need for communication support for a deaf claimant.

  Current training for examining doctors already includes instructions to assess comprehension of speech and reaction to noise. It also includes instructions to take into account the effects of background noise when assessing hearing. A trainer-led module on sensory problems has been prepared, with help from RNID and other voluntary organisations to deliver to examining doctors.

  It is therefore unlikely that there would be a need for medical assessments to be set aside.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will amend the Decision Making and Appeals Regulations so that appeals from deaf claimants which are heard without the requisite communication support can be set aside by a tribunal chair. [20794]

  Maria Eagle
  Regulation 57 of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999 only allows set aside in limited circumstances. These are where a document relating to the proceedings was not sent or received or a party to the proceedings was not present at an oral hearing. A chairman may also set aside where there have been procedural irregularities or mishaps. In addition, under section 13(2) of the Social Security Act 1998, if a person applies for leave to appeal to a Commissioner, the tribunal chairman (or another legally qualified panel member) can set aside the tribunal's decision and remit the matter for redetermination provided he considers that the original decision was wrong in law. That would include where he considered that there had been a breach of natural justice, for example, where the evidence showed that the appellant was not able to hear or understand what was being said at an oral hearing.

  We have no plans to expand the set aside provisions.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will ensure that the Appeals Service is prepared to fund appropriate communications support for deaf applicants to hold preliminary meetings with their representatives in such appeals. [20795]

  Maria Eagle
  Last year the Appeals Service commissioned the Royal National Institute for the Deaf (RNID) to undertake a disability audit of service provision. To improve customer service a strategic plan has been implemented to tackle the issues identified. We are seeking to ensure diversity issues are taken into account and successfully managed in each area of the agency, as part of normal business.

  For those with hearing difficulties, "typetalk" and induction loops are available. Induction loops are now in most permanent venues, and plans are in place to ensure that all permanent venues have this equipment by 31 March 2002. For deaf appellants who require communication support, a British Sign Language interpreter is made available where appropriate.
  512W
  The Appeals Service does not fund advice or any communications support in advance of the tribunal hearing. This is often provided by welfare organisations, some of whom are already supported by central or local government, prior to an appeal being heard.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will ensure that each disability benefit centre within the Disability and Benefits Covers Directorate works towards accreditation with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People's 'Louder than Words' Charter. [20796]

  Maria Eagle
  We are working with the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, to review those offices within the Disability and Carer Benefits. Directorate that have achieved accreditation in the past and to prepare those offices which are working towards it.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will ensure that all those making decisions on awards of(a) disability living allowance and (b) attendance allowance receive appropriate training in (i) deaf awareness and (ii) related problems for those wishing to claim benefits. [20797]

  Maria Eagle
  Training for new Decision Makers (DM) includes material on hearing impairment with information on how hearing occurs, sound frequency and volume. It also makes reference to British Sign Language and lip reading.

  A programme of specialist training on people with hearing difficulties is currently being delivered to all DMs throughout the organisation. The "Understanding our customers" module includes material on living with a hearing impairment. There are training courses in place covering "Dealing with vulnerable groups" and "Deaf and hard of hearing", the latter run on our behalf by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf.

  Hospital Patients (Long Stay Costs)
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to review the rules relating to the pensions and benefits of people who stay in hospital for more than six weeks. [21225]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department, in conjunction with the Department of Health, is looking at issues affecting hospital in-patients, including the rules governing the downrating of benefits.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what estimate he has made of the annual costs to his Department of reducing the pensions and benefits of people who have long stays in hospital caused by delayed transfer in those cases where the Department is late in being notified that the stay exceeded six weeks; [21226]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the annual costs to his Department in making retrospective deductions from the incomes of people who have stayed in hospital for (a) more than six weeks and (b) more than 52 weeks in respect of (i) their pensions income and (ii) their benefits income. [21227]
  513W
  Mr. McCartney
  The Benefits Agency's administration costs are published in the Benefits Agency annual report and accounts 2000–01, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library. The costs are not classified by individual tasks

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proposals he has to(a) alleviate the administrative burden and (b) reduce the delays that pensioners leaving hospital following a stay of more than six weeks face when seeking to restore their pensions and benefits to former levels. [21228]

  Mr. McCartney
  The benefit is restored to the appropriate level when the Benefits Agency receives notification of the pensioner's discharge from hospital. This is part of normal procedures and we have no evidence to suggest there is a widespread administrative burden.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many individuals in each of the last 10 years have applied for a formal determination of their national insurance contributions by the Secretary of State. [11995]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply

  The figures for the number of individuals who have applied for a formal determination about their national insurance contributions by the Secretary of State for Social Security during the last 10 years are not held.

  Pensioners (Statistics)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners he estimates there will be in the United Kingdom by 2010. [20259]

  Mr. McCartney
  We estimate that by 2010 there will be around 12 million pensioners in Great Britain

  Note:

  Figure rounded to the nearest million.

  Source

  Government Actuary's Department 2000 Population Projection

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average cost is of processing an application for disability living allowance when it is resolved following(a) receipt of the applicant's completed claim pack, (b) a medical examination in the home, (c) an appeal to a medical appeal tribunal and (d) an appeal to the independent tribunal service. [19937]

  Maria Eagle
  The average cost of processing a new claim for disability living allowance (DLA), based on a claim pack only, is £33.65. Where a medical examination is carried out in the claimant's home, the average cost is £87.39. All appeals against DLA decisions are dealt with by disability appeals tribunals. The total average cost of a DLA appeal is £253.60 of which £168.00 is attributable to the tribunal service
  514W

  Outsourcing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on the saving from the ACCORD contract for strategic outsourcing of IS and IT services; [18989]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the saving arising from his Department's public-private partnership for the support of IT needs. [19260]

  Mr. McCartney
  The objectives of Strategic Outsourcing are:

  To achieve improved value for money for the delivery of current operations and new developments;
  To facilitate the award of contracts for future allocations of business in support of the Welfare Reform Agenda;
  To deliver current and future IS/IT services and operations;
  To develop and manage the migration of existing and new business systems onto a shared systems infrastructure, in line with the Department's IS/IT Strategy.

  Strategic Outsourcing therefore has not been undertaken solely on the basis of cash savings. However, estimates over the contract period have shown reduced costs for the outsourcing approach

  SchlumbergerSema
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made on formalising the extension of the medical services contract with SchlumbergerSema. [21863]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department has finalised contractual amendments which set performance and delivery conditions for a contract extension to 31 August 2005. The agreement to extend the contract is subject to confirmation before 31 May 2002

  Equal Pay
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of(a) the workforce and (b) the finance sector is employed in organisations that have carried out equal pay reviews. [18305]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply

  Many employers have stated publicly that they have carried out, or are planning to carry out a pay review while others prefer to keep this information confidential. The Government therefore do not hold information on what proportion of the workforce or the finance sector are employed in organisations that have carried out equal pay reviews

TREASURY

  Overseas Development Assistance
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with Finance Ministers of other countries on the level of overseas development assistance. [18701]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor talks frequently with his counterparts in other countries on many topics, for example, the most recent meeting of ECOFIN on Tuesday 4 December where this issue was raised
  515W

  Public-Private Partnerships
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the expansion of public private partnerships; and if he will make a statement. [18703]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Public-private partnerships remain a key element of the Government's modernisation programme. We will continue to apply the PPP approach to a wide range of public sector activities where appropriate, drawing on business skills and experience of private sector partners to develop and implement policy and deliver better quality public services

  World Poverty
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the role of the United Kingdom in pressing for co-ordinated international action to tackle world poverty. [18704]

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent action he has taken to press for co-ordinated international action to reduce world poverty. [18714]

  Mr. Boateng
  The UK is working with governments throughout the world, both in donor and developing countries, to ensure that co-ordinated action is taken. To this end we co-ordinate our efforts through the G7/8 process, through institutions such as the IMF, World bank, WTO, and UN system, and directly with developing countries themselves. The Chancellor has recently spoken in New York and at Yale university on the need to ensure that globalisation brings prosperity to all, and contributes to poverty reduction

  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with Finance Ministers from other countries to press for co-ordinated international action to tackle world poverty. [18720]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor regularly uses international meetings of Finance Ministers to push for co-ordinated action to tackle world poverty, including efforts to achieve the 2015 goals. Discussions of Finance Ministers in Ottawa covered the need for increased development assistance in order to reach these goals, and efforts to maintain debt sustainability in HIPC countries given the current global downturn

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the state of United Kingdom manufacturing. [18705]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor and the Governor meet regularly to discuss a wide range of issues

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from business men in the United Kingdom on manufacturing productivity; and if he will make a statement. [18707]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers often receive representations from manufacturers and all areas of business on a wide range of economic issues, and value their insights
  516W
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the change in the tax burden on manufacturing industry since 1997. [18708]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information requested is not available. This is because the difficulties involved in apportioning taxes between different sectors means that the estimates would not be robust

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to create an economic environment that encourages investment in manufacturing industry. [18709]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are committed to creating and maintaining the right climate for business to flourish, invest and grow. Since 1997, the Government's central economic objective has been to achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment. This means pursuing macro-economic and enterprise policies which promote business activity, and which improve the productivity of firms in the UK. Because of the choices we have made we are now enjoying the longest period of sustained low inflation since the 1960s, we have the lowest long term interest rates for nearly 40 years, and the lowest unemployment since the 1970s. The fiscal policy framework which we have put in place has restored the public finances to a healthy and sustainable position

  Of course, no country can insulate itself from global economic events. But the UK is now much better placed than in the past to weather the global downturn. The Government will continue to steer a course of economic stability, with low inflation and sound public finances, coupled with microeconomic reforms to create the right conditions for investment and growth in the future

  Investment
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the level of public sector net investment as a proportion of national income over the period of the first comprehensive spending review. [18706]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is as follows:

  Percentage of GDP1

  1999–2000

  0.5

  2000–01

  0.7

  2001– 02

  1.3

  1 The figures for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are outturn figures, consistent with table B23 in the pre-Budget report. The figure for 2001–02 is the latest projection, consistent with table B6 in the pre-Budget report.

  Development Assistance Target
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the Government to reach the United Nations development assistance target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product. [18710]

  Mr. Boateng
  We remain fully committed to the UN 0.7 per cent. oda/GNP target. We have set out our plans for the next three years to 2003–04 and as these show, development assistance as a proportion of GNP will rise to 0.33 per cent. in 2003–04, up from 0.26 per cent. in 1997
  517W
  In his speech in New York, the Chancellor emphasised his commitment to ensuring further substantial increases in development assistance

  Monetary Policy
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss monetary policy. [18711]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor and the Governor meet regularly to discuss a wide range of issues. The conduct of monetary policy is a matter for the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England

  Aviation Industry
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal measures he is considering to lessen the economic effects of international terrorism on the aviation industry. [18712]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government keep all taxes under review and decisions will be made as part of the normal Budget process

  PSBR
  28.Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the role of the public sector borrowing requirement in deciding on monetary union. [18713]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have said that they will complete an assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. The assessment will be comprehensive and rigorous. All relevant economic issues will be dealt with as part of the assessment

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  John Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to improve the minimum income guarantee for the poorest pensioner households. [18715]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The minimum income guarantee benefits around 1.8 million of the poorest households. In April, we reformed the capital rules to reward those who have saved and we abolished the age-related lower rates so that everyone on the MIG is entitled to the highest rate of support. We are committed to raising the MIG in line with earnings throughout this Parliament to ensure that pensioners can share in rising prosperity

  To provide greater support not only for the very poorest but also for those on low and modest incomes, we have decided to proceed with the introduction of the Pension Credit from 2003 at a cost of £2 billion in the first full year. The Pension Credit will tackle the unfairness and complexities of the current system. It will bring pensioners up to a guaranteed minimum income and it will reward those who have saved for retirement to ensure that it pays to have saved even quite modest amounts

  Climate Change Levy
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will exempt combined heat and power from the climate change levy; and if he will make a statement. [18716]
  518W
  Mr. Boateng
  As announced in last week's pre-Budget report, subject to legal and other constraints, the Government will consider the environmental case for providing more favourable treatment for CHP within the climate change levy, taking account of the role which CHP might play in meeting the UK's climate change targets

  Euro
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will include the achievement of a competitive and sustainable final exchange rate of the pound against the euro in his assessment of the economic tests for UK membership of the euro. [18717]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 561W

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent meetings he has had with the Prime Minister to discuss the introduction of the euro. [18695]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Prime Minister and the Chancellor meet regularly to discuss a wide range of issues

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), of 19 July 2001,Official Report, column 381W, what exchange rate between the pound and the euro will be stable and competitive in the medium term. [18698]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government believe the best contribution they can make to a stable and competitive exchange rate is low and stable inflation with sound public finances

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the extent to which the pound sterling was overvalued against the euro on 27 November; and if he will make a statement. [20309]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government believe the best contribution they can make to a stable and competitive exchange rate over the medium term is low and stable inflation with sound public finances

  Research and Development Tax Breaks
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the utilization of research and development tax breaks. [18718]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Figures for the number of firms that have taken advantage of the research and development tax credit for small and medium enterprises introduced in the last Budget will not be available until 2002, when firms incurring research and development expenditure have sent in their tax returns for the first year of operation of the scheme

  Exports
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the impact the economic slowdown in Europe will have on UK exports in the next 12 months. [18721]
  519W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's latest forecast for UK export growth in 2002, which takes into account all relevant influences, was published in the pre-Budget report (Cm 5318)

  Commissioner Bolkestein
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met European Commissioner Bolkestein; and if he will make a statement on the issues discussed. [19367]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor met Commissioner Bolkestein on 20 November. They discussed a number of current tax dossiers and preparations for the Barcelona European Council

  Smuggling
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the proportion of the market share of UK consumed cigarettes accounted for by smuggled product for the latest year for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [20339]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to page 11 of the Customs and Excise paper "Measuring Indirect Tax Fraud" published on 27 November 2001, a copy of which is in the Library of the House

  The Customs and Excise paper, "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud", also published on 27 November 2001 and a copy of which is also in the Library of the House, sets out the results of the first year of the Government's Tackling Tobacco Smuggling strategy. These results show that the Government's strategy is on target to achieve its aim of putting cigarette smuggling into decline within three years

  Railtrack
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001, Official Report, columns 143–44W, under what exemptions of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information he did not provide the information requested. [20134]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The answer was in accordance with Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which was introduced in April 1994, and the Resolution of the House of March 1997. These specifically provide for the exclusion of internal consultation and discussion, and confidential communications between Government Departments

  Working Age Inactivity Rate
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the change in the working age inactivity rate over the past 12 months; what reasons underlie this change; and if he will make a statement. [20223]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Laws, dated 6 December 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the change in working age inactivity rates. (20223)
  520W
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of the economic inactivity rates of working age people, ie. men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59. The working age economic inactivity rate is the number of working age people who are economically inactive as a percentage of all working age people.
  The latest available seasonally adjusted estimates are based on a three month rolling average for July to September 2001. The seasonally adjusted LFS estimate of the working age economic inactivity rate for July to September 2001 is 21.4 per cent. This is 0.4 percentage point higher than the estimate for July to September 2000. The inactivity rate for women rose by 0.6 percentage points over this period to 27.6 per cent, and the rate for men rose by 0.1 percentage point to 15.8 per cent.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the level of capital gains tax paid in each year from 1997–98 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [20307]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of capital gains tax receipts in 2001–02 to 2002–03 are published in the November 2001 pre-Budget report. Estimates for earlier years are available from the Inland Revenue website

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his latest estimates of the level of non-North Sea corporation tax for each of the years 1997–98 to 2002–03; how these estimates vary from those made at the time of Budget 2001; and if he will make a statement. [20301]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Current and Budget 2001 estimates of non-North Sea corporation tax receipts in each of the years 1997–98 to 2002–03 are:

  £million

  Current

  Budget 2001

  1997–98

  29.5

  29.5

  1998–99

  29.1

  29.1

  1999–2000

  33.2

  33.2

  2000–01

  30.2

  29.8

  2001–02

  29.8

  34.1

  2002–03

  31.6

  35.6

  Employment Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of(a) single childless people and (b) childless couples who will be entitled to the proposed employment credit. [21100]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of people eligible for the working tax credit will depend on the rates and thresholds, which will be set as part of the Budget 2002 process

  Government Receipts
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the total receipts from income tax were in each year since 1989; [20490]

  (2) what were the total Government receipts from all sources minus national insurance contributions in each year since 1989; [20491]
  521W
  (3) what the total Government receipts from national insurance contributions were in each year since 1989. [20492]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates for all the components of public sector receipts are available from the Office for National Statistics databank, which is available in the House of Commons Library

  National Insurance
  r. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown in current prices of the total sum raised in(a) employers' national insurance and (b) employees' national insurance in each year since May 1997. [20470]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates for all the components of public sector receipts are available from the Office for National Statistics databank, which is available in the House of Commons Library

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of levels of(a) employers' and (b) employees' national insurance contributions on labour productivity. [20465]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No specific assessment of the impact of levels of employers' and employees' national insurance contributions on labour productivity have been made. However, the Government have implemented a number of recent reforms in this area designed to ensure work pays, which should promote labour supply and employment, and thus also help improve the economy's long-term growth potential

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the amount of money that would be raised by abolishing the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions. [20772]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 135W

  Uncertificated Securities Regulations
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what use has been made of the powers in the Uncertificated Securities Regulations 2001 to delegate functions to the Financial Services Authority. [21847]

  Ruth Kelly
  Following Parliament's approval, the Uncertificated Securities Regulations 2001 (SI 2001–3755) have replaced the Uncertificated Securities Regulations 1995. Continuing the approach under the 1995 Regulations, the Treasury has delegated to the Financial Services Authority its powers under part 2 of the Regulations, except—as required—those functions conferred on the Treasury by regulation 11 and regulation 12. This re-confirms the FSA role as supervisor of CREST as operator. The FSA is also supervisor of CREST as a recognised clearing house

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the removal of tax relief on self-funded vocational training. [20824]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have no plans to make a statement
  522W

  PFI Projects
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to increase value for money in private finance initiative projects. [20464]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Public-private partnership (including private finance initiative) projects are used where they offer better value for money than alternative procurement approaches. By providing better value (through innovation and better management of risks), the Government can deliver more public services, more quickly and to a higher standard than with public sector investment alone

  Significant improvements have been made to PFI since 1997, and the process is kept under review to ensure that lessons learned (including from NAO and PAC reports) are disseminated to Departments and other public authorities. The Office of Government Commerce (OGC), supported by Partnerships UK (PUK), is currently revising the guidance on Standardisation of PH Contracts first published in 1999. The OGC is working with Departments to improve their delivery of all procurement projects, while PUK support is available for PPP projects in particular

  National Health Service
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impact the additional costs resulting from measures taken in response to the events of 11 September have had on plans for funding the expansion of the national health service. [18689]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Department of Health in liaison with other Departments have been reviewing their contingency plans in the light of the events of 11 September. There is no impact on planned investment to deliver the NHS Plan. The Chancellor announced in the pre-Budget report an extra £1 billion for health to help ensure delivery of the NHS Plan

  Borrowing
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which assumptions underlying his forecasts for public borrowing have been designed to be deliberately cautious, due to high levels of uncertainty; and if he will make a statement. [20217]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Box B1 on page 169 of the pre-Budget report sets out the cautious assumptions, audited by the National Audit Office, underlying the public finances projections

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of public sector net borrowing for the fiscal year 2001–02 to date; what the position was at the same stage of the fiscal year 2000–01, excluding the proceeds of the sale of mobile (Spectrum) phone licences; and if he will make a statement. [20215]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The latest monthly data for public sector net borrowing in 2000–01 and 2001–02 are available in the joint HM Treasury/Office for National Statistics public sector finances first release, issued on 20 November. As explained in the background notes in the release, the receipts by Government for allowing use
  523W
  of the spectrum by mobile phone companies are treated as rent in the UK national accounts and spread evenly over the whole of the license period

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions and calculations he has made in order to derive the lower estimates for financial company profits which are used to calculate the new public borrowing estimates in Table B7, page 173, of the pre-Budget report; and if he will make a statement. [20312]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The pre-Budget report describes the path of financial company profits assumed in the public finances projections in paragraph B44

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates of the growth of total managed expenditure for 2004 to 2007 underlie the forecasts for public borrowing as set out in Table B2, page 165, of the pre-Budget report; and if he will make a statement. [20216]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Forecasts for Total Managed Expenditure for 2004–05 to 2006–07 are determined by the assumptions for current expenditure in DEL and AME and for public sector net investment set out in paragraph B20 on page 168 of the pre-Budget report

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish his latest assessment of each Government Department's performance in relation to its public service agreement targets; and if he will make a statement. [20334]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 25 October 2001,Official Report, column 373W

  Wanless Review
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans to consult with patients and others on the conclusions of the Wanless Review of Long-Term Health Trends. [20336]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Derek Wanless will continue to consult organisations with an interest in health and social care about his interim report, both in the UK and abroad. He will also listen to the views of individuals, patient groups, the NHS and social care practitioners throughout the UK, before submitting his final report to the Chancellor

  Contingency Reserves
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what allocations have been made from the Government's contingency reserves for(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [20331]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government will continue to seek any resources additional to departmental budgets from Parliament in the usual way, which includes the announcement to Parliament of additions to departmental expenditure limits via parliamentary answers. These are given effect in supplementary estimates

  Tax Burden
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what his estimate is of net taxes and social security 524W
  contributions as a share of gross domestic product for each year from 1999–2000 to 2005–06; how these estimates have changed over the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement; [20311]

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the change in the tax burden from 2001–02 to 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [20314]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Current projections for net taxes and social security contributions as a per cent. of GDP are available in Tables B10 and B22 of the 2001 pre-Budget report

  The November 2000 projections for net taxes and social security contributions as a per cent. of GDP are available in Table B 10 of the 2000 pre-Budget report

  Privatisation Proceeds
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made for privatisation proceeds over the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [20320]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Projections for proceeds from the sales of assets for the next three years are set out in Table B 18 of the pre-Budget report (Cm 5318)

  Budgetary Forecasts
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the size is of the safety margin built into future borrowing forecasts, referred to in paragraph B3, page 164, of the pre-Budget report, for each of the next three financial years; and if he will make a statement. [20218]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The public finance projections in the pre-Budget report are based on cautious assumptions audited by the National Audit Office (NAO)

  In addition, the robustness of projections is tested against an alternative more cautious scenario, in which the level of trend output is assumed to be lower than in the central case, as illustrated in chart 2.5 on page 29 of the pre-Budget report

  Further detail is set out in Box B1 and Chapter 2, paragraphs 2.60 and 2.61 of the pre-Budget report

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions for the level of unemployment in(a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003 and (d) 2004 were used in drawing up the economic and budgetary forecasts made in the pre-Budget report; and if he will make a statement. [20319]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The assumption for unemployment used in the public finance forecasts presented in the pre-Budget report is based on the average of outside forecasters' forecasts for unemployment, in line with NAO audited conventions. Assumed annual average unemployment figures are shown in the table. The Government, in line with the practice of previous Administrations, does not publish forecasts for unemployment
  525W

  Claimant unemployment assumption for the 2001 pre-Budget report Public Finances Forecast, based on average of outside Forecasters 1 forecasts

  million

  UK seasonally adjusted claimant unemployed

  2000–011

  1.05

  2001– 02

  0.97

  2002–03

  1.06

  2003–04

  1.14

  1Outturn

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will announce his decision on the future of the distraint work of the Inland Revenue; and if he will publish his assessment of the financial evaluation of the options. [20396]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This proposal is still under consideration and I am not at this stage able to say when an announcement will be made

  Output
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the change in the trend growth of output in the UK since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [20221]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's latest assessment of trend output growth in the UK is outlined in Chapter 2 and Annex A of the 2001 "pre-Budget report" (Cm 5318)

  Productivity Growth
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of(a) whole economy productivity growth and (b) manufacturing productivity growth for each year from 1975–76 to 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [20222]

  Ruth Kelly
  Estimates of output per job across the whole economy, and for the manufacturing sector since 1978–79, are published by the Office for National Statistics, and are accessible through the Library of the House

  Recent trends in UK productivity growth are discussed in Annex A of the 2001 "pre-Budget report" (Cm 5318). Further information is contained in "The Economy: Supplementary Charts and Tables", published alongside this report.

  Labour Productivity
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the change in the trend growth of labour productivity since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [20220]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's latest assessment of trend labour productivity growth in the UK is outlined in Chapter 2 and Annex A of the 2001 pre-Budget report (Cm 5318)
  526W

  Health Spending
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his policy to raise taxes to increase NHS spending; and if he will make a statement. [20310]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have made their commitment to increasing resources over the next three years for the NHS, funded from general taxation and linked to reform. Decisions on taxation and spending will be taken in the Budget and Spending Review, respectively, next year

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his pre-Budget Statement of 27 November 2001,fficial Report column 829, whether it is the policy of his Department to increase expenditure on the national health service to the average level of health spending in European Union countries; and if he will make a statement. [20302]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's statement on 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 963

  Debt Interest
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of debt interest payments by central Government in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; what effect there has been on these forecasts as a consequence of the new forecasts for interest rate levels as set out in the November 2001 pre-Budget report; and if he will make a statement. [20338]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The latest forecast for Central Government Gross Debt Interest payments, and the change since the Budget, for 2001–02 and 2002–03 can be found in the pre-Budget report in tables B13 and B14, pages 182 and 184, respectively. The changes in the forecast for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are due to lower assumed interest rates and the impact the lower rates have on the forecast for RPI affecting the accrued up-lift on index linked gilts

  Interest rate assumptions used in public finance forecasts are audited by the National Audit Office. For the PBR the interest rate assumptions were based on market expectations as of 19 November 2001.

  Council Tax Revenues
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the percentage increase in council tax revenues between 2001–02 and 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [20337]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We make projections of council tax receipts as part of our wider projections of the public finances. Table B 11 of the pre-Budget report shows projections for council tax receipts in Great Britain for 2001–02 and 2002–03

  Decisions on council tax are for local authorities to take, after consulting with their local electorate and taxpayers
  527W

  Tax Credit
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of total expenditure on all forms of tax credit in each year from 1998–99 to 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [20316]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Figures and projections from 2000–01 to 2002–03 appear at Table B 11 of the pre-Budget report. Equivalent figures for the earlier years appear in the Financial Statement and Budget reports issued at March 2000 and March 2001

  Employees
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimates he has made of financial sector employee bonuses for upper rate taxpayers for each of the years(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02; and if he will make a statement; [20306]

  (2) what estimates he has made of the change in bonus payments made to financial company employees between 2000–01 and 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [20313]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that estimates are not available. I refer the hon. Member to paragraph B41 of the 2001 pre-Budget report

  Receipts
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to request that the National Audit Office should carry out an audit of all assumptions underlying the changes in the current receipts set out in Table B8, p.174 of the pre-Budget report between the Budget and the pre-Budget report; and if he will make a statement. [21001]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The assumptions underlying the public finance projections which are audited by the National Audit Office under the three-year rolling review, established in Budget 2000, are set out in Box B1 on page 169 of the pre-Budget report

  Equity Prices
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the effects on the public finances of a 10 per cent. increase in UK equity prices; and if he will make a statement. [20315]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The effect of changes in equity prices on the public finances is discussed in paragraph B35 of the pre-Budget report

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter of 8 November from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire on the working families tax credit. [21469]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The letter was not received and a copy has been requested.
  528W

  Department of Health (Underspend)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the reasons for the underspend in the Department of Health in the last financial year. [20478]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The underspend by the Department of Health last year was approximately 1.5 per cent. of their total budget. Over one third of this was a planned contingency to meet costs falling in the following year

  Renewco
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Office for National Statistics determined that Renewco would be classified as the public sector. [20417]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Chris Grayling, dated December 2001:

  The National Statistician has been asked to answer your question about the classification of Renewco. I am replying in his absence. (20417)

  I have already given details of the advice given and the dates in my reply to Theresa May MP, which appeared in Hansard.

  Unitary Authorities (Populations)
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many unitary authorities have a population of less than 100,000; and if he will list them together with their respective populations. [20543]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Andrew Mitchell, dated December 2001:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the number of unitary authorities which have a population of less than 100,000 persons. (20543)

  The table below shows the unitary authorities with fewer than 100,000 residents at mid-2000, together with their estimated populations.

  Unitary authorities with fewer than 100,000 residents in mid-2000

  Thousand

  Unitary authority

  Number of residents

  Rutland

  37.8

  Merthyr Tydfil

  55.8

  Isle of Anglesey

  64.8

  Blaenau Gwent

  71.2

  Ceredigion

  72.2

  Monmouthshire

  87.4

  Torfaen

  89.8

  Denbighshire

  91.8

  Hartlepool

  92.3

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, Crown Copyright 2001
  529W

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons his Budget 2001 estimate of total departmental expenditure limit spending was £3.4 billion higher in 2000–01 than the estimate given in his November pre-Budget report; and if he will make a statement. [20318]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Because the pre-Budget report takes account of and revises (in Table B 16) the outturn figures published in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (Cm 5243) in July

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out his latest estimates of the underspends by each departmental expenditure limit for 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [20317]
  530W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Provisional outturn against final plans and original limits in departmental expenditure limits on both a cash and accruals basis are given in Tables 1 and la of the July Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (Cm 5243). The outturn has been revised and republished Department by Department in Table B16 of the 2001 pre-Budget report (Cm 5318)

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the forecast cost over the(a) current and (b) next three financial years of the stamp duty exemption for SIPs. [20484]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the cost of the exemption for the share incentive plan to 2003–04 were given in the Budget 2001 report.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.
Lord Dacre of Glanton—Took the Oath.

NHS Waiting Lists
Earl Howe Earl Howe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What change there has been since March 1997 in the number of in-patients waiting more than 12 months for treatment in the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the number of in-patients waiting over 12 months peaked in June 1998 and has now been reduced by over one-third since that date. At the end of September 2001, the number of patients waiting over 12 months was 44,700: that is 13,000 fewer than for the same period in 1997 and 13,600 higher than in March 1997.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Should not the Government be absolutely candid about the extent of the deterioration that has occurred in waiting times over the past four years? Can the Minister confirm that, in addition to those waiting over one year to receive treatment in hospital, the number of people waiting longer than 13 weeks even to see a consultant—the so-called "waiting list for the waiting list"—stands at some 400,000, which is a 60 per cent increase on when the Government first took office? Do the Government recognise that that represents a very substantial pent-up demand for secondary care? How can the limited measures announced so far make any appreciable inroads into the increasingly widespread distress experienced by patients?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as regards out-patient waiting lists, the noble Earl is right in relation to the figures for waits lasting over 13 weeks. However, he has ignored the fact that, for 26-week waits, the figure has come down from 113,000 to 93,000. As they have with regard to in-patient waiting times, the Government have taken a number of steps to improve the position on out-patient waits. Targets have been set for the NHS over the next three years to bring those figures down. It is also worth noting that in regard to general in-patient waiting figures, the number of patients treated by the NHS over the past four years has gone up, while since the 1998 waiting time peak, the figures have consistently come down. Furthermore, an announcement was made earlier today by my right honourable friend in another place concerning the patient choice programme which will,
940
I believe, have a dramatic effect not only on waiting times but also on the ability of patients to exercise choice.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, contrary to what the Minister has just said, the department is slipping backwards in certain areas such as accident and emergency services, as demonstrated by the recent Audit Commission report. Nevertheless, the Government remain obsessed with structures. Only recently Mr Adair Turner has been commissioned to produce another report on the structure of the NHS. Is it not time that the Government stopped tinkering with the structure of the NHS and allowed health service staff to get on with the job?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is exactly what we are doing with the changes that are being introduced. The balance of decision making is being shifted to the local level. We shall announce shortly the names and numbers of strategic health authorities that will be established. Those authorities will not be commissioning organisations, as is the case with the present health authorities. By 2004, some three-quarters of the NHS budget will he handled at the primary care level, where surely it should be.
As regards A&E services, the Government responded to the Audit Commission report by ensuring that in the future, patients will be streamed between urgent and non-urgent cases in A&E departments. That will mean that non-urgent cases will be seen according to arrangements laid down, and they will not be affected when sudden emergencies come into the departments. As specialist practitioner nurses are brought into use, we will see distinct improvements in A&E service provision.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the Minister of representations made by the Sheffield NHS Trust to bring in Chinese nurses to help to fill its staffing void. What is the Government's policy on NHS trusts being permitted to conduct their affairs without having to wait for government guidelines?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are anxious to conclude discussions with the Chinese authorities and we are working with a number of trusts in this country to enable nurses from China to come to work in the NHS. So far as concerns the Sheffield NHS Trust, I was glad to meet with representatives from the trust through the noble Viscount. I have arranged for officials from the department to have further talks with those representatives. Obviously I am anxious to ensure that the trust can take advantage of its initiative as much as possible.
Lord Elton: My Lords, was the noble Lord able to hear the Radio 4 "Today" programme report at 8.20 this morning when it was announced that anyone who had been waiting for longer than six months for an operation could choose in which hospital they wished to have their operation, whether or not the hospital

941
was in the National Health Service? Furthermore, if the noble Lord heard the programme, was he not as surprised as I was to hear Mr Alan Milburn answering questions about the new policy on the air before he could respond to questions about it in the House of Commons?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think that my right honourable friend was giving brief details, while the full details were announced in his Statement made in another place. I regret that the Opposition parties decided not to accept a similar Statement in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, while it is greatly to be appreciated that in-patient waiting lists are showing a marginal improvement, does the Minister agree that mean waiting times vary between regions and that, in particular, they have deteriorated in the South of England? Does this mean that the Government are introducing postcode waiting?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course we are not introducing postcode waiting. Clearly, circumstances differ throughout the National Health Service, but that has always been a feature. We need to ensure that progress is made in all regions. As announced in the Statement made by my right honourable friend today about NHS allocations to health authorities, we are providing resources and the capability to enable the NHS to effect improvements in the waiting time position.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, it used to be possible to see a doctor within a couple of hours when one went into an accident and emergency department as an accident case. In my experience most recently—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I was coming to that, but thank you for reminding me. In my recent experience you may have to wait for up to seven or nine hours to see a doctor.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, it is coming. Patience. What are the Government going to do to reverse this trend?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the question was well worth waiting for. The Audit Commission report on A&E waiting times, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred, identified some of the problems in A&E. It is inescapable that there has been a huge increase in the number of people using A&E departments. The first aim is to ensure that only people who need to come to A&E do so. We need to work with primary care to improve out-of-hours facilities in primary care, and to use NHS Direct as far as possible. As far as concerns A&E services, the streaming of
942
urgent and non-urgent patients is the right answer. Nurse practitioners can provide an excellent service to non-urgent patients, which will allow doctors to focus on people who really need to be seen by doctors.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on Tuesday, when I went into the Lambeth accident and emergency department in St Thomas's, I saw an excellent nurse practitioner within an hour. Her name was Anne—she would not tell me the rest of her name—and she was very good indeed. I was taken there by the very kind sister in this House, for which I am very grateful. Is the Minister aware of that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I was not aware, but I am very glad to be aware now.

Laska Jihad
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What support they are able to offer the Indonesian Government in responding to the activities of Laska Jihad in Maluku and Sulawesi.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Laska Jihad is one of several extremist groups perpetrating a cycle of violence between Christians and Muslims in Maluku and Sulawesi. Her Majesty's Government deplore the resultant loss of life and, together with EU partners, have strongly urged the Indonesian Government to reduce the level of violence and promote reconciliation. We are also considering ways to offer practical help within the context of our conflict reduction strategy, and have funded conflict-reporting workshops for journalists in both provinces.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. Is she aware that the conflict, in which both Christians and Muslims have attacked each other, has recently escalated drastically with the influx of Jihad warriors? For example, when I flew into Ambon, there were seven foreign Jihad warriors on the plane. Their leader now claims that there are more than 7,000 in Sulawesi, where they are attacking Christian communities. Many have been killed, tens of thousands have been displaced and there are threats of a bloody Christmas. Will Her Majesty's Government therefore take the kinds of measures outlined by the Minister to support President Megawati, who is committed to religious tolerance, and do so as a matter of enormous urgency to avoid that bloodshed this Christmas?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of the escalation of the conflict. I thank the noble Baroness for the valuable work she has done in keeping in contact with the Foreign Office. I know that she had a valuable round-table session on this issue with my colleagues in the Foreign Office at the end of November. On 4th December, together with our EU

943
partners, through our ambassador in Jakarta, we made representations about these issues. There are conflicts about the numbers of people who are believed to be involved in this activity. The UN has stated that it is not 7,000 but only 1,000. The noble Baroness can rest assured that the issue is being taken very seriously. Representations are being made—bilaterally, through the EU and, of course, through the United Nations.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, can my noble friend assist the House in two respects? First, is it the Government's view that the Indonesian Government are unable to control the situation and restore order, or is there a lack of will? Secondly, does the violence come entirely from the Laska Jihad and the other extremist groups, or have they persuaded the local Muslim population to support them? Would any purpose he served in inviting distinguished leaders, both Muslims and Christians, on an international basis, to appeal for peace and tolerance?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not think that the Indonesians can be accused of being either unable or unwilling to do something about the situation in both provinces. I remind your Lordships that the Indonesian Government have sent five battalions to the northern Moluccas, 10 battalions to the southern Moluccas, and, very recently, two battalions to Sulawesi. Indeed, the Minister for Political and Security Affairs visited Sulawesi yesterday. That indicates that the Indonesian Government are taking the matter seriously.
We must remember that it is always difficult to assess exactly who is involved in violence. Undoubtedly the Jihad movement has involved itself in a good deal of violent behaviour, but I stress that the United Nations has reported that some local Christian groups have also been indulging in violence recently. One must be very careful about laying the blame entirely on one side or the other. The picture is more complicated than that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the organisation in question has admitted that Osama bin Laden offered it arms and money some five or six years ago, and that the leader of the organisation personally met Osama bin Laden in Peshawar in 1997? Further to the noble Baroness's previous answer, does she believe that the additional 50 battalions, which the Indonesian Minister said he was deploying to trouble spots, is likely to cure this or other conflicts, bearing in mind the record of the Indonesian military in the past? Does the noble Baroness not think that it would be more helpful if we offered the Indonesian Government advice on legislation to combat racial and religious hatred, which they might introduce with profit in their country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of allegations about the links to which the noble Lord refers. Reports vary as to the number of Islamic extremists in the region and their international connections. A number of reports have speculated on
944
the presence of international Islamic militants. I agree with the noble Lord that that is a serious position if it is proved to be the case.
The additional battalions are of help, but they do not solve the issue in itself. That is why I was careful in my initial Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, to stress what we are trying to do through conflict prevention. We are using the global conflict prevention pool—the pool of money across Whitehall to be deployed on such issues. We are also deploying DfID funds to the tune of some £33 million in poverty reduction programmes over the next three years. I hope that the programmes will make a useful contribution in helping to resolve some of these appalling conflicts.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Government ask the Indonesian authorities to lift the siege of the town of Tentena, where there are many displaced people? Does the Minister consider that it would he helpful to have in place, on a long-term basis, international observers and human rights monitors?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have made a number of representations to the Government of Indonesia. The most recent, on 4th December, was made by the EU heads of mission in Jakarta. The agreed terms of reference were for a confidential EU troika démarche to the Indonesian Government on a number of issues. I hope the noble Lord will also be pleased to know that the EU has offered constructive technical and financial assistance in the framework for a long-term approach in an attempt to help to solve some of the underlying problems in the region.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, has the EU's developing relationship with ASEAN been effectively used? There seems little doubt that the influence on a basically moderate government would be likely to be greater if it came from countries in the area, many of which are also Muslim, particularly as—we know this from past experience—the Indonesian forces are not known for their commitment to the protection of the weak and the helpless.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the more interchanges there are between the Government of Indonesia and the EU, the more constructive those exchanges can be. If they are able to aid the economic recovery of Indonesia, that is very much to be applauded. We all know that the economy of Indonesia has been in great difficulty. The country still faces tremendous social challenges arising from that fact. It is important that those interchanges continue and that further efforts are made. The noble Baroness may know about the renewed IMF agreement and the Paris Club settlement. All of these are important building blocks in putting together structural reform for the future and in ensuring that we do what we can to help to stabilise the very difficult situation in Indonesia.

House of Lords Reform
3.24 p.m.
Lord Selsdonasked Her Majesty's Government:
In the context of their proposals for House of Lords reform, what mathematical model they have applied or what actuarial research they have conducted to ensure that the total membership of the House can be capped at 600 in 10 years' time without any diminution in the existing number of life Peers.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Government Actuary's Department estimated that, on average, 17 to 18 life Peers could be expected to die each year in the first decade of this century.
Noble Lords: Oh! Shame!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the House currently has 704 Members. The net gain in numbers from the removal of the remaining hereditary Peers and the entry of 120 elected Members is 28. Taking account of those figures, the estimated mortality rate means that the Government can justify the statement in paragraph 91 of the White Paper; namely, the proposal for a cap of 600.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned—and ever-youthful—Lord the Leader of the House. But is he aware that government statistics can be wrong—as noble Lords have proven from time to time? Is he further aware that Members of this House, more than any other minority group in the country and possibly in the world, have a propensity for long life because of the active use of their minds? By my calculations, up 100 Members may be forced to be removed if the Government seek to achieve that objective. Will the noble and learned Lord give an undertaking that under no circumstances will the Government seek to remove any life Peer?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, your Lordships certainly have a propensity for long life—and long speeches—but, as my noble friend reminds me, not yet a propensity for immortality. We have made it plain in the White Paper that present life Peers are in no danger of compulsory exclusion. Equally, the question has been raised of a voluntary retirement age, and possibly a retirement resettlement package.
Lord Renton: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Renton: My Lords, having helped Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, when he was Home Secretary in 1958, to pilot the Life Peerages Act through another place, perhaps I may assure the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House that life Peers are living longer and longer; and that the more expertise that can
946
be kept in and attracted to this House, rather than "Lobby fodder" by the creation of life Peers, the more will the public interest be served.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is himself a life Peer. He has never been regarded as Lobby fodder on any occasion, by anyone. The tables indicate—unless I am about to be corrected; I hope that the noble Lord whose mobile phone is ringing will say: "I am on the train"!
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I hope that I am old enough to be able to ask this question. It is relevant to the total numbers given. Will the Minister explain why the analysis on page 31 of the White Paper of the so-called imbalance in party strengths, includes the remaining hereditary Peers? As the hereditaries will not sit in the reformed House, only the number of life Peers matters for that calculation. Will the Minister place in the Library a corrected version of page 31, indicating the proportion of life Peers for each of the three major parties as compared with votes cast at the last general election—which is the proper basis for discussing the future composition of this House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is no inaccuracy in paragraph 31. It sets out the present facts. There will be a period of time between the beginning of our discussion on second stage reform and Royal Assent when the presence of a significant number of hereditaries has a connection to party strengths. But the simple arithmetical calculation is an easy one, and I am perfectly happy to accept the noble Lord's suggestion.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the figures given by the Minister suggest a net difference of 28. He referred to 704 being the current strength of the House; 92 hereditaries will go; and 120 Peers will be elected—bringing the figure to 732. But he made no reference to "people's Peers". Does that mean that the commission will be redundant, and that the only method of entering this House will be by election?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords. The indication of the Government's thinking given in the White Paper is that there should be a new independent statutory commission. Its remit, over a 10-year period, will be to work to the 600 cap. Plainly there will be a lengthy transition period when the commission will have to work towards that cap. I do not believe that it is unattainable, particularly as the background papers in the Printed Paper Office show that some Members of your Lordships' House do not attend very regularly and might be quite pleased to take a permanent leave of absence.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, why do the Government believe that 600 is the necessary limit for an effective upper House? Would it not be possible to reduce that figure by 20 or 30 per cent and still retain the same quality?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if the noble Lord can specify for my noble and learned friend the

947
Lord Chancellor and me where that 20 or 30 per cent might come from, we should both be extremely pleased. Not every Member of this House devotes all of his or her time to parliamentary business. Many would say—and I would be among them—that that is one of the strengths of this House. If the House were significantly smaller, not all of the range of expertise would be available and I think that Parliament—and therefore the country—would suffer.

Foot and Mouth: Assistance to Rural Businesses
3.31 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as a hereditary Peer, may I make hay while the sun shines and ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper?
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their commitment to treat rural businesses affected by foot and mouth disease sympathetically in tax terms is being acted upon adequately.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, but do not just take my word for it. The Rural Task Force and the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, have both acknowledged the positive and sympathetic approach taken by the revenue departments and reported widespread praise for the way in which they have responded. They have now helped more than 22,500 rural businesses, deferring tax, national insurance contributions and VAT liabilities of more than £190 million. No interest will be payable by the businesses concerned for the period of deferral. The revenue departments are well aware that for some the financial difficulties are not over and they are continuing with the programme.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that quite helpful reply. Is he aware that that is not necessarily the view in the countryside, as expressed by the director of the North West Tourist Board? Does not that add to the general confusion of the whole ghastly saga of foot and mouth and make it even more necessary to have a proper full public inquiry rather than bits and pieces, odds and ends and bits and bobs?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have read the article in the Sunday Telegraph to which the noble Earl alludes and I have read about the case of a director of the North West Tourist Board. We do not comment on individual cases, but we are making inquiries about those allegations. Our understanding is that the views are those of only a small minority of those who are being satisfactorily helped by the programme. That is the remit of this Question.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former deputy chairman of the North West Tourist Board. Does my noble friend recognise that many rural businesses are small firms, often in the hospitality
948
and tourism industries? What more can be done to help them? Does he believe that they are being treated equally in all respects to those in the agricultural sector?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I responded to the Question, which was about tax. There is also the Business Recovery Fund, which has provided £74 million in grants through the regional development agencies. There is also the provision of mandatory rate relief, which we are greatly encouraging in rural areas. All those are contributing to the deserving small businesses in rural areas to which the Question refers.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister understand the comments from the UK Competitiveness Index that the rural development agencies are spending too much time on institutional change rather than on the issues in the countryside? Does he agree that they should be pulling together the sort of comprehensive package for small rural businesses that has been developed region by region for farmers whose stock has been culled? Copies are in the Select Committee minutes of the other place. There has been no such package for small businesses.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I assume that the noble Baroness is talking about regional development agencies rather than rural development agencies. That is the context in which I was referring to the Business Recovery Fund. Clearly there are many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of rural businesses, not all of which are in the same plight. We must remember that at one time 140,000 premises had restrictions, whereas now there are only 1,472. The situation is substantially better than it was.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, the Minister referred to 20,000 rural businesses being helped by the taxation provisions. Can he tell us the total number of rural businesses that have been affected by foot and mouth?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. The definition of "rural" is not entirely precise. The 22,500 businesses to which I referred are those that came to the revenue departments and asked for help. There is no way of telling from what pool they came.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, can the Minister give us assurances about clear and consistent criteria that apply to grants from regional development agencies across the country? In particular, are there significant differences from one region to another? Do some RDAs give grants 10 individual businesses while others do so only for businesses that are committed to working in some new and co-operative way? There are signs of some unease that the criteria are not clear and the grants are not being given consistently across the country.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is always a difficult issue. The rules are published and are available from local offices and on websites. The scope

949
for poor treatment in certain areas is limited. At the same time, regional development agencies have to have some flexibility when allocating funds. It is not my understanding that flexibility is being applied in an unjust way.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
3.37 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 17 [Extension of existing disclosure powers]:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 7, after "authority" insert "to a relevant public authority,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments deals with our core objection to the Bill as it stands. Given that not all noble Lords will have sat through the debates so far, I hope that the House will think it useful if I briefly explain the context for the amendments. The issue is whether the extensive powers reserved by the state should be confined to threats to national security. It is all about reconciling our duty to safeguard our traditional civil liberties with our duty to forestall as best we can any emergency threats to our national security.
Striking the right balance between those duties is an exercise in art, not science; prediction, not measurement. If laws alone could inoculate the body politic against extreme violence, there would be no argument on the amendments. However, as we know only too well from recent history, reaction to authoritarian legislation can beget the very thing that it is designed to prevent. Just as the bodily rejection of inappropriate medication can be worse than the complaint, so it can be with such legislation.
It is counter-intuitive to believe that civil liberties are best preserved by suspending them. That tends to be a poor way of winning the battle for hearts and minds, here or abroad, without which no long-term national security is possible, particularly post-September 11th.
What does Clause 17 allow? As its title says, it extends existing disclosure powers in the 66 statutes listed in Schedule 4. Each of those statutes was carefully considered and contains differing and often highly detailed regimes of required confidentiality and permitted disclosure. The core of our disagreement with Clause 17, and the other clauses to which this group relates—Clause 19 and in particular Clauses 103 and 104—is that this widespread extension of existing disclosure is not confined to the protection of national security or to the fight against terrorism.
It is instructive briefly to look at the precise effect of Clause 17 in relation to the 66 scheduled statutes, as that has not been done so far. For example, the Companies Act 1989 provides a strict regime of confidentiality, to which Section 87, as mentioned in Schedule 4, will be excepted. However, the exceptions in the Bill as drafted are strictly limited to enabling a
950
relevant authority to discharge a relevant function, for example, the Treasury, if interests of investors or public interests are involved, and the police in respect of information needed in pursuance of European Union obligations. The only other exception in the Companies Act to breach of confidentiality is in respect of relevant proceedings, but not, I emphasise, investigation of those proceedings—I refer to paragraph (a) of Clause 17(2)—let alone for the purposes of initiating such investigations—I refer to paragraph (b)—and certainly not in respect of facilitating a decision as to whether or not to proceed to investigate as a prelude to any criminal proceedings—I refer to paragraph (d).
Furthermore, Section 87 of the Companies Act gives a highly detailed description of what are relevant authorities and relevant functions by which to judge whether or not disclosure falls within the general rule of confidentiality, or rather within exceptions to the general rule of confidentiality.
I refer briefly to the Health Act which is also specified. On considering that Act, one realises what an intricate and carefully balanced web of protections is provided which will, frankly, be blown apart if Clause 17 as drafted is approved. It provides a comparable framework to the Companies Act, so that there can be no disclosure for the purposes of criminal proceedings outside the United Kingdom, and disclosure for criminal offences within it is confined to serious arrestable offences. I need hardly say that nothing like that is included in Clause 17.
As I am sure the House is aware, Clause 17 will override those restrictions. It is extraordinarily wide. First, any public authority here or abroad can request information from the commissions and bodies connected with the 66 statutes I mentioned. However, what some noble Lords may not appreciate is that "public authorities" in this context are extremely widely defined and include private bodies and companies in so far as they have public functions such as running schools, prisons or railways here or abroad. Secondly, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, first understood in debate, a request for disclosure from any of those public authorities at home or abroad can be refused only on good grounds or what are known to lawyers as Wednesbury principles; that is, such bodies are judicially reviewable if they refuse a request for disclosure. Thirdly, the scope is not confined to serious offences but extends to any offence whatever. Those can include private prosecutions. Moreover, the list of 66 statutes is not exhaustive and can be added to by statutory instrument. However, to be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, an amendment has been tabled to ensure that that at least is subject to affirmative procedure.
Where requests are made by public authorities or individuals abroad there is no safeguard that the legal system, procedures or integrity of the relevant foreign

951
jurisdiction are comparable to our own and provide comparable protection. Furthermore, the citizen does not have the safeguard that exists in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act which requires prior authorisation before any request for disclosure can be made.
The Government say, and have said repeatedly, that none of those matters should be too worrisome due to the provisions of the Human Rights Act. However, in normal cases a citizen whose rights of confidentiality have been breached will never be aware of that. Even where he or she is aware of it, resort to Human Rights Act remedies is extremely uncertain and expensive. One can exercise those rights only in the course of proceedings and, what is more, the rights themselves are extremely generally framed. I put it to the House that few indeed will treat that as a real and effective protection against disclosure of confidential information.
Above all—I have hinted at this—Clause 17 is not confined to disclosure in connection with prosecutions, public or private, or investigation of prosecutions, but extends to decisions as to whether to initiate an investigation and even to inquiries before that stage. These amendments endeavour to rectify some of those defects, particularly as regards the issue of scope.
I believe that the unanimous view of this House is that the Government are fully entitled to endeavour to deal with unexpected and emergency threats of terrorism. We have endeavoured to define the scope of disclosure in a practical way that will give the police and other authorities the scope they need in order to do their work. Therefore, we have stipulated that whether disclosure is voluntary or is supplied on request it can be provided where the public authority "believes or suspects" that the relevant information,
"may relate directly or indirectly to any risk to national security or to a terrorist".
The lowest hurdle, therefore, under the amendment to this and the other clauses in the group, is that there must be a suspicion that disclosure may indirectly relate to such a risk.
I refer to the amendment that we tabled in Committee which would have subjected disclosure requests to prior authorisation. We still believe that that would aid the overall purpose of the statute in circumstances of potential threat. However, in discussions and in correspondence, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was unconvinced of the need for that and we have bowed to that at this stage. However, I urge the Government to reconsider that matter in advance of next Tuesday's consideration of the Bill as we believe strongly that such a measure would aid and abet the swift disclosure of information by public authorities to which requests are made. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 5 and 10. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith will speak to Amendment No. 9 which relates to Part 10 and my noble friend Lord Northesk will speak to Amendments Nos. 10, 12, 15 and 19 which relate to Part 11.
It is important at the outset to make it absolutely clear that while this overall grouping attaches to several parts of the Bill, we shall make the same point; that is, that whether it is a matter of extending powers of disclosure of information and retention of communications data involving investigatory authorities such as the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or police powers, as expressed in Part 10, those increased powers should be used only by the authorities involved in counter-terrorism.
It gives me pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, as he and I have, on behalf of our parties, had numerous discussions in relation to Part 3. The noble Lord and I are at one on this issue. As the noble Lord said, we are concerned that this and, indeed, the other parts to which I referred, as currently drafted will inevitably lead to nothing short of excessive state interference in our rights of privacy and individual freedom. It is important, therefore, that this emergency Bill must not be used as a convenient vehicle, indeed, as an excuse, to legitimise fishing expeditions on the part of authorities under the guise of pursuing any criminal investigation.
To extend the power of disclosure in criminal proceedings to disclosure for the purposes of any criminal investigations, however remote or minor, anywhere in the world in this emergency legislation is unacceptable. There is no doubt that these powers will become commonplace in any investigation simply to see what turns up. As a result, quite understandably people will become less inclined to assist public authorities. They will feel that their right to privacy has been revoked and they will be less frank. Is that what the police and intelligence services want? I think not. However, we argue that they would be much more likely to respond—indeed, I suggest, they would have no objection—if the information were genuinely intended for the purposes of counter-terrorism. It is as simple as that.
We expressed those concerns both at Second Reading and, again, in Committee. Each time the Minister worked hard to assuage our fears, without success. We were then grateful for the opportunity of a further discussion with the Minister and officials, conscious of the Government's repeated chant: "We are listening". At that meeting a compromise was suggested which both the Liberal Democrats and we believed could be acceptable. Perhaps I may say that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in the spirit of listening, agreed that it was worthy of further investigation.

953
I was believed that that investigation would continue from the Monday until the Wednesday morning—that is, almost two days—if the key interested parties advising the Government of the need for this part to be drafted in such a way were to be consulted. In fact, the Minister wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, with a copy to me, that same afternoon, stating the reasons why our suggestion could not be carried. So much for consultation; so much for listening. The Government have shown by their actions thus far that they will not listen. Considering the true import of some parts of this draconian Bill, that is most regrettable.
While we are determined to support the fight against terrorism, a fight against terrorism it must be and not, in the process, an unnecessary erosion of our right to privacy. The line must be drawn somewhere between terrorism and minor traffic offences. The Bill fails in that task. Following much thought and much discussion, we are certain that the task should be revisited, if at all, with great care another day in a separate Bill. That is why we believe that these amendments are so necessary.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, in effect these amendments give effect to the recommendations made unanimously by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am very proud to be a member. In our first report, we dealt in paragraphs 53 to 55 with our concerns and our objections in principle. We returned to the matter in paragraph 24 of our most recent report. We explained what we had said previously and then expressed our view that there remains a significant risk that disclosures will violate the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European convention. We consider that to be the case because of the range of offences covered, the lack of statutory criteria to guide decisions and the lack of procedural safeguards to be followed when deciding whether it is necessary and proportionate to make a disclosure of personal information. We published as an appendix to our report the important written evidence of the Information Commissioner to the committee in that regard. We explained that we endorse that evidence and commend it to the attention of each House.
I had the benefit of listening to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on the "Today" programme this morning. It seemed to me that he was evincing open-mindedness on behalf of his department and the Government. I believe that I can speak for the whole Joint Committee in saying that we hope very much that these amendments, or something very similar to them, will commend themselves to remedy what would otherwise be a serious blemish in this legislation.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, it should come as no surprise to your Lordships that I support the thrust of all these amendments, particularly those relating to Parts 3 and 11. It may be helpful if, at the invitation of my noble friend Lady Buscombe, I add a few words about Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12, 15 and 19, which are concerned with limiting the scope of Part 11.
954
I need not detain your Lordships long. After all, it was only two days ago that we were in Committee on this part. None the less, I believe that it is worth repeating a question that I have asked consistently since we began scrutinising the Bill. The Minister has been studious in advising us that thus far communications data have been central to the investigation into the events of September 11th and that the assistance afforded by CSPs has been "excellent". All of us are delighted to hear that. However, if investigations have proceeded and are proceeding so successfully and without compromise under the existing law, what need do the Government have of such a broad scope of data retention powers on the face of the Bill?
None of us disputes that law enforcement should have adequate powers to counter the threat of global terrorism. We all share that aspiration. But those powers should not overreach themselves unnecessarily. As our debates on this issue have demonstrated so visibly, there is widespread concern that that is precisely what the Bill does.
Moreover, as I have argued consistently. there is a very real risk that the vast accumulations of data that the Bill currently envisages could prove counter-productive in terms of providing the type of focused intelligence that is required to combat terrorism. By making the powers too broad, the Bill could have the perverse effect of hampering our law enforcement agencies and intelligence services in their admirable work; nor should we underestimate how great a problem that would present in terms of data subjects' right of access to information about them under the Data Protection Act.
I turn briefly to the amendments. I hope that your Lordships will understand that there has been something of a rush to convert from Committee to Report stages in less than two days. Therefore, I apologise for any confusion that may have arisen on the Marshalled List. Noble Lords will have observed that Amendments Nos. 10 and 12, taken together, are, as it were, sub-sets of Amendment No. 11. Be that as it may, their purpose is clear. For avoidance of doubt, I merely state that Amendment No. 11 is our preferred choice. Through it, we have sought to move towards the Government's position by retaining the generality of crime purpose on the face of the Bill but constraining it by referring it back for national security purposes.
I turn to Amendment No. 15, which seeks to plug what appears to be a gap in the Bill. It seeks to ensure that, if it becomes necessary for the Secretary of State to impose a mandatory data retention scheme, that, too, will be subject to the same purposes as the voluntary scheme.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 19, which seeks to ensure parity and consistency of the Bill's aims and purposes with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. In sum, what is proposed for Part 11 is a package of linked amendments—Amendments Nos. 11, 15 and 19—as the means of properly limiting the scope of the proposed data retention provision without in any way

955
undermining the capacity of law enforcement authorities and intelligence agencies to counter the threat from global terrorism.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to make an intervention. I have not done so yet in relation to this Bill; perhaps I may be permitted to do so now. As I understand the position, under the Bill the Government are permitting the police, investigating authorities and even courts to investigate people's financial affairs—that is, their bank balances, VAT records and all such other information. That may well be fine for the purposes of terrorism.
I believe that we are all agreed that, where prospective terrorists are at large, such information should be made available to those who are investigating them. But, as my noble friend Lady Buscombe said, it is quite a different thing to permit that type of investigation to be carried out for civil offences, such as, as she suggested, motoring offences. I cannot believe that any government would want that to happen.
I wonder whether, in his reply, the Minister could let us know whether it is the Government's intention that such investigations should take place into minor criminal matters or whether they are simply to be kept for terrorist occasions. If the latter, everyone will be with the Government. If the measures are allowed to extend to criminal matters of a minor nature, most people would be against.
Supposing information is gathered and persons are found to be innocent of the offence they were thought to have committed, what will happen to that information? Will it remain on file to be used on other occasions?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made an interesting speech. I have not been close to this part of the Bill so far but now I understand the amendments better. The noble Lord said that the idea that one can best preserve civil liberties by suspending them was rather strange. Does the Minister agree?
4 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, a common theme runs through this debate, and Part 10, which deals with the extension of police powers, follows precisely the same principles that we have been arguing against since the Bill came before the House.
Whatever the logic, it is offensive that a Bill the House has been invited to argue in relation to a particular set of circumstances, as part of a specific emergency process, should seek to extend functions that are proper to that purpose to criminality at large. As I have said so often, crime is always with us.
Clause 90(4) states that,
"Subsections (3) to (5) shall not apply, but any relevant physical data or sample taken in pursuance of section 18 as applied by this paragraph may be retained but shall not be used by any person except for the purposes of a terrorist investigation"—
which is absolutely fine—
"or for purposes related to the prevention or detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution".
956
We find it difficult to accept that extension, which goes beyond that required for the purposes of the legislation. We have tabled one amendment to Part 10, the effect of which is to confine use of the additional powers—which refer also to Northern Ireland and to Ministry of Defence and transport police where they are called in to aid normal police forces—to matters related to terrorism. That is a proper distinction to make. I hope that Amendment No. 1 and the amendments grouped with it will in due course be supported.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, remarked, this is not only an anti-terrorism Bill but a convenient vehicle for putting through a number of other measures. As to specialised forces, we would have much preferred separate legislation and now know that there is to be a police reform Bill. When it emerges, I trust that the relationship between specialised forces and Horne Office police forces will be carefully examined. I increasingly sense that some historical anomalies need to be revisited.
I thank the Ministry of Defence for arranging for a senior member of the MoD Police to brief several of us on changes in that force. He was highly persuasive and told us a great deal about recent improvements in training, links with civilian forces and accountability. We were advised that three members of the MoD Police Committee are not either members of the Armed Forces or civilian members of the Ministry of Defence. That is still a small minority. They represent the customers of the MoD police and such representation on a force that has extensive contact with the public in a delicate area of policing will also need revisiting. The main purpose of many specialised forces is the security of sensitive property but they also have a relationship with the public in areas that go well beyond terrorism.
The first key limitation we seek in Part 10 is a restriction on its application to matters that are clearly concerned with terrorism, which is the purpose of Amendment No. 9. The second is a limitation on time—a sunset clause, to which I hope we will return later. The Bill's purpose ought to be seen—as the MoD police representative was arguing—as bridging a limited gap until a police reform Bill is introduced, not to provide general powers. Amendment No. 9 is a necessary part of the restrictions that should be built into the Bill.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, the measures to which the extended powers will apply are listed in Schedule 4 and include Section 24(1) of the Agriculture Act 1967—which lies behind the agricultural census that is undertaken twice a year and discloses details of all farming businesses. That information is collected for general statistical purposes but details of individual businesses have until now been kept confidential. It is a major worry to me and, I should think, to many other

957
farmers that Clause 17 might permit the disclosure of such information generally. If it does, I shall certainly support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I know that the House is concerned to preserve those elements of public and individual security that do not have to be diluted in the face of the present emergency. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, accepts that the term "public authority" embraces a public authority outside the United Kingdom, including outside Europe. That term is defined in Clause 20(1)(a), which states that it has,
"the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)".
Section 6(3) of the 1998 Act states that "public authority" includes,
"a court or tribunal, and … any person certain of whose functions are of a public nature".
Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that the term,
"does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connections with proceedings in Parliament".
We have here machinery that can result in confidential information being released to a foreign public authority. That could be the police or another body, certainly anywhere in Europe and arguably anywhere in the world. The proposal goes much further than the matter with which we are concerned. A public authority is also defined as any public authority, not merely the police. The ramifications of that are enormous and quite unnecessary. They would be curtailed by this group of amendments and I hope that noble Lords will support them.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I take that argument further by pointing out that accepting that "elsewhere." means "outside the United Kingdom" requires us to reconsider Clause 18. It will allow the Secretary of State to give a direction controlling what will or will not be sent to "overseas proceedings". Subsection (4)states:
"A direction under this section shall not have the effect of prohibiting … the making of any disclosure in pursuance of a Community obligation".
That also leads us straight into Community obligations that are likely to be taken on soon, for instance, with regard to Europol.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, during the Bill's passage through this House, there has been widespread—almost total—support for the Government's intention of combating terrorism. There has been an acceptance that they need additional powers and that those powers are valid. However, they are valid solely for the specific purpose of preserving national security and combating terrorism.
As we have heard, the Bill is drawn much more widely than that. The argument that the Government deployed in Committee was that their intention was to focus the use of the Bill's powers on combating
958
threats to national security and on countering terrorism, but that they needed wider, broader powers because terrorists are involved in many other crimes—which is, of course, true. As we have heard, terrorists can be involved in drug running, people trafficking, money laundering and a broad spread of other crimes. That is why the amendments, which were drafted by my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, sought to preserve the Government's ability to tackle terrorists who are involved in other crimes by ensuring that whatever crime the Bill's powers are focused on, such powers must he related to combating terrorism.
I draw your Lordships' attention to Part 11, which is on page 62 of the Bill, and to Amendment No. 11. We spent much time in Committee discussing the vitally important subject of the retention of communications data. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which recently passed through your Lordships' House, is highly relevant to these provisions.
The Government's arguments about whether or not the Bill's powers should be limited to combating terrorism and the preservation of national security are, I suggest, polarised in Clause 103(6). That subsection states: "A code of practice"—relating to the retention of communications data—
"or agreement under this section may contain any such provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary—

(a) for the purpose of safeguarding national security; or

(b) for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime or the prosecution of offenders".

Noble Lords on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches—and, indeed, occasionally on the Cross Benches—argued that that is an extremely broad power.
Amendment No. 11 seeks to restrict that broad power in paragraph (b) and would insert:
"for the purposes of prevention or detection of crime or the prosecution of offenders which may relate directly or indirectly to national security".
In terms of drafting the code of practice, that paragraph would surely give the Government every possible power that they might require to address the issue about which we are all concerned—national security. The Government's argument that terrorists are involved in other crimes, such as drug running, is not relevant. If the Government seek to retain paragraph (b) as it is currently drafted, that is surely a tacit admission that they wish to use the Bill for all sorts of purposes that are wholly unconnected with counter-terrorism.
This House and another place recognised the Government's need to take additional powers, but we have not said that they should be issued with a blank cheque under the cover of threats to our national security. I support the amendments.
4.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I shall do my best to respond to the amendment and those grouped with it; if those amendments were agreed to as a group, they could be described as wrecking amendments. That is our view.
Lord McNally: My Lords—
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords, I have only just started. I hope that the noble Lord will permit me to continue. I am not seeking to wind anyone up.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McNally: My Lords, I told the Minister not to start trouble at the end of the evening. I should explain to noble Lords that the noble Lord and I had a conversation in which I said, "Don't make provocative statements right at the end of the evening, because that winds everyone up". He obviously misunderstood my advice and decided to do that right at the beginning instead.
I seek to be constructive. Does the Minister think that the second report—actually, I believe that it is the fifth report—from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is on the Bill and which makes some pertinent recommendations, is a wrecking document? Many of its recommendations are very similar to the amendments.
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords, I do not accept that my description applies to any of the Select Committee reports that have come jointly from this House or from the other place. I shall in due course refer to a new report—it was published today—by the Defence Committee of the other House. There are positive suggestions in many of the reports that we are still—I stress that I speak in the present tense—doing our best to respond to. As I speak, they are being worked on.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, rightly told the House about what he said to me this morning. I obviously misunderstood him. However, I still maintain that, taken together, if this group of amendments were pressed as a group, they would wreck the Bill. I shall explain why. I shall be brief because we had an extensive debate in Committee—I make no complaint about that. In Committee, noble Lords did a good job of scrutinising a complicated Bill that will affect many government departments.
In Clause 17, limiting disclosure of information to cases in which the public authority suspects or believes that information is related to a terrorist threat or a threat to national security raises a central issue that undermines many of the contributions of noble Lords. On the face of it, the proposition is attractive, but it would render the clause ineffective and would not lead to the result that noble Lords had in mind when they tabled the amendments.
It is important to point out that it is frequently impossible for a public authority, which often does not have all the facts of a case, to determine whether a
960
particular piece of information is relevant to a case of terrorism or a threat to national security. That is rather like noble Lords and their children or grandchildren trying to put a jigsaw together. You tip all the pieces out. You may have an idea of the picture but half-way through you realise that the picture is not quite right and ask yourself, "Have we put the wrong pieces in the jigsaw?" You have to examine every single piece to ensure that you have got the picture right. You might start by saying, "The sky's the wrong colour. That piece doesn't fit here". It is only when pieces on the other side of the picture are put together that you see the connection. I use that analogy, for example, when we consider the activities of the investigating authorities. That thread has to run through the Bill and these clauses. In the original drafting of the Bill, and since, we sought to define in legislative terms. Noble Lords pushed us to rewrite the clause so that the definition would refer to terrorism only.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is the noble Lord aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights agreed with the Select Committee on the constitution of this House that the inclusion of non-emergency measures was inappropriate in emergency legislation required to be considered at such speed? Is he aware that all noble Lords across the House want this Bill to be an anti-terrorist Bill but they want it to satisfy principles of legal certainty and proportionality and not to go wider than that? The right of personal privacy with which we are concerned is a fundamental right.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is all very well if you stick to the definition of terrorism. We are not doing that because they are not working that way these days. International terrorists have rewritten the rule book. They operate in ways that were not conceived of a decade ago. We have to take appropriate measures.
I set out a brief response to each of the amendments. Turning to Clause 17, at the time a public authority chooses to disclose to the police, say, an address which they suspect has been used by criminals, it may have no idea that those who live there are part of a terrorist network. It would not know. Its piece of the jigsaw is not connected to the parts held by other authorities. It is only in the course of the investigation that the situation becomes apparent. Under the Bill as drafted, the police would receive information related to suspect criminal acts. The police are the investigators. It is their job to put the various pieces together to see whether they make a picture. Many times they will not, but it is their job to add those pieces to the jigsaw.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I have listened on many occasions to this argument from the Minister. He says that we have to have powers to deal with every possible crime because we do not know how it will all fit together and we do not see the picture at the end.
Surely it is possible, as the amendments seek to do, to confine the scope of the inquiry of the investigating authorities, whether the intelligence services or the police, to anti-terrorism. If they act in good faith, as I

961
am sure they do and, for example, say to the public authorities which are required to disclose something, "We are doing this in order to investigate terrorism", that is enough. No one will question it beyond that. However, with great respect, the Minister is instituting a dragnet which covers the whole realm and enables every possible corner of people's lives—their privacy, their tax returns and everything else—to be investigated by the intelligence services. The Minister has failed to answer that argument at each stage of the Bill.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I remind the House that we are on Report. I do not want to read out everything that the Companion states, but we are already out of order. However, the Companion states that arguments which have been fully deployed in Committee of the Whole House should not be repeated at length on Report. Noble Lords should speak only once. At the end of the Minister's reply the only person who should speak is the mover of the amendment except for very short questions of fact.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, says. Clearly, we shall disagree on the issue. He obviously has a different view from the Government on the way the police conduct their investigations. We think that the police should have the power to assemble the pieces of the jigsaw. They have only the power to ask—
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, this is a question of fact. I hope that the Minister will agree with me that if some crime has been committed, the police already have plenty of criminal law under which to investigate it. That is the point. We are dealing here with the extension of that power. If, under their criminal investigations, they find a connection to terrorism, that is a bonus. What is not right is to use these extensions of the law ab initio for criminal investigations. That is the distinction.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, disclosure regarding criminal proceedings would be accepted because it is part of the statute. But if one does not have the information to start the criminal proceedings one has to investigate. The police are not getting a brand new power. They are getting a power to investigate prior to proceedings. It is widening an existing power to seek that information. To that extent, it aids their investigation: the putting together of the jigsaw in respect of terrorist offences. That is power that they should have and be able to use.
On overseas disclosures, I was somewhat taken aback. It will be very difficult for this country to fight international terrorism if we cannot co-operate with so-called "foreigners"—used almost as a dirty word in this debate. Of course we have to co-operate with foreigners if we are to fight international terrorism. But the information disclosed will be fully compatible with the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights
962
Act. All those checks are in place. We are not riding roughshod over people's civil liberties. It is axiomatic that we have to co-operate with foreigners.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord used a rather unexpected expression. He said that the police have to investigate before they can take proceedings. That has always been the case. It does not need to be written into a statute, even this statute, in any fresh way.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, the provisions need to be written into this statute because the police do not have the necessary powers, hence the extension of existing powers in the Bill. As an aside, perhaps I may speak to—
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I beg the Minister's pardon for interrupting—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Baroness please give way? I shall now read out our rules on Report.
"On report no Member may speak more than once to an amendment, except the mover of the amendment in reply or a Member who has obtained the leave of the House, which may only be granted to: a Member to explain himself in some material point of his speech, no new matter being introduced; the Lord in charge of the bill; and a minister of the Crown.
"Only the mover of an amendment or the Lord in charge of the bill speaks after the minister on report except for short questions of elucidation to the minister or where the minister speaks early to assist the House in debate.
"Arguments fully deployed in Committee of the whole House"—
here I paraphrase: these arguments have been very fully deployed in Committee; I am not sure whether the noble Baroness was present—
"should not be repeated at length on report".
Could we now stick to our rules on Report?
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I was not given a chance to ask my question. Perhaps I may ask a question of elucidation on the Minister's point about data protection. I am sure that the noble Lord is more of an expert on data protection than I am.
The proposed framework decision on terrorism, which is being discussed today by the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in Brussels, provides for exchange of information including where there is suspicion of a terrorist offence. What is the data protection regime which applies to that? Under the third pillar the normal EU directive on data protection does not apply. There are ad hoc data protection regimes for different parts of the third pillar. Can the noble Lord explain to me what is the regime for data protection and the exchange of information under the framework decision on terrorism?
4.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall take advice on this matter. I am not up to date with the negotiations in Brussels today. The content of the Bill which this House is now debating fully complies—governments can get it wrong—as regards access and exchange of information, with both the Data Protection Act and the human rights legislation. There are no new powers being given to the police in this Bill. It is a power to disclose voluntarily to the police and for them to be able to ask questions. We are not inventing the wheel here and that point has to be taken on board.
Perhaps I may say something about Amendment No. 3 standing in my name. I hope that it will be accepted as a response to the debate. When one wants to accede in debate it is not always possible to be fully certain that the wording is correct. We had to consider the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, at Committee stage on 28th November. Therefore, I hope my amendment is acceptable. I cannot telegraph everything for the other day of the Report stage.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, as regards Clause 103 and the code of practice, that we shall be bringing forward an amendment in due course in this House to make sure that the code is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that that will meet some of the points made in Committee concerning data retention. The amendment is not on the Marshalled List at the moment but it will be forthcoming. I hope that it can be produced at Third Reading, but if not, it will have to be dealt with in the other place. I hope that that will meet some of the issues because the code of practice cannot become reality, as we agreed, unless, first, industry agrees with government and, secondly, the Information Commissioner agrees with it. It is voluntary and there has to be consensus.
In order to concrete that in, we shall make it subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That may go some way to meeting the point made about the service providers and their comfort blanket in relation to what will he required of them under a voluntary code of practice in retaining data which they believe may upset their customers. I can only telegraph that amendment today because it is not on the Marshalled List. We hope to list it on Tuesday.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the point that I made and referred directly to the clause. I welcome his announcement that the affirmative procedure will be applied, but that does not go any way towards assuaging our concerns, although it is a welcome development.
Can the noble Lord explain in very clear terms what he believes would be the effect of accepting Amendment No. 11 of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, to Clause 103? That would allow the Government to put into the code of practice any provision which they required after consultation, dedicated towards addressing national security and for
964
the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime or the prosecution of offenders which might relate directly or indirectly to national security?
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, could not have been more helpful in drafting the amendment and casting it as broadly as he possibly could. What will the Government be unable to do if they accept the amendment?
Lord Rooker: I shall come to that. Amendment No. 5 parallels Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and to repeat myself possibly would not be fruitful. It means that disclosure may be to anyone and riot just to those falling within the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, the FSA and the DPP. The request remains solely from within RIPA, plus the FSA and the DPP. I have already outlined the key aspects of the amendment which parallels what arose in relation to Clause 17 and my responses to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. It does not make sense to revisit that issue.
I shall therefore confine my comments to the question of limiting disclosure, terrorism and the threats to national security. In many ways this is also repetition, so I shall be brief. The amendment would severely limit disclosure. Clause 19 allows Customs and the Inland Revenue to disclose information to law enforcement and intelligence agencies for the investigation of crime. Reducing that gateway simply to cases of terrorism or threats to national security would be counter-productive and reduce the effectiveness of fighting terrorism.
Perhaps I may give an example. There is a proven link between terrorist groups and criminal activities for which Customs are responsible. We know that some terrorist groups have been engaged for some time in large-scale drug smuggling and in the massive evasion of excise duties on cigarettes and alcohol. At the time Customs become aware of that, they may not have appreciated the significance of what is involved in terms of terrorist investigation and may not immediately recognise the connection with a terrorist group. They may simply believe that the Inland Revenue has been ripped off, the Chancellor is charging too much in tax and the criminals are trying to make a buck on the side with bucket shops around the country.
Under the gateway, as drafted, if the safeguards are satisfied, the information could be passed to the police. Under the amendment the information would remain with Customs and a potentially vital piece of the jigsaw of intelligence would be denied and never reach the police. The same applies to Customs as regards the money laundering regulations.
We also know, as regards the work of the Inland Revenue, that terrorist groups are relying on the work of the informal economy, the hidden economy, which is massive in some countries. It cannot be measured, but it is worth billions of pounds. It is estimated that 600,000 people enter Europe each year to work illegally. They pay to get there. Many of them are part of trafficking networks, providing more money to international traffickers in people than is earned in

965
drug trafficking. Trafficking in people is big business. It may be that some of that money is used to fund terrorism, but the Revenue does not have the expertise to recognise terrorist activity in every case. Therefore, there is a need for it to be able to assist the police with its part of the jigsaw.
I turn briefly to the amendments mentioned by the noble Viscount. Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 would restrict the second purpose for which data may be retained by communications service providers to either national security alone or to national security and the prevention and detection of crime which relate to it. All the provisions of this Bill are intended to counter terrorism. But for 11th September we would not be here today debating this Bill. That is the reality. We would not have had this Bill. The Bill and its content were not planned. I know that the bribery and corruption clauses are a separate matter, but I do not think there is an issue about them in this House. It is important that, in bringing forward this legislation, we are able to do so in such a way that it helps in the fight against terrorism internationally in co-operation with our partners or on our own and is recognised as the precautionary response that we need to make on behalf of the public who would never forgive us if something happened and we had decided that the appropriate legislation was not worth it because we did not want to bother Parliament and we could not guarantee that a particular clause was directly related to the act that had taken place. We do not want to take a narrow view of the purposes of the legislation because it would hamper our effectiveness in combating crime.
I said in Committee that we cannot meaningfully distinguish between terrorism and other forms of crime for a couple of reasons. Terrorists are criminals anyway and other criminal acts foster and resource terrorism. One example that I have given, which I do not need to repeat, is the importation of cigarettes. Some 40 million cigarettes were seized from a ship and it was known that a large proportion of that consignment was destined to criminals linked to paramilitary organisations. The idea that criminals are not connected to terrorism is wrong. We need to be able to consider all the pieces of the jigsaw.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my noble friend knows that I intensely dislike parts of this Bill. That will be made clear on Monday. However, I found his argument about the pieces of the jigsaw totally compelling. That appears to me to make good sense. I do not find the wording of Clause 17(2)—
"the purposes of any criminal investigation",
and so on—at all troubling. But I understood one or two noble Lords to be asking a slightly different question. It would help the House if my noble friend placed his answer on the record.
I believe that noble Lords are worried about what one may call a "random walk" through everyone's tax returns to see what may turn up. As I understand my noble friend, that activity would not be possible; for example, the authorities could not look at my tax
966
return or that of my noble friend just because they thought that we might be engaged in criminal or terrorist activities as they would have no reason to believe that. Can the Minister reassure the House that that kind of random trawl is not suddenly to be permitted under this legislation?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, absolutely. That is one of the problems. We need to take appropriate action because criminal acts are widespread and the funding of terrorism is not always known. It is possible that Joe Public will believe that the Government will have a way into his bank account, into his finances and into his personal life. That is not the case. The authorities must have good reason to ask questions. The public will be covered by the data protection and the human rights legislation.
There are no powers that allow for widespread trawls through people's tax affairs and bank accounts. That is not what we are about. The powers in this legislation will not cover that. My noble friend can rest assured. The powers have to be precautionary and proportional; otherwise we shall fall foul of the human rights legislation to which we have signed up. There is no derogation from the Human Rights Act in this part of the Bill. To have that kind of intrusive activity would not be proportional. We would certainly be brought to book if that ever occurred. That is an issue on which I may not be able to satisfy many noble Lords.
Amendment No. 15 specifies that an order under Clause 104 can be made only for the purposes prescribed in the previous clause, which forms part of this discussion. I can assure noble Lords that the order under Clause 104 would have to be restricted to those purposes, as we are constrained by EU Directive 97/66/EC on data protection in the telecommunications sector. We seek to work within the legal constraints that are already in place. The directive to which I have referred allows data to be retained beyond the period for which it is required for business purposes only for restricted law enforcement purposes. We cannot act in contravention of EC law so the amendment is unnecessary.
The MoD amendments, Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8, relate to Clause 99. Several noble Lords referred to them. I shall seek to conclude my remarks by responding to those amendments, although there is a point about agricultural disclosure which relates to what I said earlier. The legislation is such that the police can acquire the information pursuant to criminal proceedings, but they have to carry out an investigation to discover whether the criminal proceedings are warranted. It is an extension of police powers; it is not a new police power. It is a pre-proceedings power that does not exist at the moment in our legislation.
I ask your Lordships to reject Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. I shall give the House some examples to explain why these amendments would severely restrict the ability of the Ministry of Defence Police

967
to counter terrorism. Often the suspicious behaviour of ordinary criminals is no different from that of terrorists preparing to make an attack. A Ministry of Defence police officer may be on patrol outside a defence establishment when he passes a stationary car. He sees the driver and the passenger duck down as he drives past and then the suspicious car starts to drive off. Immediate action is required. But how is the officer able to assess whether the individuals are criminals planning a burglary or terrorists planning an attack?
If these amendments were accepted the officer would not he able to act without seeking the permission of the local police, so he would not be able to take urgent, but necessary, action. In that kind of situation the MoD police officer needs to be able to act. Let us suppose that those in the car had a primed bomb or a mortar in the boot and the officer had been able to discover that. Will noble Lords vote for an amendment that would prevent a MoD police officer from acting in those circumstances?
A further example is that terrorists invariably carry out preliminary assessment surveys and make dummy runs of their plans. They must have done that before they mortar-bombed the Cabinet a few years ago. They must have practised and they must have made dummy runs. If the Ministry of Defence Police receive intelligence that a stolen car has been driven round or near a military base, they need to act urgently. The intelligence may give the officers a strong suspicion that a driver is a terrorist on a scouting exercise or a dummy run, but he may also be a car thief, stealing cars to order to take them to the docks or elsewhere for respraying.
If these amendments were accepted the MoD Police would not be able to act without the permission of the local police because of the absence of an imminent threat of violence, but the delay might mean that the opportunity to apprehend the suspect was lost. I am sure that noble Lords would not want to vote for that.
A third example is a suspect found near a sensitive defence property who fits the intelligence profile of a terrorist. He is seen using binoculars and cameras and attempting to conceal himself. He could be a twitcher or he might be a terrorist. The only way to find out is to stop him and question him and if reasonable suspicion is aroused, to search and, if necessary, to detain him. The search may reveal incriminating evidence such as notes, plans or weapons, but under these amendments the search could not be carried out no matter how strong are the suspicions of the officer because there is no immediate threat of violence. I am sure that noble Lords will not want to vote for an amendment of that kind.
I want to reassure the House that we are considering a power that is strictly limited to emergencies in terms of MoD Police operating outside the perimeter fences of MoD establishments. If the MoD police officer can contact the local police force without prejudicing the need to act, he must do so.
968
It is clear that your Lordships' concern has centred on the safeguards that are in place. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, cited the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. To deal with the concerns of the Joint Committee, let me reassure your Lordships that the application of safeguards to the MoD Police is not unclear. The MoD Police receive the same training as members of other police forces. Indeed, Essex police force, which has recruited some MoD police officers, has been happy to deploy those officers on the streets without further training. MoD police officers who have been deployed in Kosovo to police communities there have received widespread praise for the job that they have carried out.
The MoD Police Force is subject to the Police Complaints Authority by virtue of an agreement made under Section 96 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1985. The PACE codes of practice apply to the MoD Police, just as they apply to other police forces. The same goes for the reporting requirements. For example, if MoD Police officers exercise the power to search in Section 1 of PACE, they are required to make records under Section 3 like any other police officer. As for the police committee of the MoD police, the Secretary of State is in favour of openness wherever possible and is minded to have meetings of the committee held in public.
We propose to make further changes to the MoD Police disciplinary arrangements to bring them fully into line with those in other police forces. Furthermore, we propose to put inspection by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary on a statutory basis in the police Bill. I remind noble Lords that those changes were part of the Armed Forces Bill.
Amendment No. 8 seeks to wipe out Clause 99. That clause is an important weapon in the fight against terrorism. The terrorist threat has existed for a considerable time. For that reason, similar provisions were introduced into the Armed Forces Bill. I have looked at some of the debates. I understand that, prior to the general election, because of the speed and the time necessary, the amendments were accepted by the Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill in the other place, which is a rather different procedure to the normal Bill procedure in another place, as noble Lords understand. The Committee said:
"We believe there is a case for giving MDP officers greater powers than that of a citizen when they are attempting to deal with emergency situations which they come across in fulfilling their normal duties."
But since 11th September—this is the point of bringing forward these provisions now—the nature of the terrorist threat has changed. It is higher and different. These powers are an integral part of the response to the terrorist threat. Clearly, military bases and establishments are potential terrorist targets, as indeed are their personnel. There is a need for the MoD Police to be able to act at an early stage. For those reasons, it is no longer appropriate to restrict the emergency power to offences involving the use of a threat or violence, as was the case in the Armed Forces Bill. In our view, the Bill is the most appropriate vehicle for these reforms.

969
The Defence Select Committee in another place has unanimously agreed. In a report published today, it stated:
"We have examined the proposals relating to the Ministry of Defence Police contained in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. We conclude that they are appropriate and sensible. There was a strong case for an extension of the MDP's powers before 11 September but this has been reinforced in the light of the change in the perceived threat from terrorism.
"We acknowledge the concerns which have been expressed about the possible adverse effects of extending the MDP's jurisdiction but we are not persuaded that they call into question the case for the proposed measures".
I have already dealt with those concerns. I remind your Lordships that there has been no criticism in this House or the other place of the extension of the jurisdiction of the MoD Police to act where crimes are directed at persons over whom they already have jurisdiction.
Similarly, there has been no criticism of the proposal to extend the jurisdiction of the MoD Police to act where they are requested by another police force; nor of the proposal that the MoD Police should be able to lend officers to other forces. Indeed, for a considerable time there has been a power to act on a request from local police forces in the vicinity of MoD land.
I conclude by giving noble Lords one further example why Clause 99—
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I have a simple question. Do these provisions for the MoD Police apply to Northern Ireland?
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend Lord Bach says, "yes". He is in the Ministry of Defence. If there is any problem about that I shall come back to the noble Lord. As far as I know, the Ministry of Defence is a UK organisation. We are here dealing with terrorism. Terrorism in the UK is a reserved matter for the Westminster Parliament. That should be a concrete answer.
However, I want to finish by giving a further example of why the clause is needed. At the present time, the Ministry of Defence Police cannot be requested by another police force to help protect injured service personnel in civilian hospitals. Because of changes with regard to military hospitals in recent years it is now more likely that our service personnel—perhaps injured abroad—will be treated and looked after in civilian hospitals. There is no power for the local police constable to ask the MoD Police to guard those personnel who, for obvious reasons, are in the terrorists' sights. Those hospitals are not on defence land. They are not "in the vicinity of" defence land. I do not need to spell out the issue any more in order to make a case to noble Lords why Clause 99 should stand unamended as part of the Bill.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for endeavouring to defend the Government's position in relation to the amendments. When he started he made a lively analogy with a
970
jigsaw. A jigsaw has a big picture. It can be pieced together by reference to a clear picture. Clause 17, and the other clauses to which the group of amendments relate, has no picture. It has no limits. It does not even mention national security or terrorism.
So while the Minister made a strong case for Clause 17 with such a limitation, he made no case whatever for Clause 17 unamended. I put to your Lordships that it was perfectly legitimate, but wholly unrealistic, for the Minister to spend the past hour talking purely about terrorism and about the things with which we are all concerned. The clause goes to any criminal offence, however petty, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever. It is not confined to the police and security authorities. Any public authority, here or abroad, whether hybrid or not, can make any request for disclosure under this hugely wide Clause 17. And the good Minister cannot stop them.
Once this is through the net he cannot stop them. It will be no good him then saying, "Oh my goodness, I did not intend it to relate to some appalling regime abroad trying to use these powers to force disclosure from some public authority here under this Act". It will be no use at all. It will be no use either the noble Lord saying, "But this is only a discretionary power on the part of public authorities". The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, repeatedly said that. It is not so. The fact is that anyone with an entitlement to request disclosure under the Bill will be able to seek judicial review for good Wednesbury reasons against any public authority that declines to give it. That is the legal fact.
To that extent, it creates a right to information. Repeatedly what has been said is, "But don't worry, we've got the Human Rights Act". When will the Minister understand? I forgive him and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, a lack of understanding because they are not lawyers and have not seen this in practice. But if one deals with clients seeking a remedy where the only resort is under the Human Rights Act at large then the noble Lords would understand why on this side of the House—indeed on all sides of the House, because no one ever seems to speak for the Government on these measures—we feel so strongly that the remedies for the citizen are totally inadequate.
I turn to the scope of the power if the clause is amended in accordance with the group. I shall speak to Clause 17 because one cannot speak for all of them. If the amendments are agreed to, what will Clause 17 say? Where will it leave the hard-pressed police and security authorities? The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that this would allow the "twitcher-terrorist"—I think he described him—to get away. It was a bird watcher but also a terrorist under the noble Lord's scenario. He said that it would prevent the police from doing anything about the person who was at the boundary or whatever place it might be with his binoculars and all the rest of it. He said that there would be no immediate threat of violence. But that is not what Clause 17 says. It is not what our amendments do anything about. One does not need

971
a threat of violence under Clause 17 for the powers to be exercised, even with our amendments. Our amendments give an enormously wide scope to the police and security authorities, because they allow them to take action under Clause 17 if there is merely a suspicion that there may be an indirect relationship with a risk to national security or of terrorism.
That must be the widest allowance in the history of British law. For the Government to say that that would tie the hands of the security authorities because would not allow them to do anything unless there was an immediate threat of violence simply shows that the Minister has not endeavoured to understand what the amendments are about.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that if the person concerned believes that there may be a threat of serious violence, he should not have power to investigate it?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am saying precisely the reverse. The clause as amended would allow anyone who believed or had a suspicion that there might be an indirect relationship with a risk to national security to request or impart information.
The Minister spoke as if we were seeking to knock back the wide provisions of Clause 17(2)(a), (b), (c) and (d). I endeavoured earlier to explain how extraordinarily wide are the gateways that paragraphs (c) and (d), in particular, open up. But we do not intend to touch those. We will allow those wide gateways; we understand the difficulties of the security community; but we want those powers to be used in relation to threats to national security or to terrorism. That is all.
I shall not take the debate further, except to say that I cannot resist referring to the fact that, at various points during this hurried debate during the past few days, Ministers have expressed indignation at references from this side of the House to the powers of the Bill, taken collectively, to allow trawling and, as I put it in one debate, mass surveillance. Without the restrictions to matters of national security and terrorism, they are precisely that.
One has only to consider the provisions of Clause 103, to which one of the amendments relates, which, with Clause 104, will allow the Secretary of State to direct the entire industry of internet service providers to keep information for years on end—to warehouse it, as it is called. The Minister shakes his head, but that is the fact. Let us look at Clause 104: the Secretary of State can make a general direction; he is not subject to any say-so. The communications providers concerned will then have to keep communications data warehoused for years. Access to that data will be enabled under the existing provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. We seek to confine that powerful tool in the Secretary of State's hands to national security and terrorist matters, and to ensure that that warehoused communications data should be accessed only for the same purposes.
972
I shall end by quoting from an article in The Times on Tuesday. We like to think that we in this country are the exemplars—the great preservers—of human rights and civil liberties. On the whole, I should like to think that and believe it. Walter Schwimmer is Secretary-General of the Council of Europe—which was, of course, the source of the European Convention on Human Rights that has found lodgement in our legislation in the Human Rights Act 1998. He said:
"no one can deny that a derogation"—
under Article 5—
"is a very serious step. It is one that could set an unfortunate precedent for other countries where the rule of law tradition is not as strong. After September 11 no other European country has taken similar measures … The fight ahead of us is not only against terrorism but also to protect democratic values and fundamental rights and freedoms so that they remain deeply entrenched in our society".
We are not saying that we should not seek a derogation; we all agree that we should. But, in relation to these measures, we say that that derogation must be sought only on the basis that the extremely wide—nay, unprecedented—powers should be confined to the purposes for which they were advanced. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 227; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Ackner, L.

Chorley, L.

Addington, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Alderdice, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cockfield, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Colwyn, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Attlee, E.

Cox, B.

Avebury, L.

Craigavon, V.

Barker, B.

Crathorne, L.

Bell, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Belstead, L.

Cuckney, L.

Black of Crossharbour, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blackwell, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Blaker, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Blatch, B.

Deedes, L.

Boardman, L.

Denham, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dholakia, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Bridges, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Elles, B.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Elton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ezra, L.

Burnham, L.

Falkland, V.

Buscombe, B.

Fearn, L.

Byford, B.

Feldman, L.

Caithness, E.

Ferrers, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Flather, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Fookes, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Fowler, L.

973

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Freeman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Freyberg, L.

Naseby, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Newby, L.

Geddes, L.

Noakes, B.

Geraint, L.

Northbrook, L.

Gibson, L.

Northesk, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Northover, B.

Glentoran, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Goodhart, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Goschen, V.

Onslow, E.

Greaves, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Greenfield, B.

Ouseley, L.

Greenway, L.

Oxfuird,V.

Hamwee, B.

Palmer, L.

Hanham, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Peel, E.

Haslam, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Henley, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hereford, Bp.

Plumb, L.

Higgins, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Hogg, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Razzall, L.

Home, E.

Reay, L.

Hooper, B.

Redesdale, L.

Howe, E.

Rees, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Rennard, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Renton, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Richardson of Duntisbourne, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Hylton, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Inglewood, L.

Russell, E.

Jacobs, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Saatchi, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Jopling, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Kelvedon, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kimball, L.

Selborne, E.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Selsdon, L.

Kingsland, L.

Sharman, L.

Kirkham, L.

Sharples, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Lane, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Linklaterof Butterstone, B.

Stern, B.

Liverpool, E.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lucas, L.

Strange, B.

Ludford, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Luke, L.

Taverne, L.

Lyell, L.

Tebbit, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Thatcher, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

McNally, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Maddock, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mancroft, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tope, L.

Marlesford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Trumpington, B.

Methuen, L.

Vivian, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Waddington, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Wakeham, L.

Monson, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Montrose, D.

Walmsley, B.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Warnock, B.

974

Watson of Richmond, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Wigoder, L.

Windlesham, L.

Wilcox, B.

Wolfson, L.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Wright of Richmond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Alli, L.

Harrison, L.

Andrews, B.

Haskel, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hayman, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Attenborough, L.

Howells of St. Davids. B.

Bach, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bhatia, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Billingham, B.

Blackstone, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Borrie, L.

Jeger, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jones, L.

Bragg, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brightman, L.

Laird, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brookman, L.

Levy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lipsey, L.

Burlison, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Carter, L. [Teller]

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Chalfont, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Chan, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Chandos, V.

Marsh, L.

Christopher, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mishcon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mitchell, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morgan, L.

Condon, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Crawley, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Parekh, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pendry, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dearing, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Desai, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Dubs, L.

Rooker, L.

Eatwell, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Elder, L.

St.John of Bletso, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Sawyer, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sewel, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Simon, V.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Filkin, L.

Slim, V.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Gale, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Golding, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Goudie, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Tenby, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Grocott, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

975

Varley, L.

Wilkins, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lore Privy Seal)

Weatherill, L.

Whitaker, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Whitty, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5 19 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 17, at end insert—
"( ) Information may only be disclosed voluntarily under this section if the public authority concerned believes or suspects that the disclosure may be of information which directly or indirectly relates to a risk to national security or to a terrorist.
( ) Any request by a relevant public authority for disclosure of information under this section may only be made if it believes or suspects that that information may relate directly or indirectly to any risk to national security or to a terrorist.
( ) "Relevant public authority" has the same meaning as in Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) save that there is added thereto the Financial Services Authority and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
( ) "Terrorist" has the same meaning as in Part 4 of this Act."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 7, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"(4) The Treasury shall not make an order under subsection (3) unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in Committee. It conforms to the change made by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation from negative to affirmative resolution. I beg to move.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am slightly confused by the amendment which reads:
"unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House".
That is fine at the present time, but I understood that the Government intended to put forward proposals for changes to your Lordships' House which would remove the power to reject orders and substitute the power only to delay them. Am I wrong?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, under the existing rules of this House and another place a distinction is drawn between a negative resolution, subject to annulment procedures, and an affirmative resolution. At the moment the Bill provides for a negative resolution procedure. This amendment provides for an affirmative resolution procedure.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Miscellaneous]:
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Disclosure of information held by revenue departments]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 9, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) Information may only be disclosed voluntarily under this section if the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or the Commissioners of Customs and Excise believe or suspect that the disclosure may be of information which directly or indirectly relates to a risk to national security or to a terrorist.
( ) Any request by a relevant public authority for disclosure of information under this section may only be made if it believes or suspects that that information may relate directly or indirectly to any risk to national security or to a terrorist.
( ) "Relevant public authority" has the same meaning as in Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) save that there is added thereto the Financial Services Authority and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
( ) "Terrorist" has the same meaning as in Part 4 of this Act."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
5.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 227; Not-Contents, 138.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ackner, L.

Crathorne, L

Addington, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Alderdice, L.

Cuckney, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Dacre if Glanton, L.

Attlee, E.

Dahrendorf, L,

Avebury, L.

Deedes, L.

Barker, B.

Denham, L.

Bell, L.

Dholakia, L.

Belstead, L.

Dixon-Smith L.

Black of Crossharbour, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Blackwell, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Blaker, L.

Elles, B.

Blatch, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Boardman, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elton, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Ezra, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Fearn, L.

Bridges, L.

Feldman, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Ferrers, E.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Flather, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Fookes, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Burnham, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Buscombe, B.

Fowler, L.

Byford, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Caithness, E.

Freeman, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Geddes, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Geraint, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Chorley, L.

Glentoran, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Goodhart, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Cockfield, L.

Goschen, V.

Colwyn, L.

Greaves, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Greenfield, B.

Cox, B.

Greenway, L.

977

Hamwee, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Hanham, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Patten, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Patten, L.

Henley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Peel, E.

Higgins, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Hogg, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Home, E.

Plumb, L.

Hooper, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Razzall, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Reay, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Rees, L.

Hylton, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Inglewood, L.

Rennard, L.

Jacobs, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Renton, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Jopling, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Kimball, L.

Rotherwick, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Russell, E.

Kingsland, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Kirkham, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Saatchi, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Laird, L

Scott of Needham Market, B

Lane, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Selborne, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Selsdon, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Liverpool, E.

Sharman, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Sharples, B.

Lucas, L

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Ludford, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Luke, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Lyell, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

McNally, L.

Stern, B.

Maddock, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mancroft, L.

Strange, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Marlesford, L.

Taverne, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Tebbit, L.

Methuen, L.

Thatcher, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Monson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Tope, L.

Montrose, D.

Trefgarne, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Moynihan, L.

Vivian, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Waddington, L.

Naseby, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Newby, L.

Wakeham, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Noakes, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Northbrook, L.

Walmsely, B.

Northesk, E.

Warnock, B.

Northover, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Weinstock, L.

Onslow, E.

Wigoder, L.

978

Wilcox, B.

Windlesham, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Wolfson, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Alli, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Andrews, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Attenborough, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Bach, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Berkeley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Bhatia, L.

Jeger, B.

Billingham, B.

Jones, L.

Blackstone, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Borrie, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Layard, L.

Bragg, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brett, L.

Levy, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brookman, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Burlison, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Chalfont, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Chan, L.

Marsh, L.

Chandos, V.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Christopher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mishcon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mitchell, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morgan, L.

Condon, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Crawley, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Parekh, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pendry, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dealing, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Desai, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Donoughue, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dubs, L.

Richard, L.

Elder, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Sawyer, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sewel, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Simon, V.

Filkin, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Slim, V.

Gale, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Golding, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Goldsmith, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Goudie, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tenby, V.

Grocott, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harrison, L.

Varley, L.

Haskel, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hayman, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Whitaker, B.

979

Whitty, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Wilkins, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.35 p.m.
Clause 99 [Jurisdiction of MoD police]:
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 102, insert the following new clause—
"SCOPE OF POWERS CONFERRED BY THIS PART
Any powers conferred by this Part shall only be enforceable in relation to any suspicion, or investigation, or acts, of terrorism or any matters of national security."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
5.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 227; Not-Contents, 135.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cockfield, L.

Ackner, L.

Colwyn, L.

Addington, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Alderdice, L.

Craigavon, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Crathorne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Cuckney, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Attlee, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Avebury, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Barker, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Bell, L.

Deedes, L.

Belstead, L.

Denham, L.

Black of Crossharbour, L.

Dholakia, L.

Blackwell, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blaker, L.

Dundee, E.

Blatch, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Boardman, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Bowness, L.

Elles, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Elton, L.

Bridges, L.

Ezra, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Falkland, V.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Fearn, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Feldman, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ferrers, E.

Burnham, L.

Flather, B.

Buscombe, B.

Fookes, B.

Byford, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Caithness, E.

Fowler, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Freeman, L

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Chorley, L.

Geddes, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Geraint, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

980

Glentoran, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Goodhart, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Goschen, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Greaves, L.

Parkinson, L.

Greenfield, B.

Patten, L.

Greenway, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Hamwee, B.

Peel, E.

Hanham, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Henley, L.

Plumb, L.

Higgins, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Hogg, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Razzall, L.

Home, E.

Reay, L.

Hooper, B.

Redesdale, L.

Howe, E.

Rees, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Rennard, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Renton, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Richardson of Duntisbourne, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hylton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Inglewood, L.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Jacobs, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Russell, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Jopling, L.

Saatchi, L.

Kelvedon, L.

St John of Fawsley, L

Kimball, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kingsland, L.

Selborne, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Selsdon, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Sharman, L.

Lane, L.

Sharples, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Liverpool, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lucas, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Ludford, B.

Stern, B.

Luke, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Lyell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strange, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Strathclyde, L.

McNally, L.

Taverne, L.

Maddock, B.

Tebbit, L.

Mancroft, L.

Thatcher, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Marlesford, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Methuen, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Tope, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Trumpington, B.

Monson, L.

Vivian, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Waddington, L.

Montrose, D.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Wakeham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Moynihan, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Walmsley, B.

Naseby, L.

Warnock, B.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Newby, L.

Wigoder, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Noakes, B.

Wilcox, B.

Northbrook, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Northesk, E.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Northover, B.

Windlesham, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Wolfson, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Wright of Richmond, L.

981

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Alli, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Andrews, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Attenborough, L.

Jeger, B.

Bach, L.

Jones, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Berkeley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bhatia, L.

Layard, L.

Billingham, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Blackstone, B.

Levy, L.

Borrie, L.

Lipsey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bragg, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brett, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brookman, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Burlison, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Marsh, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Chandos, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Christopher, L.

Mitchell, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morgan, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Condon, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Nicol, B.

Crawley, B.

Northbourne, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Parekh, L.

David, B.

Pendry, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Peston, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dearing, L

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Desai, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Dubs, L.

Rooker, L.

Elder, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Sawyer, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sewel, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Filkin, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gale, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Golding, B.

Tenby, V.

Goldsmith, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Goudie, B.

Turnberg, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Varley, L.

Grocott, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Harrison, L.

Whitaker, B.

Haskel, L.

Whitty, L.

Hayman, B.

Wilkins, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

[*The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 135 votes. The Clerks recorded 134 names.]
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.48 p.m.
Clause 103 [Codes and agreements about the retention of communications data]:
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 62, line 36, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"(b) for the purposes of prevention or detection of crime or the prosecution of offenders which may relate directly or indirectly to national security."
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 228; Not-Contents, 133.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dholakia, L.

Ackner, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Addington, L.

Dundee, E.

Alderdice, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Elles, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elton, L.

Attlee, E.

Ezra, L.

Avebury, L.

Falkland, V.

Barker, B.

Fearn, L.

Bell, L.

Feldman, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Black of Crossharbour, L.

Flather, B.

Blackwell, L.

Fookes, B.

Blaker, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Blatch, B.

Fowler, L.

Boardman, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Bowness, L.

Freeman, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Geddes, L.

Bridges, L.

Geraint, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Glentoran, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Goodhart, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Goschen, V.

Burnham, L.

Greaves, L.

Buscombe, B.

Greenfield, B.

Byford, B.

Greenway, L.

Caithness, E.

Hamwee, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hanham, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Henley, L.

Chorley, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Higgins, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L

Colwyn, L.

Hogg, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Home, E.

Craigavon, V.

Hooper, B.

Crathorne, L.

Howe, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Cuckney, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Deedes, L.

Hylton, L.

Denham, L.

Inglewood, L.

983

Jacobs, L.

Plumb, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Jopling, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Razzall, L.

Kimball, L.

Reay, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Redesdale, L.

Kingsland, L.

Rees, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Rennard, L.

Laird, L.

Renton, L.

Lane, L.

Richardson of Duntisbourne, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Liverpool, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Russell, E.

Lucas, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Ludford, B.

Saatchi, L.

Luke, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Lyell, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Seccombe, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Selborne, E.

McNally, L,

Selsdon, L.

Maddock, B.

Sharman, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Sharples, B.

Mancroft, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Marlesford, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Methuen, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Stern, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Monson, L.

Strange, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Montrose, D.

Taverne, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Tebbit, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thatcher, B.

Moynihan, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Newby, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Newton of Brain tree, L.

Tope, L.

Noakes, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Northbrook, L.

Trumpington, B.

Northesk, E.

Vivian, L.

Northover, B.

Waddington, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Wakeham, L.

Onslow, E.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Walmsley, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Warnock, B.

Parkinson, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Patten, L.

Wigoder, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wilcox, B.

Peel, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Windlesham, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Wolfson, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bhatia, L.

Alli, L.

Billingham, B.

Andrews, B.

Blackstone, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Borrie, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Bragg, L.

Attenborough, L.

Brett, L.

Bach, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Brookman, L.

984

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Burlison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Layard, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Lea of Crondall, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Levy, L.

Chandos, V.

Lipsey, L.

Christopher, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Condon, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Marsh, L.

Crawley, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

David, B.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morgan, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Dealing, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Desai, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Northbourne, L.

Dubs, L.

Parekh, L.

Elder, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Peston, L,

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux. L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Filkin, L.

Richard, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Rooker, L.

Gale, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sawyer, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Golding, B.

Sewel, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Simon, V.

Goudie, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Slim, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Grocott, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harrison, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Haskel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayman, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tenby, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Varley, L.

Hoyle, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe. B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Whitaker, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Whitty, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Williams of M ostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Jay of Paddington, B.

Jeger, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Jones, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos, 12 and 13 not moved.]
Clause 104 [Directions about the retention of communications data]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 14 I must advise the House that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 15 because of pre-emption.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 63. line 7, at end insert "for purposes prescribed in section 103(6)"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
6.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 209; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Falkland, V.

Ackner, L.

Fearn, L.

Addington, L.

Feldman, L.

Alderdice, L.

Flather, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Fookes, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Attlee, E.

Freeman, L.

Avebury, L.

Freyberg, L.

Barker, B.

Geddes, L.

Bell, L.

Geraint, L.

Belstead, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Black of Crossharbour, L.

Glentoran, L.

Blackwell, L.

Goodhart, L.

Blaker, L.

Goschen, V.

Blatch, B.

Greaves, L.

Boardman, L.

Greenway, L.

Bowness, L.

Hamwee, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Hanham, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Bridges, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Henley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Burnham, L.

Higgins, L.

Buscombe, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L

Byford, B.

Hogg, B.

Caithness, E.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Home, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hooper, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Howe, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Chorley, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hylton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Inglewood, L.

Cope of Berkeley. L. [Teller]

Jacobs, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Craigavon, V.

Jopling, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Kimball, L.

Cuckney, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Kingsland, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Deedes, L.

Lane, L.

Denham, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Dholakia, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Liverpool, E.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Dundee, E.

Lucas, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Ludford, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Luke, L.

Elles, B.

Lyell, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Elton, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Ezra, L.

McNally, L.

986

Maddock, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Mancroft, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Marlesford, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Russell, E.

Methuen, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Saatchi, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Monson, L.

Seccombe, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Selborne, E.

Montrose, D.

Selsdon, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Sharman, L.

Moynihan, L.

Sharples, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Newby, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Newton of Brain tree, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Noakes, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Northbrook, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Northesk, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Northover, B.

Stern, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Stern, B. Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Onslow, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Taverne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Tebbit, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Thatcher, B.

Parkinson, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Patten, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Peel, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Tope, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vivian, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Waddington, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Plumb, L.

Wakeham, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Walmsley, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Warnock, B.

Razzall, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Reay, L.

Wigoder, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wilcox, B.

Rees, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Rennard, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Renton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Richardson of Duntisbourne, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Ahmed, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Alli, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Andrews, B.

Condon, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Crawley, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Attenborough, L.

David, B.

Bach, L.

Da vies of Coity, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

Billingham, B.

Dearing, L.

Blackstone, B.

Desai, L.

Borrie, L.

Donoughue, L.

Bragg, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brett, L.

Dubs, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Elder, L.

Brookman, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Burlison, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Chandos, V.

Filkin, L.

Christopher, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

987

Gale, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Golding, B.

Nicol, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Parekh, L.

Goudie, B.

Pendry, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grocott, L.

p'ant of Highfield, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Harrison, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Haskel L

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hayman, B.

Richard, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rooker, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Sawyer, L.

Hoyle, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sewel, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Simon, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Simon of Highbury, L.

Slim, V.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Jones, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Tenby, V.

Layard, L.

Thornton, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Levy, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lipsey, L.

Varley, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Weatherill, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Whitaker, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Whitty, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Wilkins, B.

Marsh, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Milner of Leeds, L.

Mitchell, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Morgan, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.13 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 16, I must advise the House that there is a misprint at the end of the proposed amendment, which should refer to Section 103(6) rather than 103(5).
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 21 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Suspected international terrorist:
certification]:
Lord Campbell of Allowaymoved Amendment No. 22:
Page 10, line 38, at end insert—
"(1A) Any certificate issued under subsection (1) shall be accompanied by written grounds on which the belief or suspicion of the Secretary of State is reasonably entertained (without documents, materials, or information for which privilege from disclosure will be claimed on grounds of national security), which shall be subject to judicial review in the High Court."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, having carried this torch on Second Reading and in Committee, I am fully conscious that if I speak for too long it could well blow itself out. The amendment is wholly dependent on Amendments Nos. 32 and 33, which would delete
988
Clause 30 and Clause 31(2). That would remove the ouster provisions to the jurisdiction of the High Court on judicial review. I shall support those amendments.
The purpose of the amendment is that, in accordance with minimum requirements of our tenets of natural justice, the Secretary of State shall issue with the certificate, under Clause 21(1), written grounds to the person certified in which the application for leave to proceed to a substantive hearing on judicial review may be made and that, at the substantive hearing, the material on which certification was issued should be made available to the judges designated to sit. As a measure of assurance for the security services, it is suggested that the judges so designated could be Privy Counsellors. The question of privilege from disclosure for sensitive intelligence was fully discussed in Committee.
Before I sit down, I wish to point out that the ouster clauses as drafted are wholly effective, are without the constitution—which it is the acknowledged function of your Lordships' House to safeguard—breach the separation of powers and usurp the functions of the judiciary. There is no just cause for excluding the person certified from access to judicial review, for limiting appeals on SIAC decisions to the Court of Appeal on an error of law or for excluding an application to the High Court for judicial review of a decision by SIAC.
The whole structure of the Government's proposed regime is unacceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, he may misunderstand the position. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General described it accurately in Committee, but I shall make some brief comments of my own.
SIAC was set up because English judicial review and Northern Irish judicial review proved to be a wholly ineffective remedy. That is why Amnesty, Liberty, the AIRE Centre and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants proposed to the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Chahal that the Canadian procedure along the lines of SIAC should be introduced. The SIAC procedure results in the establishment of an independent and impartial tribunal established by law which must act judicially under the Human Rights Act, including Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
That does not mean that the procedure of SIAC does not need to be improved and strengthened, or that there is a case for a complete ouster of judicial review—a matter that we shall come to on later amendments. However, it means that one should not exaggerate about the existing mechanism.
My party commended the Government for introducing SIAC. In Committee the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General undertook that the suspected terrorist would be provided with a statement of the grounds for refusal before the appeal, provided it did not risk exposing closed material. My view is that that should be incorporated if not into the Bill, then

989
into subordinate legislation. But, in any case, that undertaking is obviously vital if there is to be natural justice. Although I shall speak in favour of the amendment so far as ouster is concerned, I do not think it is fair to criticise the Government for using the SIAC procedure which I have said before, and say again, is a fair compromise.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, the issues involved in this amendment were discussed at some length in Committee. I shall cover them more briefly on this occasion.
There are two elements to the amendment, one of which is judicial review. I say at once that I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has said, confirming the comments I made in Committee and on Second Reading, that judicial review as properly understood is and was a wholly ineffective remedy. That is what the European Court of Human Rights said and that is why SIAC has been invented. I shall discuss that matter in more detail when we discuss Amendments Nos. 30 and 31, which is when I understand the substantive debate is to take place.
As I say, I do not want to enter a detailed discussion about judicial review at this stage. I refer to "Judicial Review" with a capital "j" and a capital "r" because, as noble Lords know, I regard SIAC as being judicial review with a small "j" and a small "r" in the sense of proper judicial scrutiny by a body including a High Court judge. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, demonstrates precisely why judicial review in that classic sense is an inappropriate remedy. Let me explain why.
If the Secretary of State's certificate were—as this amendment proposes—to be accompanied by a list of reasons for the decision, the person against whom the certificate is issued will have an immediate right of appeal to SIAC. That appeal will consider not just the disclosable reasons for the detention—which is all that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asks for in his amendment but also the non-disclosable reasons for the decision; that is, the intelligence information on which the Secretary of State made his decision. Sensitive information is likely to be involved which cannot be disclosed without risk. However, SIAC would be able to look at that; the court on judicial review would not. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, recognises that. A court on judicial review would not be able to look at the full picture; it would not, therefore, constitute a safeguard for the person detained. As I say, I shall develop that point later.
I refer to the other aspect of the amendment; namely, the requirement placed on the Secretary of State to provide written grounds for his belief or suspicion. As I explained in Committee, there is already on the face of the Bill an obligation to apply the SIAC rules. As I also explained in Committee, the SIAC rules already impose an obligation on the Secretary of State, if he wishes to resist the appeal, to give not just the reasons for resisting it but also to
990
provide the evidence upon which his decision is based. He must provide the commission with a summary of the facts relating to the decision being appealed, the reasons for the decision, inform the commission of the grounds on which he opposes the appeal and provide it with a statement of the evidence which he relies upon in support of those grounds. That obligation is already on the face of the Bill through the SIAC rules.
In Committee I further undertook that, in addition to that full statement of the reasons, not limited to the disclosable part, at the time the certificate is issued—which I recognise may be shortly before the information is provided following an appeal—there will also be provided to the suspected international terrorist an outline of the case against him to the extent that that can be done without risking the exposure of closed material. Given the existence of an obligation through the rules imposed on the face of the Bill, I should hope that the undertaking I have given will satisfy the one remaining point which is simply to advance a little in time the understanding on the part of the suspected international terrorist of why he is detained. However, I repeat what I said in Committee, without elaborating on it; namely, that the person against whom a certificate is issued will immediately be able to appeal. He does not have to ask for permission, as one does on judicial review. He can go straight to SIAC and at that stage if the Secretary of State wishes to oppose the appeal he will then have to produce his full reasons for doing so, including all the disclosable material. I hope that that undertaking—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for giving way. Am I right in thinking that in any event SIAC is under a duty imposed by Section 6 of the Human Rights Act to ensure a fair hearing and, therefore, natural justice must be done to the extent that is possible in the circumstances?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, absolutely. I think that I made that point on a previous occasion but certainly that is correct. I hope that in the light of my comments and given that, as I understand it, the main debate on judicial review is to take place on a later amendment, which is why I shall not deal with the matter in any more detail now, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this is not the time or the place in which to entertain an erudite discussion on the rectitude of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that are taken for granted by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, and I do not propose to do so. As the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General knows, I, for reasons I shall not repeat, do not accept at all that judicial review is an inappropriate or ineffective remedy. I do not accept, as he well knows, the criticisms that he has made of my amendment. Not a word has been said by the noble and learned Lord to excuse a breach of the constitution and the separation of powers. The merits of judicial

991
review will no doubt be discussed on Amendments Nos. 32 and 33. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Certification: appeal]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 13, line 10, leave out from "may" to end of line 11 and insert "be commenced only—

(a) within the period of three months beginning with the date on which the certificate is issued, or

(b) with the leave of the Commission, after the end of that period but before the commencement of the first review under section 26."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, government Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 give effect to the request of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in Committee; namely, that the period of three months for appealing the decision of the Secretary of State to issue a certificate under Clause 21 should be capable of extension with the leave of SIAC. The amendments may seem a little elaborate as we have limited SIAC's discretion t o allow appeals after three months to situations where the review of a certificate is not already under way.
Amendments Nos. 27 and 29 are consequential upon Amendments Nos. 23 and 24. Amendment No. 28 provides that a decision by SIAC whether or not to allow an out of time appeal should not be subject to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Amendment No. 25 provides that the second and subsequent reviews will take place every three months after the previous review has been determined. The first review will continue to be six months after the certificate is issued, or, where applicable, after the appeal against that certificate has been finally determined. Amendment No. 26 is consequential upon Amendment No. 25. I hope that that satisfies noble Lords. As I have said before, the amendments result from the Government listening to what was said in Committee and bringing forward appropriate amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we welcome these amendments, which indicate at least a modest degree of flexibility on the part of the Government. They are plainly a step in the right direction.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I add on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition that we also welcome the amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, likewise, we support the amendments with some reservations about areas in Amendment No. 26 concerning SIAC. However, on the whole, we support the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Certification: review]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 24 to 27:
Page 13, line 13, leave out from "must" to end of line 20 and insert "hold a first review of each certificate issued under section 21 as soon as is reasonably practicable after the expiry of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the certificate is issued.
992
(1A) But—

(a) in a case where before the first review would fall to be held in accordance with subsection (1) an appeal under section 25 is commenced (whether or not it is finally determined before that time) or leave to appeal is given under section 25(5)(b), the first review shall be held as soon as is reasonably practicable after the expiry of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the appeal is finally determined, and

(b) in a case where an application for leave under section 25(5)(b) has been commenced but not determined at the time when the first review would fall to he held in accordance with subsection (1), if leave is granted the first review shall be held as soon as is reasonably practicable after the expiry of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the appeal is finally determined.".

Page 13, line 22, leave out "six" and insert "three".
Page 13, line 23, leave out "a review under subsection (1) or" and insert "the first review or a review under".
Page 13, line 26, after "(1)" insert ", (1A)".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 27 [Appeal and review: supplementary]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:
Page 14, line 6, after "section" insert "25(5)(b) or".
Page 14, line 14, leave out "26(1)" and insert "26(1A)".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Acknermoved Amendment No. 30:
Page 14, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of appeal and review under sections 25 and 26, the Commission shall comprise only such members as have been appointed by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice.".
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 30, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 31. These two amendments are a sort of bonne bouche before one reaches the pièce de résistance, which of course is the next judicial review to be taken.
The Government have been at pains, and rightly so, to emphasise the strength and substance of SIAC. I simply endeavour to add a small gloss to that respectability in two ways. The first is set out in Amendment No. 30. I respectfully propose that only members of the commission who have been appointed by the Lord Chancellor—these are the additional words—
"after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice",
are entitled to sit.
Amendment No. 31 provides that:
"For the purposes of appeal and review under sections 25 and 26, two of the three members of the Commission must hold or have held high judicial office (within the meaning of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 …".
Under that Act, and relative to this country, high judicial office means, apart from the Lord Chancellor, a judge of the High Court or of the Court of Appeal. At present, that is as it stands. However, under the Act the obligation is that at least one of the members must be of high judicial office. I suggest that, out of the three, because it is emphasised that this commission performs important legal functions—so important

993
that it has all the powers and more of judicial review—two-thirds of those who comprise the commission should be judges.
That is all that there is to my amendments. They are short and simple and I hope that they will be thoroughly acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, of course I support the amendment. I rise to my feet purely because my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner said that SIAC has all the powers of judicial review. That is not correct.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I look forward to returning to the last observation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in, I believe, the next group. I hope that I shall give some comfort to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, although perhaps not quite in the terms of the amendment that he has tabled.
Amendment No. 30 is to the effect that appointments to SIAC by the Lord Chancellor should be made only after he has consulted the Lord Chief Justice in cases where the members would hear an appeal on, or a review of, a certificate made under Section 21. There are a number of reasons why I am not attracted to that amendment.
First—when tabling the amendment, the noble and learned Lord would not have known that this was the case—this issue had been anticipated by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, and arrangements have been made to deal with it in a manner which, I am told, satisfies them both. Those arrangements are that all High Court judges currently nominated to hear cases in the administrative court, which deals with "Judicial Review", with a capital "j" and a capital "r", will also be appointed to SIAC. That would allow the Lord Chief Justice to call on 25 High Court judges and allocate them to SIAC cases as appropriate. In addition, the Lord Chief Justice and four Lords Justices will be appointed to SIAC.
The question of the allocation of a judge to a case is never a matter for the Lord Chancellor; it is a matter for the Lord Chief Justice. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will be satisfied that the effect of the arrangements made between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice are already that the Lord Chief Justice will be in a position to allocate judges to the case and that those who have been nominated to hear SIAC cases are already nominated to hear administrative court cases.
I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord also had in mind the question of the appointment of the other members—I do not mean under Amendment No. 31 but simply the role of the Lord Chief Justice in relation to other members. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for shaking his head as I do not need to deal with the question of whether it would be appropriate for the Lord Chief Justice to be involved in those appointments. I suggest that it is not.
994
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, which set up SIAC and which already operates in relation to cases with which SIAC deals, does not make it a requirement for SIAC appeals that the Lord Chief Justice should be involved in the way that the noble and learned Lord suggests should be the case in relation to the nomination of judges. What is more—I referred to this matter in Committee—it is possible for two cases to relate to the same individual. They may either come together in SIAC or run side by side. In those circumstances, it would be odd if there were a requirement to consult the Lord Chief Justice on the appointment in one case but not in the other. I hope that the main point will satisfy the noble and learned Lord.
I turn to Amendment No. 31, which relates to the composition of SIAC. Noble Lords will recall that SIAC was established after the European Court of Human Rights, in the Chahal case, held that judicial review and habeas corpus were inadequate remedies to deal with cases where the Secretary of State was making a decision on whether or not someone should be deported from the country on the grounds that it was conducive to the public good; in other words, in effect, contrary to national security. We lost in that case, and I shall need to return to it.
When, therefore, this Government proposed the establishment of SIAC, it came before Parliament, as I read the Second Reading debate in this House, with cross-party support. Schedule 1 to the 1997 Act sets out what the membership of SIAC should be. Paragraph 5 of that schedule states that SIAC will be duly constituted when it consists of three members, of whom at least one holds or has held high judicial office—that is, as the noble and learned Lord says, having been at least a High Court judge—and at least one of whom is or has been appointed as chief adjudicator under Section 57(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act or is or has been a member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, qualified as mentioned in that Act. In other words, a second member must be a legally qualified member who has immigration experience through involvement in the immigration judicial and tribunal structure.
In practice, SIAC cases to date have been heard by a panel consisting of one person from each of those two categories—a High Court judge and an immigration judge—and a third, lay member. On Second Reading of the SIAC Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, speaking for the Opposition, said:
"We welcome the fact that the special immigration appeals commission will have at least one judge sitting on it, and also a member of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal or a special adjudicator. Several practitioners working in the field of immigration law have said to me that, given the increasing complexity of case work, having a specialist tribunal of this kind can only be a good thing".—[Official Report, 5/6/97; col. 737.]
At that stage, a good model was thought to be a High Court judge, a judge with immigration experience and a third person with experience and understanding of security matters, ensuring that the tribunal had the expertise to understand and weigh the evidence.

995
If the amendment were passed and two of the persons had to be High Court judges, one of the other two categories would not be represented unless we were fortunate enough to find somebody with expertise in both areas. The model has worked well so far and I do not believe that it would be an improvement to substitute for one of the persons with relevant expertise another High Court judge. While recognising the spirit in which the noble and learned Lord moved the amendment, I invite him to withdraw it.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I thoroughly accept that the Minister has provided a satisfactory answer to Amendment No. 30 but not to the second. Under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the panel is bound to have at least one chief adjudicator or a member of the SIAC because such expertise is obligatory. When it comes to high judicial office, I say that it is not a case of at least one but that there should be two. Members of the commission will have to consider whether there should be an appeal on a point of law. Under the Bill, they could he outvoted by the layman and the chief adjudicator as it is bound to be a majority decision.
The major part of the case is likely essentially to be a legal one.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will permit me to say that the nature of the SIAC review is not legal. I entirely accept that the next stage—the Court of Appeal—would be, but I did not understand that we were discussing that part of the review.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I refer to the Court of Appeal because the SIAC or the Court of Appeal must give leave for appeal. As matters now stand, an appeal is limited to points of law. On the issue of whether or not there should be an appeal, it is obviously desirable that there is a majority of judicial power. The layman does not seem to feature at all in the proposal. However, this matter is not one on which I wish to divide the House, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Clause 30 [Exclusion of legal proceedings]:
Lord Mayhew of Twysdenmoved Amendment No. 32:
Leave out Clause 30.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment No. 33, on which my argument will be the same.
I reckon that there is much in the Bill that is uncongenial to all of us. The saying that needs must when the devil drives aptly encapsulates our attitude and, to be fair, that of the Government. We know that the devil has been driving. Nothing much more diabolical could possibly be imagined than the events
996
of September 11th nor the character of the threat confronting us, so the Government tell us, here and now.
When the Government say that, we must accept it. We do, but we must also scrutinise extremely carefully what are the needs as the Government describe them. We must do that with special care when the Government, with their disciplined majority, have rushed through the elected House, with scant debate allowed, a measure that permits the Home Secretary to order unlimited detection or indefinite detention without trial. Many say that power resembles internment. We know the arguments but whatever nomenclature one gives it, that is a stern measure indeed.
We must examine also what are the needs to exclude judicial review. When, in Clause 30, the Government seek to exclude the well-established power of senior judges to review in the High Court the way in which the Home Secretary has acted, a complaint of irregularity having been made, our duty is much stronger.
Are those extraordinary exclusions needed? I say "exclusions" in the plural because Clause 31(2) contains the same exclusion in a clause that channels into the SIAC proceedings that challenge the UK's derogation from Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights or the designation under the Human Rights Act 1998 through the 2001 designated derogation order that reflects that derogation.
For the defence of our country, there is no need to exclude constitutional safeguards—especially where the liberty of the individual is at stake. Such exclusion is not among the needs. One has only to recall the words of the Attorney-General on Second Reading. We had an enjoyable midnight hunt in which the Attorney-General had run elusively and with grace—but at length, he came to answer the question that I put to him of why it was necessary to exclude judicial review. After courteously apologising for not answering before, he asked,
"what value will judicial review on top of an existing judicial scrutiny provide? All it will do is add time and delay unnecessarily".—[Official Report, 27/11/01; col. 283.]
His argument was that under the Bill, SIAC will be able to do all that the High Court can do on judicial review. My noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington will say something about that later.
Even if it were true that there would be no value in judicial review—and I respectfully suggest it is not true—that would not be sufficient reason to prevent a detainee from seeking to resort to the High Court for so profoundly important a remedy against the abuse of executive power, especially when his liberty was at stake. A detainee should not be obliged to go to a special commission, not a court, set up less than four years ago. It is special indeed—special in its personnel, special in its function, special in its procedures and tasked with a significantly different job.
It is not correct to suggest that judicial review will have no value. For example, how could SIAC review its own activities, on complaint of irregularity? It could not. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General

997
relies on the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, but that is only on a point of law. Conscientious as he always is, he concedes in a letter that he recently sent to my noble friend Lady Buscombe that it is not in the case of every alleged procedural defect that an appeal will lie to the Court of Appeal. In some instances—if there is no judicial review—there will be no remedy. This matter will be dealt with more fully—and certainly with much more authority and experience—by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and, no doubt, by others. Time is getting on, so I shall not duplicate the arguments.
I conclude with three reflections. First, while any judicial review is proceeding, the detainee will remain in detention in all but the most exceptional and improbable case—or so I would judge. Secondly, the power of senior judges to review, on complaint of irregularity, whether power conferred by Parliament has been exercised with proper regularity does not undermine the parliamentary will; on the contrary, it supports it. Judges simply tell the decision-maker who has taken a wrong turning where he went wrong procedurally; they will tell him to go back to where he went wrong and to start again.
My third point bears closely on the argument that there would be no point in judicial review and the comment about how excellent and comprehensively sufficient is the statute that set up SIAC. When SIAC was set up, there was no provision in the relevant Bill to exclude judicial review; SIAC has got on all right, and its activities have always been amenable to judicial review. Judicial review was not excluded, but it has never once been sought—we have that from the Home Secretary. The Attorney-General's anticipation of time being wasted and of delay cannot derive from any adverse experience in that regard. In truth, the experience and the record should reassure him.
My submission is that in the Bill we should not be driven to surrender a precious safeguard against the abuse of power, especially when there is no need for it. If one did so, one could be sure that such a precedent would soon be followed because, in my experience, all departmental Ministers resent judicial review. That in itself is a good reason why it should be cherished.
Clause 30 should be removed, as should Clause 31. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that my noble and learned friend will clarify one point. When there has been judicial review, can the judges who heard it refer the matter back to SIAC, or is SIAC's decision simply annulled?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, SIAC could perfectly well refer—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are on Report and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, will have an opportunity to respond to that point when he concludes the debate.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, judicial review is a fundamental defence of the liberty of the subject
998
against the oppressive actions of the executive. Therefore very strong justification indeed is necessary to exclude it.
The most that can be said in this context is that judicial review will not often be necessary. In most cases, it is likely that an application for judicial review will be refused by the court that hears it because that court will decide that an appeal to SIAC about the Home Secretary's decision or an appeal to the Court of Appeal about SIAC's decision is the more appropriate procedure. There will be a few cases—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, will outline one or two examples—in which judicial review will provide relief that SIAC cannot provide. That is a strong argument for keeping judicial review. I do not believe that there is any serious argument for abolishing it. It is wholly unnecessary to exclude it and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, said, doing so will set a very bad precedent indeed. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for writing to me in response to our concerns, which were expressed at Second Reading and in Committee, regarding the right of appeal on a point of law, and whether that right would include appeals relating to SIAC's procedures.
I quote, with respect, what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General confirmed in his letter. He wrote:
"I am satisfied that the Court of Appeal would indeed have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on a point of law in a case where the Special Immigration Appeals Commission … had failed to comply with its own procedural rules".
That is helpful so far as it goes, but the noble and learned Lord went on to say:
"This is not to say that an appeal will necessarily lie on a point of law in all cases where there has been an alleged procedural defect in the proceedings before SIAC. Whether the way is open to take a case to the Court of Appeal will depend on a range of factors, such as the nature and materiality of the error in question".
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is not therefore minded to accept the amendment to which I spoke in Committee; namely, Amendment No. 124. He would not do so because, in his words,
"to include express provision to that effect in this Bill would risk casting doubt on the operation of other statutory provisions which provide for an appeal on a point of law".
Her Majesty's Opposition believe that, while the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is endeavouring to be helpful, that answer in fact weakens the Government's case for the need to exclude judicial review because of the admission that appeal on a point of law does not work universally.
We are therefore firmly of the view that Clause 30 and Clause 31(2) should be excluded from the Bill, for all of the very cogent reasons that noble Lords have already expressed. To repeat what other noble Lords

999
have said would be otiose. I, too, look forward to the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington.
The proposal to exclude judicial review would set a very dangerous precedent. It is amazing to think that a Labour Government see fit to deny the proper process of law, which can call to account the decisions of the executive. Perhaps, in the scheme of things, and taking into account the debates that we have already had on this part and other parts of the Bill, we should be not surprised but saddened.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for mentioning that I spent 26 years as a judge in the High Court or the Court of Appeal. During that time, for one reason or another—certainly when I was Master of the Rolls—and in view of the importance that I attached to judicial review, an unusually high proportion of my work was concerned with judicial review.
As a result, I understand the principles that in fact—this is important—guide the judges. For present purposes, they are: first, that the judicial review jurisdiction will not be exercised if SIAC is equally capable of providing a remedy; and, secondly, that the merits of ministerial action are wholly irrelevant. The sole concern of judicial review, for practical purposes, is whether the action that is taken by the Secretary of State is within his authority or, as the case may be, if the action that is taken by SIAC is within its authority.
As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out in an earlier debate, the two jurisdictions—of judicial review and appeal, whether or not that is limited to a point of law—are not mutually exclusive. They are complementary. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, attested, in 99 cases out of 100 the judicial review judge stands back and leaves it to the other jurisdiction if the other jurisdiction has the width of jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
I do not know how many judicial review cases I have dealt with. Most will involve local authorities. In judicial review, I have intervened only once where another tribunal had the necessary jurisdiction to deal with the problem. I did so in exceptional circumstances; I mention it to indicate how exceptional. A police officer was disciplined by his chief constable. There was a long period—I forget how long but it was a matter of years—before the police officer was called on to answer the charge. It seemed to me and those sitting with me that on no possible view could the police officer have had a fair hearing. He could have appealed to a police appeals tribunal which would, I hope, have quashed the sentence straight away. If it had not, we would have quashed the appeal tribunal's decision. So the position was absurd. We were going to leave this unfortunate officer in doubt about his future when we could tell with absolute certainty what that future was. Therefore we said, "We will step in and quash it". It is only in such exceptional circumstances that that can be done. I regard it as a one-off. Regrettably, I am unable to say what my total
1000
caseload was so I cannot precisely confirm the description of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, of the 1 per cent risk. The figure must be of that order.
More importantly, I know of no judge who has ever been guided by his view of the merits of ministerial or local authority policy which he has been invited to review. Certainly I never have been. The issue is always: is the action authorised? Nothing else. That said, I understand and sympathise with the dismay of a Minister whose policy decision is quashed. He has no doubt that his policy is in the national interest. He has no doubt been advised that it is within his authority to act as he has done. Were it otherwise he would have looked for another policy. In these circumstances it must seem clear to him that an unelected judge has entered the political arena and disagreed with his policy. That is totally untrue, but I can well understand his reaction. It is not the correct conclusion. It is possible that the Minister's advisers are right. Judges do not claim infallibility. The right remedy then is to appeal. In appropriate circumstances, an appeal can be brought in very quickly.
The problem for Ministers in accepting that an adverse judicial review decision is based upon vires rather than merit has been aggravated by the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 which require judges to test the limits of ministerial authority against the provisions of the Act in addition to the words in which the authority is expressed. It follows that what was once adequate authority may cease to be such, although the terms of the authority are unaltered. It may be good or bad but it is the arrival of the Act which produces that curious situation. I judge from press reports—a wrong basis from which to do anything—that the lorry case which is commented upon in the newspapers today is just such an Instance. But for the Human Rights Act the judge would have had no difficulty. He thought that he was constrained to reach a different conclusion. The Home Secretary—if it is the Home Secretary—has rightly appealed and it may be that the judge was wrong. I know not.
I have spoken of judicial review in terms which might suggest that it is something invented by judges for the discomfiture of Ministers. Not so. The jurisdiction extends to all public authorities including all tribunals and—it may surprise noble Lords—all county courts. It is a very wide jurisdiction.
I have the greatest respect and admiration for the way in which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is discharging the duties of his high office. However, when he implies that one has to choose between having a wide-ranging system of appeal from decisions of the SIAC and judicial review he is, if I may so with respect, completely mistaken. They are not alternatives. They can very reasonably be complementary to one another. With regard to the Chahal case he says that judicial review was held to be a totally inadequate remedy. So it is by itself, because it is concerned with authority not merits. One needs both. So long as the tradition—it now almost amounts to a rule of law—persists that no permission will be given for judicial review if there is a better remedy. I cannot see any particular problem.

1001
The noble and learned Lord says that the debate has demonstrated that there is not anything that judicial review would add to the SIAC appeal system. With great respect, he is simply wrong. It is highly unlikely that there would ever be a need to invoke judicial review but it would not be open to the SIAC to challenge the conclusiveness of a certificate by a Secretary of State under Clause 30(3). That could be challenged on judicial review if evidence was obtained that the Secretary of State, notwithstanding his certificate, had acted in reliance on some quite different matter.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, has already made the point that if the SIAC strayed and erred from its own authorities, which are wide, it could not judicially review itself, nor could the Court of Appeal. That is the important point. I say that because I have had experience of this. When trying an appeal, it suddenly emerged that there was an underlying judicial review point. We were satisfied that we could not deal with it. So what were we to do? What we did—it caused some hilarity was to invite counsel to allow two of us to sit back in our chairs and imagine that we were not there, and to apply to the third judge for permission to bring judicial review proceedings. To no one's surprise he granted that. We then moved the newly-formed judicial review proceedings into the Court of Appeal and proceeded with the two together. But we did think that it was necessary.
I know of no case in which on an appeal you can deal with judicial review—with one exception. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, who knows about these matters in great detail, will no doubt remember it. A council tenant was given notice to quit by his landlord local authority. He said that it had no authority to give him notice to quit as a matter of statutory construction. The local authority said, "So what? Under public law what is done by an authority stands until set aside. It has not been set aside. Therefore, he must be evicted and the appeal must be dismissed". The Court of Appeal—I was not a member of the court made new law. It said that where under private law someone was defending his rights and for that purpose he had to impugn some action in public law, he could do so. So far as I know, that is the only exception.
I ask myself what other objections can there be to leaving open the bare possibility of judicial review; and it is a bare possibility. That it would produce delay? That is not so. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal can take action within hours, day or night, given a sufficient degree of urgency.
Perhaps I may illustrate that. I began a hearing in the NIRC at 10 o'clock at night. I threatened counsel that I would sit until they dried up. They said that they would take me on. At four o'clock in the morning I gave in. But it can be done. I just mention another case. A Jehovah's Witness, a youth of 16, objected to a hospital order requiring a blood transfusion. The medical advice was that he could live for only 48 hours in the absence of a transfusion. Mr Justice Ward, as he then was, started the hearing and we were confident that he would order transfusion and that the youth and
1002
his parents would appeal. We had a panel standing by to sit all night if necessary. Miraculously, the learned judge, with incredible skill and patience, persuaded the family that to comply with the court order did not disturb their belief. Again, there will be no delay. If there were, the man would be in custody, which does not seem to me to matter a great deal.
Then it is said that there would be leaks from the High Court. That is not so. I conducted the New Cross Building Society appeal totally in camera. Nobody knew that the appeal was taking place. We would not allow the judgment to be disclosed until there had been the opportunity of appeal to the House of Lords. In fact, the case was settled.
Where does this leave us? If the amendment is carried it remains most unlikely that judicial review will ever be sought. If it is rejected, the message will go out loud and clear, not as the noble and learned Attorney—General believes, that judicial review is unnecessary, but that the Government are bent on having the power to operate outside the rule of law.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The Joint Select Committee on Human Rights said in both its reports that it was not persuaded that the conditions for a derogation had been sufficiently explained to Parliament. That is a very important matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, in his recent Holdsworth Lecture, had come to the same conclusion in his extra-judicial capacity.
I mention that because the Government are now in quite serious difficulty for this reason. If a suspected terrorist takes them before the European Court of Human Rights, the starting point will be that the expert Select Committee of both Houses has twice asked Ministers to come to both Houses with sufficient evidence of emergency and of the exigencies of the situation being satisfied. It is in that context that we have to consider these amendments and whether the ouster of judicial review makes sense. The Government will need to defend themselves against criticism for having imposed a scheme of detention without trial and without effective judicial review.
I have said it earlier this evening, but I take the view that the SIAC procedure will in almost all cases provide effective remedies as will the right of appeal on a matter of law to the Court of Appeal. However, I believe that there are two extremely strong reasons for supporting these amendments which have not yet been made. The first is that the Government have not yet introduced all the safeguards that the Select Committee advocated in its reports. Therefore, only a judicial review court might, in extreme circumstances, have to write in one or two of those safeguards.
The second is an international political reason. The Venice Commission for Democracy, on which Professor Jeffrey Jowell QC is the British representative, has the task of spreading democratic ideas under the rule of law across the world. Professor Jowell told me that he would find it extremely difficult to explain in central and eastern Europe how the

1003
mother of democracies has ousted judicial review as well as derogating from the convention. He would have to try to explain how the SIAC procedure was sufficient.
It is quite clear from the speeches in this House and the other place that the arguments about SIAC are complicated and are not really persuasive to those who are not expert lawyers. I therefore regard the retention of judicial review as of enormous symbolic value. I believe that sometimes the rule of law requires symbols as well as legal reality. It is for that reason, since judicial review does no harm, that I strongly support these amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to noble and learned Lords for speaking so eloquently about judicial review. In the view of these Benches these amendments will ease the burdens on SIAC. I am particularly grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has just said. The speeches pick up common themes which have run through debates on this Bill in your Lordships' House. They also echo some of the things which were said from these Benches last Thursday about building a proper measure of restraint into this legislation. These amendments have our support.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the speeches of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Donaldson. I speak as a mere solicitor whereas they have held very high office.
I believe that the burden rests fairly and squarely on my noble and learned friend who will reply to this debate. At the moment I am persuaded that there is no very good reason for taking the draconian steps that the Government have foreshadowed in this debate. It is with enormous sadness that I say this. I have fought for civil liberties throughout my life as a solicitor and as a member of a very proud profession. I am bound to say that at the moment I see no reason to exclude the remedy of judicial review in the final analysis.
I face this evening with the prospect of voting with the Conservatives and, I suppose, with the Liberal Democrats, against my own Government. I beg my noble and learned friend to sympathise with the problem which I face. It gives me no pleasure at all to note that they are prepared to disregard, as I see it, a very important remedy which, in the final analysis, may be important for the individual. But I would rather stand by the proposition that the Government are wrong than to sully what I have stood for all these years.
When I ask my noble and learned friend to see reason on this point as I see it, I beg him to be as persuasive as he can with his colleagues. We have not yet reached the end of the day. There is still some prospect of change. I hope that the whole House will see that prospect as all important. In my view there is no need to abolish judicial review. As I say, the burden rests very heavily on my noble and learned friend to say that I am absolutely wrong about that. I am not being fanciful; I am being commonsensical. It is
1004
important that, when everything is under threat, we should stand firmly by the principles that are all important. My sole concern is with the individual who may be affected. The numbers involved may be few, but some people will be affected by this and they should not be denied the absolute remedy that they seek.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I shall detain the House only a merest minute. This is an issue of the greatest importance, complexity and difficulty. I have listened to every word of this debate. The way in which this serious matter has been discussed, including the expertise of so many noble and learned Lords, fully justifies the existence of this House. I was particularly impressed by the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
I say to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General that if this time-honoured, legal remedy is to be done away with in this case, the burden of proof rests firmly upon the Government. Noble Lords have a dilemma because one does not want to give comfort to terrorists, but at the same time we must defend our liberties. Otherwise the terrorists have won. It is really up to the Attorney-General. If he wants the support of those who have open minds on this subject, he must convince your Lordships, including myself, that this is necessary and that there will not be inordinate delays if this remedy were left as it is. That is the crux of the problem.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long, but I cannot sit here in silence and not voice my concerns about what I regard as the outrage that this Government seek to perpetrate. Under this Bill some awesome powers are to be given to the Home Secretary. I understand that this Bill is a response to the awful events of 11th September, but as my noble and learned friend has been told by your Lordships, SIAC was not set up for that purpose. When it was set up, the Government did not seek to exclude judicial review following its decisions. In a sense this is a double whammy. The Government propose to give powers to SIAC, which they did not intend to do originally, and under these proposals they seek to withdraw the judicial review route for those who feel offended by the decisions made by SIAC.
At Second Reading the Attorney-General spent a long time—for which your Lordships' House was grateful—arguing two points on judicial review. One was, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, that the SIAC procedure was a straight alternative to judicial review. A little later he said that in many respects SIAC was better in these particular circumstances. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, has taken leave to disagree with the Attorney-General on that matter.
I put this point to the Attorney-General as a layman and not as a lawyer. If, as he argued, there is not that much difference between the rights of judicial review in these circumstances and the SIAC procedure, perhaps

1005
he will listen to the voices from around your Lordships' House on this point and respond by agreeing, even at this late stage, that it would be right to concede that judicial review should be available.
After the outrage of 11th September, the way to defend democracy is not to dismantle it; it is to strengthen it. Otherwise we shall have the ridiculous and ludicrous position of the Mother of Parliaments being asked to put its name to achieving some of the aims of those who carried out the events of 11th September.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the prerogative writs of habeas corpus, certiorari and mandamus have a lengthy history which, as my noble friend Lord Russell pointed out in Committee, precede Parliament. They are prerogative writs because the individual is able to utilise the power of the Crown to hold a Minister to account and to supervise the way in which inferior tribunals work.
The Government are happy enough to use the prerogative for themselves. They wage war in the name of the Crown. They use the prerogative over and over again to issue orders and directions. Those ancient writs are the one circumstance in which the individual can use the Crown against the Government and they should be maintained.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, we have had many debates on this topic. It was debated at Second Reading when I tried to answer the questions posed by noble Lords. I am grateful that noble Lords have acknowledged that. It was also debated in Committee. In normal circumstances, after such extensive airing of the arguments, I would not trouble your Lordships by repeating them, but I have been specifically invited by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, to seek to persuade your Lordships why there is still much misunderstanding of what the Government seek to do. I shall take this opportunity to bring together the various points that I have made previously to explain why the Government remain of the view that the provisions in Clauses 30 and 31 are worth their place in this Bill.
This debate started in stark terms. I hope that it will be acknowledged that the debate has moved on. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will forgive me for reminding the House that at Second Reading he said that the detainee has no opportunity to challenge the information that has been laid against him. That statement is fundamentally wrong and is critical to understanding the provisions in the Bill. It is not the case that a person who is detained has no avenue of redress.
As this debate concludes, I hope that it will be accepted and recognised overtly by noble Lords that this debate is not about the abolition of judicial review; that it is not about the setting of precedents in relation to other government departments; but that it is about the appropriate judicial review—I do not hesitate to
1006
use those words and I shall use them time and again—for such decisions. The appropriate judicial review for these proceedings is the SIAC route.
"Judicial Review", with a capital "j" and a capital "r", has a specific meaning in English law. It is a form of scrutiny by judges which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, to whose experience I bow, has so clearly explained, is not a thorough-going review of the merits of the decision, but a limited form of judicial scrutiny. I want to spend a moment not just on that point, which is one of the reasons why "Judicial Review" with a capital "j" and a capital "r" is not the right route, but also on a fundamental point which needs to be understood fully in order to see why SIAC is the right route.
The cases concerned with this part of the Bill deal with a limited but critical category of people. I do not say that they are limited in order to underestimate the importance of what is being done. We are dealing with people who have no right to be in this country and whom the Home Secretary has the right to deport, but for one fact: he and the Government are too concerned about human rights to be prepared to send them back to a place where they may be shot or executed or tortured.
Noble Lords opposite have taken a different view. The party opposite has suggested that we should send these people back to their deaths. That is not something that we are prepared to do.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I simply want to say that we have never said that.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I have absolutely no desire to be disagreeable today. The fact is that at Second Reading the point put forward, which has been made elsewhere by the main opposition party, was that the route the Government should take is not to detain those that we cannot deport, but to get them out of the country by withdrawing from the convention on human rights. Then they would rejoin but exclude Article 3. Article 3 is the obligation that we want to hold on to. It precludes us from sending people to places where they may be killed, executed or subjected to torture. That is not something we are prepared to do. So we are talking about people—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sure that the Attorney-General will agree with me that that was never the position of the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, that is absolutely right. I commend the Liberal Democrats on that.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we made that point on the understanding that there would be a prescribed list of countries which would be kept by the Home Secretary. I made that very clear at Second Reading.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the record is the record and noble Lords can consult it. The fact is that,

1007
prescribed list or no, as the noble Baroness suggests, there are people in this country who there are reasonable grounds to believe are a threat to our national security, who are international terrorists, and who have no right to be here; but we will not and cannot deport them because there is no safe place to send them. That is the category of person with whom we are concerned. The question is: what will be the judicial scrutiny of the decision made by the Home Secretary to this limited but still important category of people who fit into that description? I give way to the noble Earl.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful. Can the noble and learned Lord qualify or reconsider something that he said a moment ago? He said that we are dealing with people who have no right to be in this country. In many cases that may be so. I am aware of Section 33(2) of the UN convention. But since SIAC cannot examine the asylum claim, it cannot judge the proportionality of the certificate.
The noble and learned Lord may have seen in last Sunday's Observer the report of members of the Zimbabwe opposition being returned to Zimbabwe and denied asylum. He may be aware that Mr Mugabe has a somewhat unusual definition of "terrorists". One would like to be certain that should any of these enter into a certificate they could be checked.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the Government have made their position very clear. That goes for those covered by the later clauses in the Bill, which we are not debating with this amendment. There are two points. The first is that the only category of persons to whom the detention powers relate would be those in respect of whom valid deportation orders have been made but we cannot deport them because of a practical problem, or because it would mean sending them back to a country where they would not be safe.
That is true—I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell—in relation to the later clauses also where certain people, in accordance with the Geneva Convention, are not entitled to asylum status. We will still not send them back if they cannot be sent to a safe place.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord think that people who are sent back to Zimbabwe are immune from torture and execution?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I have visited that country. That is not the issue today, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
There is already a power in relation to the deportation order, which will continue to exist. But that can be challenged. This provision does not affect that. That power exists. There has to be a deportation order, which is itself subject to judicial scrutiny and appeals. I recognise that there are occasions where someone may say, "Going back to this place is not safe for me" and the Government take a different view. That is an issue that can be determined by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal or by SIAC.
1008
The problem that arises is that we are dealing with a category of persons who are believed to be international terrorists and a threat to national security. The strong likelihood is that the key evidence which supports that view will be sensitive intelligence information. That is information which has been obtained by undercover sources, by intercept communications and by other covert methods which have been employed in order to protect the security and the people of this country.
The Secretary of State wants to make a decision to grant a certificate on the basis of that evidence. We could take two views in relation to what we then do. We could say, because it is sensitive intelligence information, that we do not want anyone to see it; therefore, we shall not allow anyone to review it and the Secretary of State's decision will stand. That is not the route that the Government have taken. We want that evidence to be reviewed by a judicial body. However, we cannot have it reviewed by the traditional, classic judicial bodies because there is no procedure under which that sensitive security information can be protected.
Why not? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, referred to a case. Of course there are cases where hearings take place in camera. But they take place in camera—I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will confirm—with the applicant present and able to hear all the evidence.
We are concerned with a situation—I gave the example in Committee and I shall weary your Lordships by repeating it on one further occasion—where this person is suspected of being an international terrorist because of a conversation which took place on, say, 24th June. We know about that because the source was a deep cover intelligence officer masquerading as one of these people. If we say to the applicant, "The reason that we believe that you are an international terrorist is because on 24th June you said this", that immediately gives the game away. It threatens the life of the source; it compromises our national security; and it prevents that person from continuing to protect each and every one of us against a further threat.
SIAC was invented because our existing "Judicial Review" with a capital "j" and a capital "r" is inadequate to deal with that situation. That is why we lost the Chahal case. We cannot show the information to the traditional standard court because that court has no method by which it can examine that information without also revealing it to the individual.
SIAC is a body headed by a judge, a judge who sits in the judicial review court. I have made that point before. This is a judge who is used to, equipped for and experienced in judicial review. There is that judge, another judge experienced in immigration matters and a lay person. One can then say, "We now have a procedure which can look at this sensitive information. We will give you all this information on which the Secretary of State relies. You can review it all". The judicial review court could not do that. We must protect the position of the applicant. How will his

1009
interests he represented? It is important that, from his point of view, the information is challenged where it can be. We cannot tell him that that conversation took place on 24th June, for the reason that I have given. What we can do—this is what the SIAC procedure does—is instruct an experienced barrister, whose job it is to represent the interests of the appellant, to cross-examine the witnesses and to see all the information. In that way, we provide a means by which the sensitive intelligence information can be reviewed judicially.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords—
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord was kind enough to summon me by name to answer this point, perhaps I may be allowed to do so, despite the rules—with the leave of the House.
The High Court—and the Court of Appeal—has inherent jurisdiction to make any rules that it likes, or, rather, that it thinks necessary, for the purposes of justice. It could therefore adopt the whole of the SIAC rules—and I would expect it to do so. If I had not passed my sell-by date and was still there, I would certainly have arranged for that to happen. That is perfectly open to it. It can go further, if anyone wants it to, but the SIAC rules would be enough for the Attorney-General's purpose.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, rises, may I tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, that I am grateful for his intervention. The body that we would be left with would be the SIAC. The rules would be that there would be a judge, ability to review the information, and opportunity for the appellant's interests to be represented by counsel produced to examine the material. That is fundamental. There would be a special advocate—in the extraordinary situation of a court considering information that one of the parties could not look at, that would have to be done by way of a special advocate. That would be the SIAC.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord kindly explain what is the problem with having a co-existing judicial review with SIAC? That is the key question.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, because judicial review could not do what we want it to do. It could not review the very evidence on the basis of which the order is made.
In Chahal, there was an attempt at judicial review. The gentleman concerned had been detained for a period—a long period, as it happens. He had gone for judicial review, but the judicial review court—I hope that I am correct; the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will correct me if I am wrong—said the following. "We cannot look at the information on the
1010
basis of which the Secretary of State has formed the view that you are a security risk. Therefore we have to decline judicial review." The European Court of Human Rights judgment said that,
"the availability of judicial review and habeas corpus to review the decision to detain Mr Chahal before the domestic courts did not satisfy the requirements of the European Commission on Human Rights",
because it did not provide a fair trial.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the Attorney-General has said. What I do not understand is what harm it does to retain judicial review for the one in 100—perhaps one in 1,000—cases in which someone seeks to challenge something and the SIAC has no jurisdiction.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will permit me to reach that point, because I should like first to finish what I was saying on my first point. Despite what was said in Committee, it is still being suggested—unfairly, I respectfully submit—that what is being proposed by having the SIAC review in some way prevents judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision.
Despite what some noble and learned Lords have said, I stand absolutely unrepentant. Let me summarise the ways in which SIAC provides concrete advantages that judicial review cannot. First, it can have access to all the information that the Secretary of State has; judicial review cannot. There is the special advocate arrangement, under which that evidence can be tested in the interests of the detainee. That is a critical safeguard—as I hope that noble Lords will agree—that the judicial review route does not provide.
Secondly, the SIAC will be able to take account of information that comes to light after the Secretary of State issues his certificate. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, said, judicial review is not concerned with the merits; it is concerned with the authorisation at the time the decision was made. The Bill is clear. The SIAC will be not only asked but required to consider material at the date of the hearing. Judicial review does not do that.
Thirdly, the SIAC contains a range of expertise specialist immigration and security information—that a judicial review tribunal would not normally have. It will have a High Court judge.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, why can we not have judicial review as a long stop?
Lord Goldsmith: I am coming to that second point. The first point is that it is so unfair to criticise the Government for proposing detention without trial and for not allowing judicial review and scrutiny when what we want is a procedure introduced precisely to deal with the problem that will enable a full review of the information.
What is it that that judicial review would add? Let it be accepted—I hope that it is throughout the House—that SIAC will be a much better method of reviewing such decisions than ever would be "Judicial Review",

1011
with a capital "j" and a capital "r". As I say, your Lordships do not have to take our word for that; that is what the European Court of Human Rights said. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said, the SIAC procedure was introduced because it was argued for in the Chahal case by Amnesty, the AIRE Centre and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. It has subsequently been referred to with approval by the ECHR. In what circumstances would judicial review apply where SIAC does not?
One point that has been raised today with which I want to deal immediately concerns the letter that I sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, following her request. I am grateful that she acknowledged that my letter was intended to be helpful. She had raised the question: will there be an appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law where there is a procedural irregularity? First, I said that in my view, the better view was that there would. She asked for clarification; I confirmed, unequivocally:
"I am satisfied that the Court of Appeal would indeed have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on a point of law in a case where the Special Immigration Appeals Commission had failed to comply with its own procedural rules".
That is what happens with employment tribunals, for example. There is only an appeal on a point of law to the employment appeal tribunal, but if there is a procedural irregularity, that can be a point of law that gives an appeal. I went on to say, and in the light of the debate that then took place perhaps I should have thought more carefully about one of my words:
"This is not to say that an appeal will necessarily lie on a point of law in all cases where there has been an alleged procedural defect in the proceedings before SIAC. Whether the way is open to take a case will depend on a range of factors, such as the nature and materiality of the error in question".
I intended by that to say, simply, that there will be cases of procedural irregularities that are so immaterial that no appeal would be granted. Rather than say that no appeal will lie on a point of law, what I meant and should have said was that no appeal will succeed on a point of law. That is all that I meant, and I hope that that clarification helps the noble Baroness.
Every noble Lord who has spoken has said that in 99 cases out of 100, SIAC would be involved. I suggest that no realistic example has been given of a case where judicial review would add something that SIAC does not have.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of two points. First, there is an appeal from the SIAC to the Court of Appeal. It is on a point of law, but it is an important appeal. And of course there is an appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Judicial Committee of this House. In those circumstances, is it appropriate that there should be a judicial review of the SIAC? Would it not make more sense that if there were to be another judge looking at what the SIAC did, if that was the point, it was not a judge of the same level—that is, another High Court judge—but the Court of Appeal? That safeguard exists.
1012
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred to Clause 30(3). That is the only example put forward by noble Lords in which there might be a judicial review where SIAC would not apply. It provides that:
"A certificate of the Secretary of State that specified action is taken in reliance on section 22 or 23 shall be conclusive of the matter certified".
The absence of judicial review in relation to that does not create a problem because if the Secretary of State issues a certificate under Section 21—and that is the key to these powers—it is subject to review by the SIAC. If the SIAC cancels the certificate, the Secretary of State can do no more. He cannot move on to Sections 22 and 23. Therefore, the key point is the certificate which is issued by the Secretary of State. It is the reasonable belief that the person is a threat to national security—a reasonable suspicion that that person is an international terrorist—and that is subject to the SIAC review. The action or the deportation order is subject to appeal under the existing immigration law.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord explain why, if the system of SIAC is so comprehensive and able to deal with everything and if a judicial review will not in practice lie or ever be used, it is necessary to remove what is a hallowed procedure and is part of our constitution? Is it just tidy-mindedness or is there some other motive behind it? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If there is no point in judicial review, why is there any point in removing judicial review?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I shall answer the noble Lord's question, but this Government have introduced something which the previous Conservative government did not; that is, a procedure, SIAC, under which a review of the evidence can take place. There are many examples of specialist courts where the view has been taken that that is the route by which certain matters should be dealt with.
I mentioned on a previous occasion the Bill of Rights, the British Nationality Act and the RIPA, but I could have mentioned the Supreme Court Act 1981. That provides in Section 28 that certain decisions of the Crown Court are not subject to judicial review. The procedure is not such an unusual event; this is not an abolition of judicial review. It is a recognition that judicial review and habeas corpus provisions do not provide an adequate remedy. I say with all respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that the procedure is not a precedent for other departments because it does not take away judicial review of executive decision. It puts in place a different judicial scrutiny mechanism.
The inclusion of judicial review as well would merely create confusion about the routes of challenge which are available and cause delay and unnecessary expense. I would ask noble Lords to bear in mind the following. It is often said that one cannot put a price tag on justice, but one cannot use that philosophy to justify the unproductive use of people's time which

1013
does not promote justice in any way. The opportunity cost principle applies to all walks of life, including the law. And if the lawyers and the courts are tied up in unnecessary judicial review applications, they cannot be doing other things which are more beneficial to the cause of justice.
I am as firm a supporter of judicial review as other Members of this House.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am sorry that noble Lords find that an amusing remark because it was not intended to be. It was intended to be a plain statement of the fact. The support stems from the benefit which judicial review provides in overseeing the actions of public officials. I fully accept that in many areas judicial review has a vital role to play. I would not disagree in any way whatever with the noble Lords who have spoken about that. But where there is an area in which judicial oversight—judicial review with a small "j" and a small "r"—can be better provided, with more safeguards to the other party, the detainee, I say that that is a better and more logical route to go down.
The Government have produced an alternative which is a strong and robust route for judicial scrutiny. It was promoted by organisations which have an interest in the safeguards for individuals. It was encouraged by the European Court of Human Rights and it derives from the Canadian model which was before that court. I note with considerable interest—and I invite noble Lords to consider this—that although the Joint Committee on Human Rights, for which I have great respect, produced two reports in which it made several criticisms of the Government—I do not say that I accept them for a moment—it has not included the criticism that the SIAC route is inappropriate. Quite the contrary. As I read the report, it accepts that the SIAC route is appropriate.
The only point that is left is the symbol. If noble Lords would recognise, as I earnestly urge them to do, that the SIAC route is judicial review—it is strong and robust judicial scrutiny—no bad symbol is being sent out at all. There is a symbol that we want the Secretary of State's decision to be fully reviewed by a judicial body which is able to consider the evidence and all the evidence. For those reasons, I invite noble Lords not to press their opposition to the clause standing part.
Perhaps I may say briefly that Amendment No. 33 deals with the derogation issue. I should have dealt with that matter earlier. In order for any court to determine whether or not the derogation is appropriate, it will be necessary for that court to see and consider the intelligence information which is in the possession of the Government indicating what is the public emergency. Only the SIAC will be in a position to do that and that is why it is the appropriate court also to consider that issue.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on these two amendments. I am especially grateful to the Attorney-General for the care and patience with which he has dealt with the debate.
I am afraid that when I first read Clause 30 I said to myself, "Ah, here is an example of putting in something which really cannot be defended and in due course it will be conceded. That will help the passage of the Bill". However, that has not happened.
The arguments are well and clearly exposed before the House. As was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, regarding the sensitivity of information, it is perfectly possible for rules to be made which will provide the same protection to sensitive intelligence information as applies at the moment in the SIAC.
The problem facing the Attorney-General has been this—
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give way? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that one could exclude the applicant. Could one also refuse to allow him to have counsel of his choice because one thought that the counsel of his choice was inappropriate and would himself leak the information?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I do not enter into the merits. All I say is that the mechanism is available. The trouble that the Attorney faced was that the more he laboured with great skill to show the perfection of the SIAC procedure the harder it was to explain why so many people would apparently go down the other route that it would be a waste of time, resources and everything else. I believe that the issues are clearly before noble Lords and I invite the House to express its opinion.
8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 32) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 191; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 6

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Boardman, L.

Addington, L.

Bowness, L.

Alderdice, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Brennan, L.

Astor, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Avebury, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Brker, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L

Bell, L.

Belstead, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Black of Crossharbour, L.

Burnham, L.

Blackwell, L.

Buscombe, B.

Blaker, L.

Blatch, B.

Byford, B.

1015

Caithness, E.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Liverpool, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Ludford, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Luke, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Condon, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

McNally, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Maddock, B.

Crathorne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dahrendorf, L.

Marlesford, L.

Deedes, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Desai, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Dholakia, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Monson, L.

Montrose, D.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Moynihan, L.

Elles, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Newby, L.

Elton, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Falkland, V.

Noakes, B.

Feldman, L.

Northbrook, L.

Flather, B.

Northesk, E.

Fookes, B.

Northover, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Fowler, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Onslow, E.

Garel-Jones, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Geddes, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Glentoran, L.

Parkinson, L.

Goodhart, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Goschen, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Greaves, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Hamwee, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hanham, B.

Plumb, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rawlings, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Razzall, L.

Henley, L.

Reay, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Redesdale, L.

Higgins, L.

Rees, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Hogg, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rennard, L.

Home, E.

Renton, L.

Howe. E

Richardson of Duntisbourne, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Russell, E.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hylton, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B,

Jacobs, L.

Seccombe, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Selborne, E.

Joffe, L.

Selsdon, L.

Jopling, L.

Sharman, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Sharples, B.

Kimball, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Kingsland, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Laird, L.

Slim, V.

Lane, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Stern, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

1016

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Vivian, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Waddington, L.

Taverne, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Walmsley, B.

Tebbit, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Wilcox, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Tope, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ahmed, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Alli, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Andrews, B.

Jeger, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jones, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Layard, L.

Attenborough, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bach, L.

Levy, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lipsey, L.

Billingham, B.

Listowel, E.

Blackstone, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bledisloe, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Bragg, L.

Brett, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brookman, L.

Marsh, L.

Burlison, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Mitchell, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Morgan, L.

Chandos, V.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Christopher, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Crawley, B.

Nicol, B.

Darcy de Knayth,B.

Parekh, L.

David, B.

Paul, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pendry, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dealing, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Donoughue, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dubs, L.

Richard, L.

Elder, L.

Rooker, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sawyer, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sewel, L.

Filkin, L.

Sheldon, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Simon, V.

Gale, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Goudie, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Grabiner, L.

Tenby,V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thornton, B.

Grocott, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Harrison, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Haskel, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hayman, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Weatherill, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitaker, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Whitty, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Hoyle, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.11 p.m.
Clause 31 [Legal proceedings: derogation]:
Lord Donaldson of Lymington Lord Donaldson of Lymington moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 16, line 21, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment raises precisely the same question as that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brittan; that is, why take it out when it does not matter? I beg to move.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 33) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 181; Not-Contents, 110.

Division No. 7

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Addington, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Alderdice, L.

Geddes, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Ampthill, L.

Glentoran, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Goodhart, L.

Astor, V.

Goschen, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Greaves, L.

Avebury, L.

Hamwee, B.

Barker, B.

Hanham, B.

Bell, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Belstead, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Black of Crossharbour, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Blackwell, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Blaker, L.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Hereford, Bp.

Boardman, L.

Higgins, L.

Bowness, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hogg, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Brennan, L.

Home, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Howe, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Burnham, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Buscombe, B.

Hylton, L.

Byford, B.

Jacobs, L.

Caithness, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Joffe, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jopling, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Kimball, L.

Colwyn, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Condon, L.

Kingsland, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Laird, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Deedes, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Dholakia, L.

Liverpool, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Lucas, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Ludford, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Luke, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Elton, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Falkland, V.

McNally, L.

Feldman, L.

Maddock, B.

Flather, B.

Mancroft, L.

Fookes, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Marlesford, L.

1018

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Monro of Langholm, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Monson, L.

Russell, E.

Montrose, D.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Moynihan, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Seccombe, B.

Newby, L.

Selborne, E.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Selsdon, L.

Noakes,B.

Sharman, L.

Northbrook, L.

Sharples, B.

Northesk, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Northover, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Slim. V.

Onslow, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Stern, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Parkinson, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Taverne, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Tebbit, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Plumb, L

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Tope, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Trefgarne,

Razzall, L.

L. Vivian, L.

Reay, L.

Waddington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Rees, L.

Walmsley, B.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Wilcox, B.

Rennard, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Renton, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Richardson of Duntisbourne, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ahmed, L.

Filkin, L.

Alli, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Andrews, B.

Gale, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Attenborough, L.

Goudie, B.

Bach, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Billingham, B.

Grocott, L.

Blackstone, B.

Harrison, L.

Bragg, L.

Haskel, L.

Brett, L.

Hayman, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Brookman, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Burlison, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Hoyle, L.

Chandos, V.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Christopher, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Crawley, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

David, B.

Jeger, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Jones, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Layard, L.

Donoughue, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Levy, L.

Dubs, L.

Lipsey, L.

Elder, L.

Listowel, E.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

[Teller]

1019

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Sawyer, L.

Mackenzie of Culkein, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Marsh, L.

Sewel, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Sheldon, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Simon, V.

Mitchell, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Morgan, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nicol, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Paul, L.

Thornton, B.

Pendry, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Peston, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Weatherill, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Whitaker, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Whitty, L.

Richard, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seat)

Rooker, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving they Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 9.22 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Commission for England (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001
8.22 p.m.
Lord Fillkin Lord Fillkin rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the debates on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Government made it clear that they would confer responsibility for local government electoral arrangements—the boundaries of electoral areas and the number of councillors—on the Electoral Commission. This order achieves that by transferring all the current functions of the Local Government Commission to the Electoral Commission and by giving to it the Secretary of State's powers to implement recommendations relating to electoral arrangements.
Transferring these functions to the Electoral Commission is part of our reform and modernisation of the democratic framework of this country and will contribute to strengthening public trust and confidence in electoral arrangements by taking decisions on such issues as the numbers and boundaries of electoral divisions and the number of councillors entirely out of the political arena.
The current functions of the Local Government Commission also include making recommendations about administrative boundaries and structure. We
1020
are also transferring these functions, along with the Local Government Commission's staff and assets. The House will wish to note, however, that we have put in place arrangements that recognise the Electoral Commission's independence by removing the Secretary of State's powers of direction. Instead, the order allows the Secretary of State to request the Electoral Commission to make recommendations on boundary and structure issues. It will remain the Secretary of State's responsibility to implement such changes, as now, through orders subject to parliamentary approval.
In conclusion, the order will mark another step in our reform of the electoral and democratic machinery in this country, bringing greater transparency and accountability to the review of electoral arrangements. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, while there is no opposition from these Benches to the order, I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions in relation to the cost of the new arrangements.
Have the savings which are likely to be derived as a result of the proposed merger of the Local Government Commission and the Parliamentary Boundary Commission been identified? If so, what are they?
Section 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 gives the commission powers to promote public awareness of the institutions of the European Union. It is a curious section which has the potential to be very costly if either the Government or the commission itself require to take up the whole scale of publicity campaigns, of whatever nature, to do with European institutions.
In the light of that and my previous question, can the Minister give the budget which has been agreed as being appropriate for the first year of the Electoral Commission? Can he also indicate what cost savings are likely to arise as a result of the subsequent merger of the two commissions under one roof? I say "under one roof" advisedly because I hope that they will be brought together physically as well as metaphorically. Will the Minister confirm that the budget responsibilities for the commission will be borne by the Speaker's Committee? Can he give details of the budget which that committee has agreed for the year 2002–03?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we support the order. Indeed, we warmly welcome it. I am not sure whether I should declare an interest as a member of the London Assembly, which falls within the order, but, as I am a London-wide member—and, happily, I do not think a change of boundary for the whole of London is in prospect—perhaps it is only a very small interest.
We are aware that turn-out is of particular concern to the Electoral Commission. No doubt that will be central to its views on appropriate boundaries. At

1021
London borough level, I used to represent a ward which included parts of three different communities. That led to enormous confusion, not least as to why the boundary of the ward was in one case a railway and in the others went down the middle of residential roads. There seems to be little logic in people living in one polling district and identifying with not only a different community but with a different borough. Artificial boundaries do not promote identity with an electoral area. I am sure that the Electoral Commission will have this very much in mind.
We support, too, the integration of boundary decisions at all levels to help reduce confusion. It is not too clear why, for instance, you might be voting in a ward in a part of one parliamentary constituency when you identify with and live in what you regard as a neighbouring borough.
I was a little confused by a comment made by the Minister in another place in the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. He said:
"Those decisions will be placed squarely in the hands of an independent commission"—
and then rather hurriedly said,
"which is not to say that in the past decisions have been made other than on the basis of objective recommendations by independent people".
If the noble Lord has anything to add to that to confirm the commission's complete independence and transparency, we shall be glad to hear it. We support the order.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, before the Minister rises to reply, may I do what I should have done and declare an interest as a member of a local authority? It is becoming very boring, but I believe that I should keep saying it.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall address, first, the two questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. This issue was considered in some detail in the Standing Committee in another place. It flows from old thinking about the nature of the Electoral Commission and the nature of the Local Government Commission itself. The Electoral Commission, which, under this order, is taking over the functions of the Local Government Commission, will no longer be the creature of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. It is outwith his control and his power. He will no longer have any responsibility for its budget. It operates completely independently from him, and it reaches its conclusions on electoral arrangements without in any way going near him.
For those reasons, the budget for the Electoral Commission, including the budgets necessary to support the work of the Local Government Commission, which is being transferred into it, cannot be part of the responsibility of the Secretary of State for fairly obvious reasons, in that he must have no influence over it. That is why, if I understand it correctly, the original 2000 Act placed the responsibility for the budget firmly on the Speaker's
1022
Committee. As I understand it, as yet, the Electoral Commission has not submitted its budget to the Speaker's Committee. I should expect that it would do so—and this is speculation—shortly after the order is passed so that it can put a composite budget for 2002 before the Speaker's Committee. It is then that we shall know the proposed budget for the commission for 2002–03.
Clearly, it is not a rubber stamp. The Speaker's Committee must then inspect the budget, and has powers to change or vary it as it thinks appropriate before it is affirmed in either its original or its modified form. Therefore, it is not a matter of truculence on my part. It is not possible for me—nor would it be right even if knew what was being proposed—for that to be done. It is a matter for the Speaker's Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the turnout in local government elections. I share her view that these are strong concerns of the Electoral Commission. We have already seen its report on the general election, which many noble Lords have read with some interest. I very much hope that we shall see a similar focus on what the commission can do, along with many others, to raise turnout in local government elections. I also share the noble Baroness's view that seeking to make electoral arrangements reflect natural communities, so far as one can grasp such slippery concepts, is highly desirable—as I believe the commission is charged. It is not meant merely to take an arithmetic approach, but to look at the communities as well.
It was perhaps a teasing question as to whether my honourable friend in another place had implied that the independence of the commission should not be seen to reflect on past political decisions in these matters. I am sure that he was probably referring to the fact that, while all politicians, one trusts, have always acted honourably in these matters, the issue is trying to convince the public that there is no trace of political interference. That is why there is such a distance in terms of the responsibilities and the budget itself.
I trust that my remarks have addressed satisfactorily the questions raised. I trust also that there will be a continuation of cross-party support for what we believe to be a strengthening of decisions on electoral arrangements and that the Electoral Commission will move forward with power and skill in addressing these difficult roles. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulatory Reform (Special Occasions Licensing) Order 2001
8.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone)The Minister of State, Department of Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved [5th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].

1023
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, if approved, this order would be the first ever regulatory reform order to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, which received Royal Assent shortly before the general election this year. We therefore have an opportunity to make a little history.
The order is designed to extend permitted licensing hours from normal closing time on New Year's Eve this year until 11 a.m. on New Year's Day 2002. By adding to the existing hours, this would in effect allow on-licensed premises and registered members' clubs to open continuously—if they wish to do so—from 11 a.m. on New Year's Eve until 11 p.m. on New Year's Day 2002. This is a period of 36 hours.
"On-licensed premises" include, for example, pubs, nightclubs and restaurants. "Registered members' clubs" are non-profit-making clubs such as the Royal British Legion, working men's clubs, and Labour, Conservative and Liberal clubs, which often run special events on New Year's Eve.
In addition, the order would permit the police, local authorities and any local resident to apply to the licensing justices for a restriction order limiting the additional hours on grounds of likely disorder or disturbance. The final decision on whether to grant such a restriction order would be for the justices after considering the evidence.
The tourism industry, which includes the hospitality industry, has had a dreadful year. The effects of foot and mouth and the awful events on September 11th have been immensely damaging. The order is an opportunity to give the hospitality industry a small boost at a very difficult time. Ordinary people, too, will benefit by having the opportunity to enjoy themselves when and where they want on a night of national celebration.
I want to thank the members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House, who have spent considerable time scrutinising the order and who have worked closely with the Government to agree appropriate terms for it.
The committee had concerns about the timing of the order and about the legal interpretation of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. In its report of 21st November to the House, the committee explained its reluctance to approve this order if the effects of Section 1(4) of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 would have subsequently prevented it approving an order in respect of licensing hours at the Golden Jubilee. Section 1(4) is referred to in the reports as "the two-year rule" and it prohibits an amendment to the same provision in primary legislation twice within two years. However, following advice from Treasury Counsel, the committee has noted in its report that:
"The restrictions currently applying to the sale of alcohol on all New Year's Eves and during the Golden Jubilee have been transferred from Part III of the Licensing Act 1964 to this Order. These provisions can subsequently be amended without falling foul of the "two year rule' contained in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001".
1024
In giving its approval, the committee added, however, that regulatory reform proposals should not normally be drafted in this way to circumvent the provisions of Section 1(4). I can give the House the assurance that we shall comply with the committee's view.
The timing of the order was also an issue of concern for the parliamentary committees concerned with regulatory reform because of the limited time that magistrates would have to process applications for restriction orders before New Year's Eve. The committees, however, accepted the assurances given by the Magistrates' Association in a letter to the House of Commons committee. It said that magistrates would still support the order becoming law as late as mid-December, and that licensing justices were willing and able to deal with any applications for restriction orders in the time available.
The timing of the order provides no time for licensees to appeal against a restriction order imposed by magistrates, and the appeal provisions were removed from the order on grounds of practicality. However, I can assure the House that future orders—for example, the one concerning the Golden Jubilee—will restore these provisions.
Finally, I can confirm to the House that the terms of the order are fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The order was approved in another place on 28th November and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved [5th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Baroness Blackstone. )
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. Perhaps I may begin, as ever, by reminding the House of my unpaid interest as patron of the Restaurant Association of Great Britain. The association will benefit from the making of this order.
The Minister rightly pointed out that we are making a little history tonight. I hope that on future occasions orders will not run up against some of the time constraints and the redrafting that has been repaired on this occasion—although it might be argued that the super-affirmative process that has been introduced by this system provides a greater opportunity for proper consideration and thereby the redrafting of orders. As a result of that it behoves the Government even more to think of the time limits with regard to the laying of orders.
I make it clear from the start that I support the making of the order. I certainly take full account of the points made by the Select Committee in its fourth report which were very firmly in favour of the order being made. I shall not take up the time of the House by referring to those points in detail. The Minister was absolutely right to add to that list the importance of the order to the tourism industry. As the Minister said, it has suffered two dreadful blows this year. The order will assist the industry, one hopes, to have a slightly better level of business than otherwise would be the

1025
case and indeed should reduce the regulatory cost burden that otherwise it would have faced if it had to make applications for orders. Indeed, David Quarmby of the British Tourist Authority pointed out that the order will bring us into line with our European competitors and provide yet another reason for people to enjoy the New Year in Britain.
I had concerns before I came to the House on three matters. I therefore gave notice to the Minister's office of those three matters. The first was the issue of the two-year rule. The second was the late coming into effect of the order, which means that there are only 11 court sitting days—if tomorrow is the day on which the order takes effect—on which magistrates can hear applications for restriction orders. I was also concerned about the need to withdraw the right of appeal by licensees because of the late bringing forward of the order. I am grateful for the explanation that the noble Baroness has given and particularly for the assurances that she has given on these matters. She has therefore made it possible for me to cut out about three-quarters of my speech and I simply support the making of the order.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the order. Most of my questions were about the timing restriction. As both noble Baronesses have covered them I should like to say that we are generally in favour of the order. It is a hopeful sign which will enable people to enjoy their holidays slightly more and give a little input into an industry which has taken rather a battering.
I hope that the general liberalisation of licensing laws, if it ever happens, will not be done on such a squeezed timescale. Having said that, generally speaking, I am in favour of the order.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their support for the order. I hope that the outcome will be as positive as it possibly can be and that plenty of people will be able to have an extremely enjoyable New Year's Eve and New Year's Day as a result. With hindsight we entirely accept that we should have begun the process slightly sooner. Part of the problem was that people did not anticipate that a delay would be caused by the general election and so parliamentary days were lost prior to the summer recess. I am grateful for the support expressed for the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Loss of Benefit) Regulations 2001
8.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd November be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
1026
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the subject is becoming increasingly sexy as the evening proceeds. I beg to move that the draft Social Security (Loss of Benefit) Regulations 2001 laid before the House on 22nd November be approved.
We spend over £100 billion each year on social security. It is our duty to make sure that the system is secure from both fraud and error so that the right money goes to the right people.
The latest figures announced on 29th November show that the measures we have introduced to tackle fraud are having a marked effect, reducing the level of social security fraud in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 18 per cent, which shows that we are going some way, and successfully so, to meeting our target of 25 per cent by 2004 and 50 per cent by 2006.
While we have made a good start towards achieving the duty, we need to do more. We introduced a number of powers in the 2001 Social Security Fraud Act that received Royal Assent this May to support the overall strategy of safeguarding social security. The regulations tonight provide the detail for one of those measures. A further set of negative regulations introducing consequential amendments will be laid in January next year.
The loss of benefit provisions are intended not only to act as a deterrent to recidivism; they also form part of the Government's continuing welfare reform programme. They build upon one of the key recommendations in the report of my noble friend Lord Grabiner on the informal economy that was published in March 2000. For the vast majority of people who cheat on their benefits their first conviction is their last. But for those who continue to offend we think it appropriate to bring an offence into play. The regulations describe the powers to take benefits away from people who persistently abuse the benefit system.
We do not seek to introduce these powers to target those who have slipped into the system by error. While we have reduced the level of social security fraud in income support and jobseeker's allowance we are still finding cases that involve the commission of deliberate, repeated fraud.
An investigation by the Benefits Agency security investigation services in May this year identified that three people were involved in the manipulation and subsequent encashment of order books. When arrested they had in their possession a number of order books, stolen identification and in excess of £1,050. The subsequent prosecution resulted in the conviction of all three defendants with sentences ranging from five months' imprisonment and a fine of £1,050 to 14 months' imprisonment. It was also revealed that one of the defendants had been prosecuted as part of a separate investigation in 1999. At the time they were sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment, suspended for two years. There is, and there continues to be, persistent wilful and serious fraud.
The Social Security (Loss of Benefit) Regulations 2001 introduce powers that will provide a deterrent to those who are considering committing further benefit

1027
offences. These regulations are about ensuring that there is an effective deterrent in place to dissuade those who are subject to a first conviction for a benefit offence from re-offending providing that, where we have to apply a sanction, this is done in a uniform manner across all sanctionable benefits and that the level of the sanction applied is based upon experience gained from other areas of the department which are tried and tested. The regulations ensure that an absent or non-resident parent's responsibilities continue to be met by continuing to take child support maintenance deductions before a sanction is applied. They enforce that sanction, even where an offender tries to hide behind a partner by swapping benefit claims. This occurs in the case of a joint claim where an attempt is made to change who is the primary claimer. They continue related passport benefits when a sanction is applied, and the availability of fallback provisions to protect the vulnerable and those dependent on them by providing a scheme that is a close reflection of the hardship scheme that already operates for labour market sanctions. Finally, they ensure that a sanctionable benefit cannot be avoided by merely stopping and then re-starting a claim to benefit.
These regulations are not disproportionate. They do not provide sanctions so hard that they will put people into serious destitution, nor do they target individual groups of customers. They are consistent across the board. What they do is introduce a fixed, 13-week disqualification period.
I shall run very quickly through the regulations. Regulation 2 describes how the disqualification period will be administered, ensuring that it is applied in a consistent manner to all sanctionable benefits and payment. It also describes how the sanction will be applied to those offenders who seek to avoid it by ending and then re-claiming benefit. The powers are not intended to cause undue hardship to those who have not maintained their responsibilities back to us in relation to the benefit system.
Regulation 3 describes how the level of reduction as a result of the application of the sanction is calculated for those offenders already in receipt of income support. The application of the two strikes sanction to all other sanctionable benefits will result in the removal of the full amount of benefit payable.
Regulations 5 to 16 provide fallback provisions for those clients who would otherwise have no means of supporting themselves. They reflect the hardship schemes and the vocabulary of vulnerable people that already operate in labour market sanctions.
In order to ensure that the sanctions do not impact upon the provision of housing—this, in my view, is extremely important because a dependent family must not be made homeless however wilful the offender's behaviour may have been—Regulation 18 provides for a continuance of housing and council tax benefit for those in receipt of income support or income based jobseeker's allowance.
1028
To ensure that an offender's responsibility to dependants will continue to be met, Regulation 20 provides that child support maintenance deductions that are made from benefit will continue and will not be impacted on by the implications of the two strikes sanction.
I hope that your Lordships agree that we have already made useful progress in reducing social security fraud. We need to continue that momentum. We are not talking about errors or about trivial fraud; we are talking about sustained serious benefit fraud for which someone has twice been convicted by the courts. The regulations are part of our overall strategy on tackling fraud and rebuilding confidence in the welfare state that we all support. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd November be approved. [12th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the measure is introduced under the Social Security Fraud Act 2001, which your Lordships laboured long and hard to improve. As a result of that labour, it became much better legislation than it was when it arrived here from another place.
As the regulations are made within six months of the main legislation, my understanding is that they do not go to the Social Security Advisory Committee, under a provision in the Social Security Administration Act 1992. I was not involved in that Act, but I wonder whether that is a good idea. On a number of such regulations it is arguable that we would benefit from the committee's advice. On a separate point, no doubt the Minister can confirm that the regulations are consistent with the human rights legislation.
When I first saw the regulations I was a little worried because, as the House will recall, we had long debates on the "Windlesham amendment", which would have imposed sanctions by withdrawal of social security benefits for crimes and misdemeanours that took place outside the social security system. I understand that the regulations operate purely within the social security system. The sanction will be enforced only as a result of fraudulent action within the social security system. To that extent we can reasonably welcome them. To use a shorthand form for this evening's rather esoteric audience, it is a "Grabiner point" rather than a "Windlesham point", arising from the "two strikes and you're out" proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner.
I should like the Minister to update some of the figures and clarify one or two points about the regulations. As I understand it, the Government propose to withdraw or reduce benefits for people convicted twice of a benefit offence within three years. The sanction will be for a fixed period of 13 weeks and will begin after conviction for a second offence if benefit is in payment. So far, so good. However, if benefit is not in payment, the sanction will begin when the entitlement first arises in the three-year period following the second conviction. The noble Baroness

1029
nods, but I do not understand how that will work in practice. She tried to cover the point in her opening remarks, but it is not dealt with in the explanatory memorandum. Perhaps she could explain how the provision will work in practice.
Various estimates have been made of the size of the problem of benefit fraud. It was estimated in December 1999 that £2 billion a year was definitely lost, while £3 billion was suspected as being lost and there were suspicions about a further £2 billion a year. I am not at all clear about how those figures were arrived at, particularly how we know definitely that £2 billion a year is lost. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that.
The Government have rightly set targets for the reduction of benefit fraud. I was surprised at the Minister's opening remarks. My understanding was that the target was a 30 per cent reduction by March 2007 and a minimum 10 per cent reduction by March 2002, but the noble Baroness seemed to refer to 25 per cent by 2004 and 50 per cent by 2006. I am not sure whether that is an updated target.
There is also some confusion because the Minister in another place went on to say that the 10 per cent target was not only on track, but 18 months ahead of target. Working out the arithmetic, he ought simply to have said that the Government are ahead of their objectives. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the position on the various targets so that we can judge the Government's performance against them.
The other point that emerges clearly is that the situation is not necessarily improving. An article in the Sunday Times said that an internal departmental report showed that the proportion of housing benefit fraud cases won by local authorities had gone down significantly. The record of local authorities on that is worrying. Only a very limited number of local authorities are successful in pursuing housing benefit prosecutions. The latest figures that I was able to find show that 40 per cent of local authorities did not successfully prosecute a single person for housing benefit fraud and 20 per cent had no data on whether they were prosecuting people for that.
We are talking about imposing sanctions on the people engaged in fraud, but there should be a corresponding sanction on local authorities that are not dealing with the problem. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether the situation has improved on that which I have just described.
The Government are also engaged in a heavy advertising campaign. The posters are so apparent that I happen to have noticed them. Do we have any cost-benefit analysis of the advertising campaign? What further reduction do the Government expect as a result of it, and what is it costing?
Finally, I come to the question of hardship, on which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, spent a lot of time at earlier stages. We were all concerned about the possible effects of hardship. There was particular concern about whether someone who lost their
1030
housing benefit might then find that they were homeless because they were unable to make the payments on their home.
If I understood the noble Baroness correctly, she announced a change in policy on that. I thought that she said that the position of the people in the home would be protected if the head of the household had acted fraudulently. That is important and has implications for local authority funding.
I should like the Minister to bring us up to date on those matters. The Act was very important. Perhaps she could give us some indication of the extent to which the action taken under the regulations is expected to contribute towards the achievement of the Government's targets. I hope that she can clarify more precisely what those targets now are.
9 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, several times during this afternoon's perambulations I have been reminded of the exam candidate who said that Sir Robert Walpole was extremely unpopular because of his exercise scheme. I must confess that, because of this unaccustomed exercise throughout the afternoon, my preparation for this debate has been a little less thorough than it might have been.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I think that that was because Walpole let his sleeping dogs lie and did not take them for a walk.
Earl Russell: My Lords, yes he did indeed. It is pity that Ministers do not follow the same policy a little more often. Anyway, I offer my apologies to the House.
There is nothing new about fraud. One of my pupils once discovered a case of someone found begging outside St Margaret's Westminster in 1614, who was found to have in his pocket the sum of £30. That was between two and three years' wages for an ordinary labourer. He was to be dismissed on paying £5 to the Poor Box. He bargained it down to £4 and got off. He was clearly a seasoned felon.
Fraud is always with us; hostility to fraud is always with us. But one wants to try to make the punishment fit the crime. One of the curious things about the measure we are discussing is that, as it appears to me, it bites more heavily on the less serious than on the more serious offenders because it can bite only on those who actually have a benefit entitlement. If you have no benefit entitlement, you have nothing to forfeit under these provisions. Take, for example, the case in today's Times, headed,
"FA Cup hero faces jail over benefit fraud".
The person in question is the holder of a Cup winner's medal and a former Manchester United player. The article states:
"During one 25-week period, Martin, 33, worked on television, 40 times, earning £11,300, while claiming jobseeker's allowance and council tax benefit".
That sum is well above benefit levels.

1031
If that person is deprived of his benefit entitlement, in Gibbon's words, he loses the superfluous treasure. He loses something which he does not have, so he is in effect not punished, whereas the equally fraudulent person whose income is nevertheless below benefit levels does suffer a punishment which his richer fellow offender does not. I do not follow the justice in that and I never have done.
The Minister also said that the regulations do not bring anyone into serious destitution. I should be very grateful when she replies if the Minister could tell us how she knows that and on what research evidence that is based. It was an extremely confident statement. If there is a source behind it, I should like to know it.
More generally, I should like to know what she believes is the effect on the adequacy of living standards of a 40 per cent reduction in benefit and what kind of sacrifices that involves. If she does not know that, will she at some time put herself in the way of finding out?
The same questions apply in relation to hardship. It is something of a perplexity to me why levels of hardship payments have been fixed at the point where they are. Is there any academic study which underlies the choice of that particular level of hardship payments? Why is it thought that hardship does not occur if there is a 20 per cent reduction whereas it will occur if there is a 40 per cent reduction? Does that rest on any empirical evidence, or is it simply a guess?
I take the Minister's point about Regulation 18; namely, that the dependants are freed from the effect of a reduction in housing benefit. One must welcome that. However, the Minister did not mention Regulation 17 which would impose on someone who does not have dependants a 40 per cent cut in housing benefit. Has the Minister considered the effect of that on a landlord who, of course, may be an equally guilty party but is not necessarily such and need not be assumed to be? Far too many landlords do not accept people who are on housing benefit. That makes housing people who are on benefit more difficult than it should he. Is it an incentive to a landlord to subject him to the potential for loss of income when he has not done anything at all that he should not? Has that angle been taken into account?
I also want to ask the Minister about one rather unexpected provision which is in Regulation 5(1)(d)(i) dealing with polygamous marriages where it is provided that there shall be hardship payments if one member of the polygamous marriage is pregnant. There is no provision made for two, or, indeed, I suppose, the hypothetical possibility that more than two members of the polygamous marriage may be pregnant. That, I should have thought, would have created even more hardship. One hopes that it will be taken care of some way or other.
Finally, I want to raise what I hope is simply a question of ambiguity. I refer to the final regulation, Regulation 27, which I shall try to quote exactly as I do not want to cause any misunderstanding. It arises from Regulation 21, but Regulation 27 is, I think, a numeration interpolated in another set of regulations.
1032
Regulation 27 provides that,
"A decision of the Secretary of State that a sanctionable benefit … is not payable",
cannot be a matter of appeal,
"where the only ground of appeal is that any of the convictions was erroneous".
That could mean two things. It could mean that you cannot use an appeal against the certification to argue about the justice of the penalty, or it could mean that the fact that one of the convictions is actually erroneous does not remove the penalty. If it means the second—I think that I can take it from the Minister's body language that it does not—that would concern me. However, I should be glad if she could confirm that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Earl for their comments. I should be even more grateful if I had been given even more notice of some of the more technical points, apart from that on polygamous marriages, which the noble Earl was kind enough to share with me. However, I shall do my best to respond.
I turn first to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. The point about the six-month rule for the Social Security Advisory Committee is basically that the regulations are still within the shadow cast by the debate on the Act and therefore in that context any parties who might otherwise be consulted by the Social Security Advisory Committee would have been involved in putting in submissions, lobbying etcetera on the Act. That is the reason for it. It seems rather foolish to consult the same groups one has consulted on the same matters when that was part of the framework Bill. However, I accept that there may be occasions on which that would be wise, but the matter seems to me fairly clear. We had full debates on it at the time. Therefore, perhaps in this case the noble Lord would agree that the discussions and the debate made very clear what the content of the regulations that followed would be and, therefore, that in that case consultation was redundant.
The noble Lord asked whether the measure was consistent with the ECHR. It is indeed. He then asked how we would apply the sanction within three years of the date of conviction. If someone is not on benefit following conviction, obviously there is nothing on which to bite. Clearly if, within three years, that person—I shall use the word "he" as a generic term—comes on to benefit, then the sanction will begin to bite. The central team will track cases and a decision on eligibility, benefits and sanctions will be made by decision-makers in the usual way. Have I understood the noble Lord's point on this matter? From his body language, I am not sure that I have.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am not sure. As I understand it, someone is convicted of a benefit offence when he is not on benefit. I have some slight difficulty in understanding how that can come about. However, if I understood correctly what the noble Baroness has just said, if within a period of three years someone came on to benefit, he would lose 40 per cent

1033
of it or thereabouts. It seems to me that the task of tracking such a situation will be extraordinarily difficult. It seems a very odd arrangement. The person in question has a sword hanging over his head depending on whether he subsequently goes on to benefit. It seems an extraordinarily strange arrangement.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On the contrary, my Lords. Such a person would have committed an offence the first time, would have been convicted by the courts and would then have received serious warnings. While still on benefit, he goes on to commit a second offence. It may well be that by the time the case comes to court he is no longer on benefit. Therefore, the question is: what does the department do, given that he has committed two offences involving benefit but, for whatever reason, he may simply have taken himself off benefit to avoid sanctions.
Our position is that if, over the next three years, he then goes back on to benefit, the sanction will come into play at that point. The sanction will be exactly the same as if he had received it at the time that the sentence was imposed on him. Therefore, the measure simply provides a way of preventing someone avoiding a sanction by coming off benefit for two or three weeks and then going back on to it again, whereas previously the time gap meant that the sanction no longer bit. That must be right, otherwise clearly the opportunities for manipulation are huge.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful. I understand what the noble Baroness is saying, but I need to think about it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe that the measure is only right and proper. If someone does not have the wit to come off benefit for a fortnight, he will experience sanctions, whereas someone who has the wit to come off it for a fortnight will not. We are saying, in effect, that this will bite within the three-year period.
The noble Lord asked how we arrive at the fraud estimates. We have moved away from the old system in which we had cases of confirmed fraud, highly suspected fraud and possible fraud and applied a 32-week multiplier. We now have a continuous programme of sampling cases from districts. A sample is drawn from all districts over a quarter. Two teams conduct the checks. The estimates of fraud and error are based on results from a random sample of people for the benefit concerned. In each case, the payment of benefit during a particular week is checked. The amount by which that week's benefit is incorrect is recorded and then the total weekly sum for each benefit lost is calculated with a sample in each location, and so on. I could go further into the methodology.
In other words, we have moved away from an extrapolation multiplied by 32, which, I have to say, I criticised heavily in opposition, into a system which is
1034
based as closely as possible on behaviour in particular district offices. That is the basis on which we calculate the estimates of fraud sums.
The noble Lord asked about fraud targets. I can confirm that, indeed, the figures of 25 per cent by 2004 and 50 per cent by 2006 remain our target. I believe that we had expected to claw back 10 per cent in the first year. We have exceeded that and the figure is now 18 per cent. That may be where the original cutting across lines happened.
The noble Lord talked about the increase in housing benefit and the problem of prosecuting housing benefit fraud. He is right; that has long remained a difficult area. However, I believe that the evidence suggests that local authorities now have the issue of prosecution in hand. For example, in the first six months of this year—2001–02—there were 686 successful prosecutions. That suggests a figure of 1,200 to 1,500 prosecutions—a significant increase on our figures in preceding years. That has been allied to the fact that we have made £160 million available to local authorities to operate the verification framework. By 2004 that will cover 85 per cent of HB expenditure.
Sixty per cent of councils have already adopted that verification framework and 367 local authorities have signed up to the department's "do not redirect" scheme. I am not trying to suggest that there is not still a considerable way to go, but I believe that it is the case that 60 per cent of local authorities are already within our verification framework; we expect to have 85 per cent of their expenditure covered by the year 2004; the rate of prosecution is increasing; and we are slowly beginning to see some of the benefits flowing from the interchange of common information between the department and local authorities which, after all, are administering a national benefit. I do not pretend other than that the performance is uneven and patchy across the country but we shall do our best to monitor it. We are investing £2 million this year on training up to 900 local authority fraud investigators. The department takes the matter seriously. Most local authorities are responding positively—although some are still not taking diligent action, as they need to do, on what is a big ticket crime.
The noble Lord asked about housing benefit and hardship. The maximum reduction in housing benefit is 40 per cent but that will apply only where it is not passported by income support. Even if the fraud is committed against housing benefit, that will be the last benefit on which the penalty will fall. If one receives income support or JSA, almost invariably the sanction would fall there—but not in 100 per cent of cases. One could be a low earner and get HB. If the offence were against HB at that point, it would be sanctioned. If one were an earner, the assumption would be that disposable income would be available through one's wages to make up the shortfall in rent as a result of the sanction. We have a hierarchy of benefits on which the sanction falls and HB is last in line.
Our best estimate is that, in the eyes of the courts, 500 people per year commit a benefit offence, so the benefit sanction is likely to bite on 500 households per

1035
year. The noble Lord asked how easy it will be to track the situation. The numbers are not great. For most offenders, the punishment handed out by the courts is enough—but there is a 5 per cent recidivist rate, which suggests that 500 or 550 people might fall within the regime every year.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the measure will bite more seriously on the less serious offences and that it will bite only on those who receive benefit. Yes, because that is the benefit being sanctioned. However, that will be in addition to the court's sanction.
The benefits fraud case involving a former professional footballer also caught my eye. That individual appears to have been earning £11,300 from TV appearances while claiming jobseeker's allowance. As he was not eligible to continue receiving benefits, the department could not sanction him but the court will punish him. I understand that sentence will not be handed down until January so I cannot say what it will be. I do not doubt that the court will take into account his mitigating financial circumstances and needs. It may be that the sentence will be appropriately more severe than might be the case for someone who remained on benefit.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not remember in the parent Act any instruction to the court to impose a lighter penalty on those who are already suffering a benefits sanction.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is the other way around. The benefit penalty will come into play only when the court has determined whether somebody has committed an offence for the second time. From my experience, one third of benefits offenders who go before the courts receive a conditional discharge. They are not usually former footballers who have been earning £11,300 and wilfully claiming extra money. They tend to be overwhelmed lone parents struggling with a child who might he unwell. In that context, the courts do discriminate between the circumstances of individual claimants. Someone who is not on benefit may receive a heavier punishment.
The noble Earl asked whether the hardship regime will result in serious destitution. Let us suppose that a lone parent with two children receives income support, £100 a week housing benefit and council tax benefit. Let us further suppose that that parent has been convicted not once but twice of benefit fraud and that the court has not given her an absolute discharge. Her current income from any sanction, including the value of housing benefit, would be £231.85. After the sanction, that figure would be £210—a drop of £20. I am not saying that the sanction will not bite but it will not cause destitution.
As to polygamous marriages, I understand that only one spouse in the relationship is regarded as a couple for the purposes of JSA. Other spouses are treated as dependants. If another spouse had a child, that would be a further dependant within the relationship who was entitled to income support.
1036
On Regulation 27, it was suggested that the appeal was not erroneous. That involved establishing whether there was a challenge to the legitimacy of the court sentence. I am fairly confident that noble Lords will accept that it is reasonable that the benefits system cannot tackle that and that it should not he an appeal basis for a court sentence.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Minister mentioned that £160 million is being paid to local authorities to help them to catch benefit fraud. Have we any indication of' how much extra they expect to receive as a result? Other figures that she gave—for example, the fact that 500 people a year might he caught by the provisions—suggest that the amount that she expects to save is not proportionate to the amount being spent on trying to catch those people.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I agree. The trouble is that in this context we are spending more than we may find out we have deterred, but we do not know how much we will save in total through deterrence. The noble Lord will be interested to know that whereas last year there were 1,000 prosecutions and in the previous year there were 860, the figure now is 50 per cent higher—there will be about 1,500 or 1,600 prosecutions. Given recidivist rates of about 5 per cent, it may be that about 50 prosecutions for housing benefit fraud will result in subsequent sanctions. With that information, I hope that I have helped noble Lords further to understand these extremely complex—and unsexy—regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
9.22 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 34 [Certificate that Convention does not apply]:
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 34:
Leave out Clause 34.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 35.
I raised my concerns about Clause 34 at Second Reading. It is a matter of concern that we are trying to some extent to bypass the refugee convention. We have supported that convention since 1951 and the Government have yet to explain why such draconian measures are necessary.
There is no disputing the fact that the UNHCR and the UK Government share common ground on the importance of the 1951 convention as an international instrument that is precisely framed to provide protection for those who need it while ensuring the exclusion of those who do not deserve it. That has been the practice to date, and it has served us fairly well.
The point at issue is that every aspect of the case should be known and considered by SIAC. Furthermore, examination within the asylum process

1037
should ensure that the final decision to exclude, with all of its potentially serious implications, takes full account of the competing nature of potential prosecution and the seriousness of the grounds for exclusion.
The international nature of the protection regime means that participating states have a legitimate interest in knowing how the decision to exclude, rather than to grant asylum, has been arrived at. That is of considerable importance when excluded cases are removed to another country.
The stated purpose of the clause is to allow the Home Secretary to certify people who are suspected of terrorism as being either undeserving or outside the scope of the 1951 refugee convention. So long as such a certificate remains in force SIAC would not be able to consider that person's asylum claim.
Certificates issued under Clause 33 will state that a person is excluded from refugee status under Article 1(F) of the refugee convention (persons considered not to be deserving of international protection) or can be returned under Article 33(2) on national security. However, SIAC will be prevented from examining substantive asylum claims. Under this clause SIAC will be able to decide only on whether the certificate was properly made. It is difficult to see how it is possible to make a proper judgment about whether someone should be excluded under Article 1(F) or Article 33(2) without considering his or her whole story in the form of a substantive asylum application. Only through such a full consideration can people be safely excluded from the 1951 refugee convention.
It is unclear why the provision is deemed necessary. SIAC was established in 1977 precisely to consider appeals by people, including asylum seekers, being removed on grounds of national security. Under existing powers, SIAC simultaneously considers the substantive asylum claim and evidence that the applicant is a threat to national security. In cases where national security considerations are present, it is able to access intelligence information in a way that does not compromise sources and then make a determination on an asylum or immigration claim.
It is worth noting that only three cases have ever been referred to SIAC. We can see no justification, including on grounds of national security and efficiency, for the provision to limit SIAC's consideration of such cases only to the issue of the Home Secretary's certificate. That is why we suggest that there should be a full substantive interview to decide the asylum claims and only then a decision on whether to exclude on the basis of Article 1(F) or Article 33(2). The call for an integrated and comprehensive approach is also the view of the UNHCR. All asylum applications should be considered fully and on their own merits before any decision is taken.
I believe that the system of international refugee protection, enshrined in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and embodied in the 1951 refugee convention, would be seriously
1038
undermined if individual states were able to pick and choose which asylum applications should be considered. We need an explanation from the Minister of why the clause is necessary when there are adequate safeguards under Article 1(F)(b). In view of the seriousness of the issue and the consequences of an incorrect decision, the application of any exclusion clause should continue to be individually assessed, based on all available evidence and conform to basic standards of fairness and justice.
With their asylum policy already in administrative shambles, the Government are generating further procedures which are a blot on the rights and liberties of the individual so clearly prescribed in the refugee convention.
I asked the UNHCR to cite me some case studies on how the clause would be applied. I have been given an interesting case study of an outspoken campaigner on women's rights who lives in a repressive regime with a poor human rights record. It is well documented that torture is routinely used in its prisons. He is the founder and director of a small human rights charity which, contrary to government legislation, utilises financial donations from a western European state. When that is discovered he is tried and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment on charges of corruption and endangering state security and is not allowed legal representation. His conviction has been denounced by a human rights group. He seeks asylum in the United Kingdom. What happens? Under existing procedures all aspects of the case would be examined with a view to determining whether the applicant fulfils the criteria for refugee status. Facts indicating the relevance of Article 1(F) issues would emerge in the course of a comprehensive fact-finding process. At the point of decision a complex range of factors would be carefully weighed. These would include whether the threat of individualised persecution was grave enough to offset the seriousness of the charges against the applicant.
The interplay between persecution and prosecution would be looked at and the laws of the country would be set against international human rights standards. Asylum would be granted if, notwithstanding the applicant's alleged crime, he is deemed to deserve international protection. Under Clause 34 as it stands, by contrast it would appear that this applicant would he automatically excluded and the asylum claim dismissed solely on the ground that he committed crimes in his own country.
I now deal with Clause 35. We require better clarity here. Can the Minister confirm that it is not his intention that this clause in the Bill will not lay down a rule of construction applicable to all asylum cases? If it does then the issues raised take on even more importance. The clause removes the requirement to balance the gravity of exclusion grounds with the gravity of the consequences of return.
In circumstances where exclusion from the refugee convention is being considered, this clause seeks to prevent any consideration of the gravity of persecution a person has suffered, or would suffer, if returned to his or her own country. There is some doubt as to the

1039
purpose and scope of this clause. It is unclear whether its scope is limited to Clause 33 on certification or whether it is freestanding.
As a signatory to the refugee convention the UK has a legal obligation to fully consider all asylum applications on their merits. This clause threatens at a fundamental level our commitment in that regard. Only the consideration of the full facts of a case can lead to a decision which is sound and which does not risk the grave consequences of removing a person to face persecution.
The SIAC is equipped to consider such matters including evidence from the intelligence services. This clause runs counter to the UNHCR handbook on the interpretation of the refugee convention. It states that in applying the exclusion clause in the refugee convention,
"it is also necessary to strike a balance [between] the nature of the offence presumed to have been committed by the applicant and the degree of persecution feared".
The reasons for exclusion under Article 1(F) and Article 33(2) are not limited to terrorism. For example, they also exclude the commission of a serious, non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to an asylum seeker's admission to the country. These convictions may have been politically motivated in the absence of a fair judicial process. The Government must clarify the purpose of the clause and respond to the concern that it also affects people that it does not suspect of terrorism.
I wonder whether there is some serious confusion between Clauses 34 and 35. I understand that these clauses were one clause. They were split into two clauses for the sake of clarity only. Will the Government confirm that Clause 35 is not freestanding and only an aid to the construction of Clause 34? We need to have a proper balance between maintaining national security while protecting basic liberty. The draconian powers sought by the Secretary of State are unnecessary and undermine the fundamental right to seek asylum.
We already know how easy it is to generate hostility towards genuine asylum seekers. There is a danger that they will soon he equated with potential terrorists. That is precisely the opposite of what the Government intend. The danger is that it will create a situation in which asylum seekers and members of ethnic minorities will face a heightened risk of social exclusion, racial attacks and harassment. There is enough evidence to confirm that. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity tonight to have this debate after last Thursday night. I believe it was Ibsen who wrote that no one should put on their best trousers when going out to do battle for freedom and truth. Although I he condition of the trousers I am wearing at the moment may not be visible, I fear that on this particular clause hangs much of the balance of applying freedom and truth to the very complex issues addressed by this Bill. We have had many manifestations of those complexities so far.
1040
Clause 34 would prevent SIAC from looking at asylum claims when it should and would deprive those against whom it is directed from any kind of status as asylum seekers. To put it bluntly, this clause not only ties the hands of SIAC but also gags the appellants. I believe that it should be removed. In my view, and in the view of my colleagues, it is an over-reaction. It does not sit easily with our democratic traditions and I am concerned that the Government appear so willing to pay such a high price to achieve what I believe to be comparatively little.
It appears to me that Clause 35 is as unsatisfactory as Clause 34. According to this clause, any court faced with asylum claims involving serious crimes cannot in certain circumstances consider issues relating to persecution or well-founded fear. That is my understanding. It appears to be a re-interpretation of the Geneva Convention of 1951. It prevents the whole picture from being considered.
Article 1(F) and Article 33(2) appear to provide exactly what is needed and no more. Article 33(2) has its own safeguards and ensures that criminals are properly identified. In the view of these Benches, these clauses are unnecessary and misguided.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I draw attention to those parts of the clause that the amendment seeks to delete that reinforce the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate. The commission has only two options. Once the Secretary of State has issued a certificate, the commission has to decide only whether it agrees with the statements made by the Secretary of State in support of the certificate and, if not, it quashes the decision or action against which the asylum appeal is brought. If the commission agrees with the statements, it must dismiss the asylum application. As the right reverend Prelate said, that means that the applicant is never entitled to a substantive hearing on his application for asylum.
It seems to me that Clause 34(6) gives the Secretary of State an unlimited power to make a new decision, following an adverse decision by SIAC. If the Secretary of State does not succeed in convincing SIAC that the statements that he has made in support of the certificate are true, he can refuse the individual's application on any other ground that comes into his head. That is how I read subsection (6).
Furthermore, the original application that was put on ice while SIAC considered the certificate, is then treated as undecided for an indefinite period following a ruling by SIAC against the Secretary of State, while the Secretary of State determines whether to make a new decision. There is no question of autre fois acquit in such matters. First, the Secretary of State fails in his certificate before SIAC and then he can take an indefinite time to produce a new refusal on totally different grounds. It seems to me that that is entirely contrary to natural justice.
In considering what is being attempted here, the articles cover a far wider range of circumstances than terrorism. I shall confine my attention to Article 1(F)

1041
because Article 33 applies rather different criteria than deciding whether a person having been granted asylum should be protected from refoulement. Therefore, I would consider that it is inappropriate in the context of a decision on whether to grant asylum in the first place. That stage has not yet been reached. Article 1(F), as has been said, provides that the convention shall not apply to any person who has been convicted of a serious non-political crime in a country other than the United Kingdom.
The UNHCR handbook, to which my noble friend Lord Dholakia has already made an indirect reference, on the interpretation of the convention makes it clear that,
"in applying the exclusion clause [1(F)] it is … necessary to strike a balance between the nature of the offence presumed to be committed by the applicant and the degree of persecution feared".
In connection with that, I ask the Minister whether a conviction in another country is to be taken as conclusive? Obviously, it is not at the moment. It will depend very much on the legal system which prevails in the country where the conviction was secured and the question of proportionality, which has already been referred to, whether the applicant has a fair trial or whether the defence that he committed was outweighed by the degree of persecution that he feared. None of those considerations can be dealt with by SIAC since it has to decide only on the truth or otherwise of the certificate with which the Secretary of State presents it.
So the Secretary of State comes along and says, "This person has been convicted of such and such an offence in another country". If that is true it makes no difference what the quality is of the legal system in that country and whether or not the offence committed should have been counterbalanced by the degree of fear which that person experienced.
My noble friend gave a hypothetical and very good example which he obtained from UNHCR. I shall quote a real life example. I draw your Lordships' attention to a very disturbing case taking place at the moment in Russia. It is the retrial of Grigory Pasko, a journalist. He is charged before the Court of the Russian Pacific Fleet in Vladivostok on charges of spying. The ingredient of the offence was that in September 1997 Mr Pasko attended a meeting of the Military Council of the Pacific Fleet in order to cover it for his newspaper, Boyevaya Vaktha. He took some notes for possible later use in an article.
According to the indictment, Mr Pasko kept the notes at home. They were confiscated by the police on 20th November 1997. The prosecution claimed, without presenting any evidence, that the notes contained state secrets and that Mr Pasko had transferred the notes to Japan.
Suppose that he was convicted of this very serious offence of spying. By some means he then escaped from Russia. He presented himself at Dover and asked for asylum. He would have a conviction, assuming that that is the way that it goes, and I hope that it does not. The Secretary of State would be perfectly entitled to
1042
sign a certificate and say to SIAC that this person had been excluded from consideration from asylum in this country by one of the subparagraphs of Article 1(F).
Many other examples might spring to mind. We were earlier talking about Zimbabwe. Everyone knows that the judicial system in Zimbabwe has been seriously undermined by President Mugabe, and that it would be quite difficult in certain circumstances to get justice before the courts in that country. Someone comes here from Zimbabwe, having been a member of the opposition and convicted in the courts of an offence in connection with an election rally and asks for asylum. The Secretary of State certifies that he was convicted in Harare of causing disorder at an election meeting. He is automatically barred from any further consideration. The substantive case for his application for asylum cannot be considered.
Your Lordships could develop other examples. But we have said enough to show that this is an extraordinarily dangerous course. I hope that, having done that, we shall, unlike on other occasions, convince the Minister that the Government should think again. There has been precious little of that today—or, indeed during the Bill's previous stages. I hope that, on this matter at least, the Minister will do the sensible thing and, if he is not satisfied with the amendment, return with one that removes those dangerous powers from the Bill.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall do my best to answer some of the points raised, but I am clearly not going to convince noble Lords who give every impression that they do not think that Articles 1(F) or 33(2) should exist. That is the thrust of most of the speeches to which I have just listened. The fact is that there are international treaties and obligations that some people—I stress, some people—exploit, which sends out all the wrong messages. Those provisions are there in international treaties; we will not abuse the situation.
I draw noble Lords' attention to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, passed on 28th September, which required states to,
"take appropriate measures in conformity with the relevant provisions of national and international law, including international standards of human rights, for the purpose of ensuring that the asylum-seeker has not planned, facilitated or participated in the commission of terrorist acts".
I intend to meet noble Lords on one point, which has been legitimately made. I shall come to that in a moment.
Why do we want the clauses in the Bill? They send out a clear message that we will not tolerate people whose actions clearly exclude them from the protection of the convention. We are not rewriting the refugee convention; the provision is already there. No one wants to talk about that; people will talk only about the positive provisions for refugees with a well-founded belief. No one ever refers to the fact—there is no press comment and no speeches are made on it—that parts of the convention do not apply to certain people because they put themselves outside it.

1043
The noble Lord may shake his head, but the provision would not be there if it were not for the fact that when the convention was drawn up it was envisaged that some people would by their own actions put themselves outside its protection. All that we are doing is drawing attention to the fact that we are not prepared to have people abusing our asylum system when they have put themselves outside the convention's protection. How we operate that system is important.
Some noble Lords have argued that the provisions are detrimental to the standing of the convention. I do not agree. It has been suggested that it is not possible to come to a view about whether Articles 1(F) or 33(2) apply, except in the context of considering the whole asylum claim. We think that concern misplaced. In considering whether Article 1, for example, was relevant, we would consider any relevant information.
For example, if there were grounds for believing that a person was involved in terrorist activities and that person sought to argue that his involvement had been unwitting or had been a marginal involvement which he had undertaken only as a result of coercion, we would consider those points as part of the assessment of the claim and whether to issue a certificate. We would not just take ill-considered decisions on exclusion without hearing the person's case. Nothing in the clause is intended to produce such an approach. I must say that noble Lords are reading more into the clause than is there.
Others may be concerned that by focusing on the exclusion aspects, we will ignore or pay less attention to humanitarian factors. It is true, of course, that we would not consider whether a person had a well-founded fear of persecution under the refugee convention—a point to which I shall return in the debate on Clause 35. But we would give proper consideration to factors put forward by the applicant as to why he should not be removed from the United Kingdom. That would include any European Convention on Human Rights issues raised.
Others would argue that it is pointless treating asylum claims of certain individuals in that way when their removal may not be possible because of considerations such as Article 3 of the ECHR. That has already been argued outside debate on the Bill. It has been argued in this House since I have been a Member that if we cannot remove people we should simply weigh them in, accept them and not bother about anything else. We are not prepared to do that. Just because we know we cannot remove them does not mean to say that we should not go through a full claim so that their status is made clear. Different countries are involved and times change. Removal may not be possible in some decades, but it may be possible in others. People may be able to return home when the situation changes.
We do not therefore agree that that is a reason to take no action as regards the asylum claim. Refugee status is an important one and we want to protect the integrity of the convention by making proper use of its
1044
exclusion provisions. We are talking about the exclusion provisions in the convention, not those in the Bill. They already exist and have done so for decades.
We are sending out that clear message. It is not intended to be abusive. Noble Lords have given two examples in terms of consideration but I cannot comment on them from the Dispatch Box. One is hypothetical and one is real. I accept that. However, the fact is that we are not merely going to say, "You have been convicted and therefore you are out with". We shall give proper consideration to the case before the certificate is issued. That may lead to the certificate not being issued.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. The noble Lord said that all these issues would have been considered before the certificate was issued. That is not stated on the face of the Bill and I am sure that he could go some way towards reassuring the House. Perhaps between now and Third Reading he can devise some words which would require the Secretary of State to go through all the considerations of proportionality which we have discussed prior to issuing the certificate.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are not in non-listening mode and every suggestion we can make sense of we will consider. I take it as axiomatic that those considerations will be in the mind of the Home Secretary before he issues the certificate. It is not a question merely of signing the certificate because someone says, "This person is not bona fide". We will look at the case. On the other hand, if there is anything we can do with the wording to meet that point if it is not implicit, we shall do so.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords—
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not going to be able to get to Amendment No. 35 and I have got something good to say about it.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am sorry, carry on.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I want only to comment en the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Clause 35 as drafted looks as though it is free-standing. There is nothing in it which directly connects it to Clause 34. As a lay person and not a lawyer—we have to take advice on these matters—I would be happier if it were connected to Clause 34 in an explicit way if that can be done. It is not our intention to abuse the legislation. We are examining it between now and Third Reading or before the Bill returns to the other place.
I do not believe that we can return to the original drafting of the clauses. They were separated for clarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said. However, if there is a way of connecting them which retains the policy objectives so that people can be assured that Clause 35 would not be abused—no one has said that but the implication is that if Clause 35 were free-standing it could be applied in other circumstances—

1045
we shall consider that. It is contained in the Bill for the reason which applies to all the other provisions. If we can find a way of tying Clause 35 into Clause 34 which does not cause us problems with policy objectives, we shall examine that. I had discussions with officials before the debate took place.
Furthermore, I reiterate the point I made about the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The rules and procedure under which the Home Secretary would issue a certificate would cover those points and if there were any way in which we could achieve additional clarification we would certainly consider it.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I believe that all noble Lords are grateful to the Minister for his response to the debate thus far. Speaking also as a layman, the point at issue is that in the view of many noble Lords the House is dealing with rushed legislation which is not entirely clear. If the Minister can somehow meet some of the points raised in a way that draws Clauses 34 and 35 together and reassure noble Lords about how the legislation will be put into practice, it will go a long way to meet the concerns expressed so far.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I can only reiterate what I have said. We are actively looking at one of the two points anyway, and, given the way the matter has been raised, we shall see whether we can do something about the other. It is not our intention to send out the wrong signals or to build Fortress Britain. Our aim is to ensure that the rules under which we implement the convention are not abused by others who have the kind of background that is implicit in what we have said.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I should very much like consideration to be given to those two points. If the Minister can communicate with us before Third Reading it will give those noble Lords who disagree with him an opportunity to move the appropriate amendments. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 [Construction]:
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Destruction of fingerprints]:
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 36:
Leave out Clause 36.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, while we accept that in relation to asylum seekers suspected of involvement in terrorism the keeping of fingerprints may be justified, we do not accept that it is justified in relation to the 99 per cent of innocent refugees. Therefore, the clause should be restricted to those to which Clause 21 applies. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I can only repeat that, while it may not apply to 99 per cent of cases, the
1046
provision allows for the retention for 10 years of certain fingerprints taken in asylum and immigration cases which were previously destroyed once the matter had been dealt with. Since 1993 all asylum seekers have been fingerprinted. The process is now digitalised and there is a good deal of technology involved in it. If an asylum seeker wins his case and becomes a refugee he is no longer an asylum seeker and his fingerprints will ordinarily be destroyed. If an individual fails to become a refugee his fingerprints are retained. Cases have arisen in which people have become refugees and reapplied as asylum seekers to create different identities with new passports and new social security numbers, for whatever reason.
As I believe I said at Second Reading, on my first visit to Croydon someone was picked up following an intervention. This clause is a precautionary measure and does not affect anyone. The power arises only if someone has already been fingerprinted under one identity and turns up to make another claim for asylum. It beggars belief but it happens. With the available technology, even a small number of cases can be prevented. For that reason, we believe that the clause should remain in the Bill.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the Minister gave that example on a previous occasion. The number of cases that we are talking about is very low. However, in view of the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 [Forfeiture of terrorist cash]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 37:
Page 1, line 9, leave out "a magistrates' court" and insert "the High Court"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I realise that we are operating under a fairly tight time schedule and so I shall speak only to those amendments that I consider to be of particular importance. As to the group of amendments led by Amendment No. 37, here we are concerned with the appropriate court in which to make an application for a restraint of cash order and, subsequently, a forfeiture order. We recognise the need for such a procedure. However, as I said in Committee, the magistrates would be faced with difficult questions of fact and law. We believe that the nature and complexity of those questions require the skills of a High Court Chancery judge. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I respect what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and so I, too, shall be brief. However, if I had realised that this matter would be raised again on Report, I would have asked all the Members of this House who are magistrates to be

1047
present at what is a fundamental attack on the competence of magistrates. I think that I should have said that the last time round.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to intervene.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that we are at the Report stage.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, perhaps I may say with enormous respect to the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip that I was very brief in my opening remarks. I simply want to say that one of the consequences of House of Lords reform is that very few active magistrates are left in your Lordships' House.
Lord McNally: My Lords, we are approaching the hour that I warned the noble Lord about some 12 hours ago.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I want to support the magistrates because I have good friends who are magistrates. Further, I want to make the point that this is not a cheap exercise, for the reason that I shall give. Since 1991, in the drugs-related cash scheme, for which proceedings are always held in magistrates' courts, we have seen no evidence of any problems. No such problems have been adduced in the Chamber tonight. Indeed, last year some £4.5 million worth of drug-related cash was forfeited via the magistrates' courts. That is not a cheap point; £4.5 million worth of positive credit has been achieved by the work going on in the magistrates' courts.
The new provisions should assist the magistrates in determining whether cash sums represent the proceeds of terrorism. Previously magistrates would have needed to work that out for themselves. These matters are suitable for magistrates' courts because the issues at stake are generally straightforward. We think that moving the scheme to the High Court would undermine it. Further, as I said on the last occasion, it would increase the expense of running the scheme and might cause problems as regards meeting the 48-hour deadline for the first hearing.
I am sorry to be so negative in response to the noble Lord on this matter. However, the issues are the same and thus the reply must be the same.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I confirm the Minister's description of what he has said as "negative". I should like to say to noble Lords that I am a great supporter of the lay magistracy. Indeed, earlier this week I spent a considerable time supporting magistrates in a debate. Nevertheless, I believe that the complex financial issues that will be raised by the necessity to trace and subrogate will require a Chancery judge. If the Bill has a long life, the Government will need to reconsider the use of magistrates for this purpose. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Forfeiture of terrorist cash]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 39:
Page 75, line 11, at end insert "whether legal tender or not"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 39 again raises issues connected with banknotes that are not regarded as legal tender, including counterfeit currency and, in particular, the question as to whether they come within the ambit of the Bill in relation to forfeiture, seizure and the detention of terrorist cash. The noble and learned Lord promised to return to these matters on Report.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, is anxious to hear about the problems connected with German currency and that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, wishes to address the matter of Scottish banknotes. I should also like to know whether the Minister has thought again about the wisdom of relying on the existing criminal law to deal with counterfeit money—does it really enjoy such expeditious and complete measures of control as the Government are proposing in the Bill?
As far Amendment No. 47 is concerned, I was puzzled by the Minister's response to this amendment at Committee stage. The amendment seeks to ensure that the civil procedure to forfeit cash cannot take place until,
"criminal proceedings have been concluded".
We are of the view that an application for civil forfeiture should be made only after a determination in the related criminal proceedings. We do not believe that forfeiture without compensation is an appropriate remedy for someone who has acquired a sum of money innocently, and for consideration, even though that money had its origins in a terrorist act.
Amendment No. 52 concerns exceptional loss. It inquires about the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for a court to award compensation. In our view, if under paragraph 10(4) of Schedule 1,
"the applicant has suffered loss as a result of the detention of the cash",
and the court is satisfied that it would be reasonable to award compensation, then compensation should be awarded.
The Minister said, by contrast, that the Bill was correct in stipulating that the circumstances should be exceptional. I was concerned by the way in which the Minister justified this provision. He said that authorised officers may be fearful of making seizure orders because they might be responsible for large pay-outs. As I said in Committee, I cannot accept that public officials would be influenced to behave in that way. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I should like to add one or two comments in regard to Amendment No. 39, which has been prefaced as the "Scottish banknotes amendment". I remind the House that not only do banks in Scotland issue notes, but so do banks in Northern Ireland, in the bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey and in the Isle of Man. It would be sensible to

1049
clarify this issue now and avoid future arguments about the legitimacy of these currencies. They are acceptable tender but they are not legal tender, and it would be wrong for anyone to get the impression that they were safe homes for terrorist cash. The Minister promised to go away and think about the matter. I look forward to hearing what his thoughts came to.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to come back to these amendments. My answers in regard to Amendment No. 39 may sound the same, but they are a result of the consideration given—even in the time available—to some of the issues raised. This gives us an opportunity to have another think about the drafting of the Bill.
Amendment No. 39 takes into consideration the possibility of an authorised officer coming across counterfeit cash. The key objective is to take terrorist cash which is legal tender out of circulation. If the cash is not legal tender, there are other powers to deal with it. It probably is not much use to a terrorist anyway, so no particular purpose will be achieved by the amendment. If the cash was known to be counterfeit, it would be liable to seizure under the normal criminal law for the appropriate offence, whatever it may be.
Where the cash was not known to be counterfeit, it might be seized unwittingly in accordance with the Schedule 1 scheme, but, once it was discovered to be counterfeit, it would revert to being dealt with by other powers. We do not believe that there is any need for the cash seizure scheme to cover cash which is not legal tender because powers already exist to deal with such cash and to remove it from circulation. Scottish banknotes could be seized like any other currency and are covered by the definition of "cash" in paragraph (a).
The issue was raised of the European currencies that are soon to be redundant. The definition catches notes and coins if they have value as a current medium of exchange. It follows that at a certain point currencies converting to the euro will lose their value and will become collector's items only—one has only to go to the Travel Office in the Commons and look at the box in which coins are collected for charity. As collector's items only, they will not be seizable. The issue, therefore, is about alerting authorised officers to the dates on which the currencies lose their value. The dates are not all the same, which complicates matters. That is the only issue at stake—namely, the point at which the cash ceases to be legal tender. After that, it is not much use either to ourselves or to the terrorists.
Amendment No. 47 seeks to link the seizure of terrorist cash with criminal proceedings. The key point to remember is that this is a procedure for the forfeiture of terrorist cash which stands alone from the criminal proceedings. It is quite separate from the main thrust. It is about forfeiture only.
We are aware of the arguments advanced in Committee about linking seizure to Clause 1(1), setting out the circumstances under which the cash may be seized. But we do not see why this should mean
1050
that the procedures themselves should await the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The procedure for the seizure of cash stands on its own. We believe that that is by far the best way to operate it.
As regards Amendment No. 52, I note what noble Lords have said. Examples were given in Committee. Those whose cash is detained but not ultimately made the subject of forfeiture will already have been paid interest, because the cash will have been put in an interest-bearing account after a few hours. If their cash has not been put in an interest-bearing account, the person may be paid compensation in lieu of interest in accordance with the relevant paragraph in the schedule.
The amendment is concerned with the circumstances in which the additional compensation may be paid. We believe that it should be paid where the circumstances are "exceptional". In Committee, I gave the example of a business deal that could not be concluded, although the precise circumstances would be for the courts to determine.
I also indicated in Committee and prompted debate on the fact that a lower test for compensation may result in authorised officers being deterred from making seizures for fear of being responsible for large pay-outs. That is not an attack on public officials, nor does it seek to undermine them in their work. I suspect that police officers come across this kind of situation every day and have to decide whether to issue a caution. It depends on the circumstances.
In circumstances where the test may result in a larger claim—where the circumstances are on the margin—the officer may decide that it is not worth the risk for that reason if the test is lower. That might be an unwelcome side-effect of the amendment. I cannot give examples as I do not know whether records are kept on this matter; namely, on the decisions of Customs and other officers making inquiries and investigations on whether to use their statutory powers. They are all governed by the legislation. Much of it gives authorised officers a degree of discretion as to how to proceed. The officer is the person on the front line.
I cannot expand on the situation any more than I did in Committee. We have re-examined the issue, but we are satisfied that the provision in the Bill as drafted will operate efficiently.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am deeply unsatisfied with the Minister's reply to all three amendments. I simply cannot understand why he is not delighted with Amendment No. 39 and with the expression,
"whether legal tender or not".
It would solve, most elegantly, all the problems about which noble Lords have expressed concern.
It is clear that the provisions in the criminal law will not be as effective with respect to counterfeit money as they would be with the amendment that is proposed; and with great respect to the noble Lord, I do not think he answered the questions that were posed by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, in Committee.

1051
As far as the other two amendments are concerned, both of them are about the same issue—and that is making sure that innocent parties who find themselves in possession of funds that are connected with terrorism are properly compensated. In my respectful submission to the Minister, his arguments give no comfort to such persons. In the circumstances, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40 to 52 not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 53:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"OVERSEAS FUNDING FOR TERRORIST-RELATED POLITICAL PARTIES

(1) No funding shall be permissible from outside the United Kingdom for any political party or organisation which the Secretary of State reasonably believes to be, or to be closely connected with, a terrorist organisation, or any of whose members are also members of a terrorist organisation.

(2) Section 70 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41) (special provision for Northern Ireland parties) shall cease to have effect.

(3) Any order in force which has been made by the Secretary of State under section 70(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 prior to the coming into force of this Act and which has the effect of—

(a) extending in relation to a Northern Ireland party the categories of permissible donors specified in section 54(2) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (permissible donors), or

(b) disapplying, in relation to a Northern Ireland party, any specified provisions of Part IV of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc.),

shall cease to have effect on the commencement of this Act."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak to this amendment very briefly. I realise that the House is very short of time. Hence I will be brief. We on these benches have stood unequivocally behind the Prime Minister in the weeks since September 11th in his fight against terrorism, and we continue to do so. We also agree with him that one of the key weapons in the fight against terrorism is to choke off the international flow of funds to organisations which are terrorist organisations or which support such terrorist organisations.
Once more the House voted last week to remove from the Bill the artificial distinction between two types of terrorism, which we welcome. As the House well knows, terrorist organisations like the Real IRA and the Provisional IRA are closely linked to overseas terrorist organisations.
These amendments aim to end the exemption under the political parties Act and render impermissible any funding from outside the UK to terrorist or terrorist-related organisations. Surely the logic of this must be absolutely clear: that is the right course of action. There is no normality if Sinn Fein and Northern Ireland parties alone of all those in the United Kingdom are allowed to receive foreign funds.
1052
As time is short, I make this statement. The arguments are very well understood. I sincerely hope that the Government will not reject this amendment. As I am sure that noble Lords on the Government Benches will know, I am pretty passionate about it and I believe, and those of us who take an interest in Northern Ireland believe, that this is a right, sensible and, in fact, the only road to go unless we are to follow the Mandelson road. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall be brief. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, does not criticise me for this but, to be honest, this Bill is not a suitable vehicle for changing our electoral law. That is the reality. We have been criticised throughout for what—
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but it is nothing to do with electoral law. It is to do with political parties' funding.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is elect oral law. It has got to be. Sometimes I have had a hard time in the last six days making the connection between crime, the funding of crime, the funding of terrorism and linking them all together. I cannot do it. I cannot link electoral law and electoral practices in the funding of political parties to this Bill. That just does not fit in this Bill. I have got nothing else to say about it.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am sorry to hear the Minister's response and I apologise if I was a bit abrupt in my hurry to get the deal done. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment and reserve the right to bring it back at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Terrorist property: amendments]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 85, line 19, after "that" insert "each of the requirements for the making of the order is fulfilled"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 60, 62 and 64 in this group, which reflect my greatest concerns.
Amendment No. 60 deals with the matters that must be satisfied before a judge can make an account monitoring order. As I said in Committee, we believe that the judge should be satisfied not only that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person specified in the application has committed a terrorist offence, but also that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accounts information will be of substantial value to the investigators. The Minister replied that the grounds would not be unreasonable. En those circumstances, what possible objection could there be to accepting the amendment?
On Amendment No. 62, in Committee the Minister was reassuring on the appropriate level of protection for legal professional privilege. However, if I recall correctly, I asked him to reflect before Report on whether he felt that the Bill's silence on the point was sufficient protection in the context of the legislation, when many other rights normally accorded to litigants were being suspended or abandoned.

1053
Amendment No. 64 concerns the offence of failing to disclose information relating to certain criminal activities under the Act. It would impose a duty on a person to disclose information that led him to suspect that another individual had committed a terrorist offence. We are perfectly content with the new offence; but, again, as I said in Committee, we see no point in imposing a duty to disclose certain information if it is already in the public domain. Moreover, I question whether the circumstances are appropriate for reversing the burden of proof. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall do my best to separate out the amendments that the noble Lord has referred to specifically, because I do not want to digress. I hope that I get the information right on Amendment No. 60—if I do not, I shall take advice—because it is mixed up in my notes on the whole group.
Amendment No. 60 takes the wording from the production orders in paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to the Terrorism Act 2000. It would introduce a higher threshold in that the account information must be likely to be of substantial value to the investigation. The difference in the threshold is justified on two bases. First, account monitoring orders are more closely connected with the financial orders, the provision for which is in the model for the requirements in the Bill. We think that it is right that the two orders should be available on a similar basis. Secondly, an account monitoring order will necessarily be more speculative than a production order. The aim of an account monitoring order is to find evidence of a transaction that has not yet happened, whereas a production order is focused on material that already exists or will soon exist. Therefore it is possible to be more specific about the value of the investigation material sought by way of a production order. We see great value to the police, the courts and financial institutions in framing the two powers in similar terms.
The difference between the Government's approach and that adopted by the noble Lord is essentially twofold. First, the court would not be able to make an order unless it was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting the person specified of a terrorist offence. Secondly, the police would have to demonstrate that the information to be obtained would be of substantial value to the terrorist.
In the first case, there is an assumption that the person specified will be suspected of an offence. That may be true in the majority of cases, but it will not necessarily be so. The police may wish to obtain information relating to transactions on an account when the account holder—that is, the person specified—may well be innocent and may be being used by others. The amendment would preclude the use of the order in such cases. Even in those cases where the person specified is the suspect, the requirement to have reasonable grounds would preclude the use of this investigatory tool at an early stage in the investigation when it might not be possible at that point to establish such reasonable grounds.
1054
Regarding the other two amendments which we debated in Committee, I had hoped that I had offered comfort to people who thought they might be in such a position. The amendments seek to provide that a person does not commit an offence by failing to disclose information which is already in the public domain. The Bill already provides that a person does not commit the offence if he has a reasonable excuse for failing to disclose. As I indicated in Committee, that would be capable of covering the case where a person believed the information to be so widely known it did not need to be passed to the police. The provision provides a way to assess whether that person would be relieved from his criminal liability; that is, was it reasonable of him to act as he did? That is the proper way to deal with what the amendment refers to as information "in the public domain".
The noble Lord talked in Committee about the reverse burden of proof and discussed the normal circumstances in which the courts are prepared to tolerate reverse burdens of proof. For the reasons stated, we do not believe that that argument is valid. There is a good defence set out in the legislation for people who genuinely believe that the relevant information is in the public domain. It would be very easy to make that defence in whatever circumstances anyone can think of. If someone is accused of withholding information, and he or she says they believed it to be in the public domain, they will be able to point to it, whether it is in the form of a transcript, press cutting, media monitoring or whatever. They will have evidence that it is in the public domain. Therefore, there will be a perfectly honourable defence to put before the courts in those circumstances.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I draw some comfort from the last point that he made. As to his response to the first amendment to which I referred, I shall look at it carefully and see whether it might be appropriate to bring it back at Third Reading. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 55 to 64 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 91, line 8, at end insert—

"(13A) If the first and second conditions are satisfied and the person concerned discloses the information or other matter in satisfaction of the third condition, that person shall not disclose that he has done so to the person whom he knows or suspects or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that he has committed an offence under any of sections 15 to 18.

(13B) If a person discloses information or other matter in satisfaction of the third condition and does not inform the person whom he knows or suspects or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that he has committed an offence under any of sections 15 to 18 that he has done so, it shall be a defence in any civil or criminal proceedings that the person disclosing the information or other matter did not inform such other person that he had done so in order to comply with the restriction in subsection (13A)."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that a person who suspects another of committing an offence does not "tip off" that other

1055
person—to use the Minister's words in Committee—about the fact that the police have also been informed. The Minister believes that the answer to that lies in Section 18 of the Terrorism Act, which provides that it is an offence for a person to enter into, or become concerned in, an arrangement which facilitates the retention or control by another of terrorist property. In my submission, this is incorrect. Section 18 simply is not wide enough to encompass the circumstances to which I refer in the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as I hope that I said in Committee, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness has a sensible aim. It seeks to ensure that a person who knows or suspects another of committing an offence does not "tip off" the other person about the fact that the police have been informed. The amendment provides protection to the person disclosing information to the police should civil or criminal proceedings be brought against him for doing so.
The first aim is already covered. As the noble Lord indicated that I said in Committee, it is covered by Section 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which provides that it is an offence for a person to enter into or become concerned in an arrangement which facilitates the retention or control by another of terrorist property. We genuinely believe that that meets the concerns behind the noble Lord's amendment.
The second aim is already provided for in new Section 21B, where a person discloses information to the police. The second part of the amendment is therefore unnecessary. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that response. I shall reflect on what he said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Clause 4 [Power to make order]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 3, line 8, leave out "United Kingdom's economy (or part of it)" and insert "economy (or part of the economy) of the United Kingdom or a country or territory outside the United Kingdom".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 66 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 67. The argument here has already been made in Committee and, I am sure, is fresh in the Minister's memory. Why should this power be limited to protect the United Kingdom economy and United Kingdom nationals and residents? What about funds in the United Kingdom that are free for use in terrorist attacks aimed at the United States economy or United States residents? As I said in Committee, global terrorism needs to be tackled globally. We all know that the United States is the prime target for Al'Qaeda. Therefore, why cannot the Government take powers to freeze funds that are designed for terrorist use outside the United Kingdom?
1056
So far as concerns Amendment No. 67 this amendment is similar to the one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in Committee—we believe that the power to make an order must be constrained in some way, or, at least, to a greater extent than it is in the current draft of the Bill. As I said in Committee, it is not enough simply to show that the action about which a complaint is made will cause some damage to the United Kingdom economy. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these are "pushmi-pullyu" amendments. They push in one direction and pull in another. They merely cancel each other out. I hope that Amendment No. 66, which is concerned with widening the conditions for freezing orders to include threats to other countries, recognises the fact that there are strong powers to impose sanctions unilaterally. They are designed to protect our national interests but they are not appropriate measures to counter threats to other countries.
The powers will be available where an attack aimed primarily at another state also affects the United Kingdom. That, of course, is the example of September 11th, which clearly affected both United Kingdom lives and the United Kingdom economy. Other powers are available to support states which face similar threats. We have continued to implement sanctions agreed by the United Nations or in the European Union. We have also laid an Order in Council to allow enforcement in the United Kingdom of forfeiture and restraint orders made in designated countries, to include the European Union and the G7 states. Therefore, the amendment seems to be unnecessary in the light of the international powers which are available.
On the other hand, Amendment No. 67 limits the conditions only to unlawful or intentional actions against the United Kingdom economy. In that case, we do need a broad and flexible power if we are to respond effectively to ever-changing threats to our national interests. We appreciate that the conditions of Clause
4 might also be met in situations where we would not wish to act; for example, where a foreign firm was damaging United Kingdom industry through legitimate trading activity. But here, of course, the overriding obligations of European and international law, the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the requirements for extensive scrutiny of any order will ensure that the powers are not abused.
The proposed amendment would not contribute any additional safeguard and could hamper use of the power where it was entirely appropriate. The primary subjects of the freezing order would not be subject to UK law, begging the question against whose laws their actions would be judged unlawful. That is not resolved in the amendment.
We might wish to make an order even where there was no intention of damaging the economy. It is arguable whether even the attacks on the World Trade Centre fell into that category. The built-in safeguards will be more reliable than such a subjective test. The

1057
Treasury must base its decisions on a reasonable belief that the conditions are met. Orders are to be made by affirmative resolution.
Amendment No. 68 would widen the trigger to cover threats to persons rather than to the lives of UK nationals. We must ensure that the use of the powers is proportionate to their serious nature but the amendment would widen the power unacceptably. The current drafting will catch actions such as kidnapping or serious injury, where there would certainly be a threat to life even if the threat were not carried out. If we change the wording to cover less serious threats to persons, that would go beyond the purpose of the emergency measures. We would find ourselves dealing with much smaller offences—for which these draconian measures would not be appropriate. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, is the Minister saying that Amendment No. 66 is unnecessary because, in circumstances where there was an intention to damage the US economy, the Bill would fasten on the funds in any case?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am saying that we have other powers to support states that face similar threats. I gave the example of the sanctions agreed by the United Nations or the European Union and the powers we are getting to allow enforcement of forfeiture and restraint orders. We are not helpless in the face of threats to other states but powers under UK law should be confined to the United Kingdom.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am surprised by that reply. After all, we are allies with the United States and have been close to them for the whole of the 20th century. Is it not government policy to take as stern a view of terrorist threats to the United States as to the United Kingdom? I accept entirely the Minister's observation that there are powers in other legislation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is why we took the lead in implementing Article 5.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, can those powers be effected as speedily—and are they as comprehensive as the powers in the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I shall take the Minister's word for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Contents of order]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 3, line 36, at end insert "in connection with the action referred to in section 4"
1058
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the interests of the House, in concluding these proceedings by 11 o'clock, I shall address only Amendment No. 70. The Minister will recall that as being Amendment No. 42 in Committee and that in moving it, I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. The Minister replied:
"We all agree with the principle. Our view is that that is the effect of the current drafting read in accordance with the Interpretation Act 1978. However, we agree that the Bill should expressly provide that in making changes to freezing orders the Treasury must have a belief, as well as stating that it has a belief, that the relevant conditions are met, and that that belief should be reasonable. We shall table amendments on Report to meet that point".—[Official Report, 28/11/01; col. 358.]
I thought at that stage that the Minister was referring to Amendment No. 42—now Amendment No. 70—as well as to the other two amendments. However, he made it clear later in Committee that that was not the case. I therefore return to Amendment No. 70. I ask the Minister, since I had not understood this in the context of his reply in Committee, why is he not prepared to accept the insertion of the word "reasonable" in the circumstances to which the amendment would give rise? I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is of course quite right to say that I gave an undertaking to introduce amendments on Report. They are Amendments Nos. 74 to 77. I then woke up a little late to the fact that we did not agree with Amendment No. 42, as it then was, and I dissociated myself from that amendment.
I spent many happy hours in opposition trying to insert the word "reasonably" into legislation, and I have spent many happy hours in government trying to resist its insertion into legislation. In either capacity, I have never really understood the basis on which parliamentary counsel sometimes thinks that it is reasonable to include "reasonable" and sometimes thinks that it is not. But I do my best.
Lord Carter: My Lords, which side is my noble friend on?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am against the amendment.
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 provides for a freezing order to require specified people, engaged in business in the regulated sector, to disclose any dealings with the subjects of the order. Disclosures are to be made to the Treasury as soon as is practicable. It is debatable whether the proposed amendment adds anything to the sense of the provision. We consider that "practicable" involves a clear test and we should oppose any further qualification. This is an occasion on which I understand what parliamentary counsel is doing.
The obligation can cover banks and other financial institutions engaging in activities that are already regulated in respect of money laundering. Disclosures can provide essential information for terrorist investigation. We consider the requirements laid on

1059
them in the schedule to be entirely consistent with the standards of due diligence that are expected of the regulated sector.
Lord McNally: My Lords, although I understand the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is sprinkling qualifications through the Bill, does the Minister agree that a change of attitude on the part of the regulated is needed? It is clear that our financial services industries have been used—often unknowingly—as part of the terrorist network. There has to be an end to what the police call wilful ignorance in handling these matters, and there has to be a change of psychology through the industries so that they are not used by terrorists in that way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rather suspect that the amendments for which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, voted, and which were agreed to earlier this afternoon, give the lie to what he has just said. I rather suspect that by undesirably and damagingly limiting various parts of the Bill to explicit terrorist activities rather than to crimes that may assist terrorist activity, he has damaged the case that he is now reasonably making. The minor point that I am making on this minor amendment—I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will be offended by that description—is that "practicable" is a perfectly good word and does not need to be qualified by the word "reasonable".
Lord McNally: My Lords, I should have known better than to proffer an olive branch to the Minister at a quarter to eleven; I should have known that he would hit me over the head with it!
10 45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, bearing in mind the doctrine of Pepper v. Hart, if the Minister does not think that "reasonably" adds anything to "practicable" I am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Freezing orders]:
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Review of order]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert "and must revoke such freezing order if it ceases to have reasonable grounds to consider that the conditions set out in section 4 are fulfilled"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the Minister knows there appears to be no protection in the Bill as drafted against the Treasury letting a freezing order run for the full two years even if the reasons for it have fallen away. Amendment No. 71 requires the Treasury to lift the order when the conditions are no longer fulfilled. Therefore the victim of the order has some legal recourse if the Treasury fails to act.
1060
The Minister responded in Committee but was not prepared to accept the amendment. I said:
"If the Treasury ceases to have reasonable grounds, in those circumstances, it is hard to imagine any conclusion that the Treasury could reach other than revocation. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to reflect further on this clause before he returns to your Lordships' House at Report stage".
The Minister replied,
"I am glad to do that. I always reflect on these matters".—[Official Report, 28/11/01; col. 362.]
I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, what I did not say is that I tend to reflect at four o'clock in the morning when I suffer particularly from insomnia. It is not very productive and it has not been very productive on this occasion.
Amendment No. 71 provides that the Treasury must revoke an order when the conditions are no longer met. As drafted, the Bill includes a provision stating that the Treasury must keep a freezing order under review. This is a meaningful commitment. As I said in Committee, where there is no longer a need for a freezing order the Treasury will revoke it. Ongoing review will also provide a basis for amending an order where that is appropriate. But an obligation to revoke an order when the conditions in Clause 4 were no longer met could seriously reduce the effectiveness of the power. We can imagine situations where the original reasons for freezing funds no longer apply but there are other good grounds, which have arisen Knee the original order, for the order to remain in force.
For example, an overseas terrorist who was the subject of a freezing order might move to the United Kingdom. A freezing order cannot be made in respect of a UK terrorist. While often it would be appropriate to revoke the freezing order and use the UK criminal law to target that person, revocation of the order should not be an obligation.
However, we appreciate that this is a serious power. Freezing orders should not be permitted to stay on the statute book indefinitely. That is why we have taken the unusual step of providing for ongoing review by the Treasury with a freezing order lapsing automatically after two years. The order will also be open to judicial review on an ongoing basis. It is not right to say, as did the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that the victim has no legal redress.
Amendment No. 72 provides that the Treasury may renew an order. Again, we accept in principle that it may be appropriate to renew an order after the maximum period of two years is complete. Of course it must. But we would wish such a renewal to be subject to the same standards of parliamentary scrutiny as the original making of the order. There is nothing to prevent the Treasury replacing a freezing order under the current drafting. Amendment No. 72 is not only unnecessary; it would weaken parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment No. 73—the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, did not speak to it—is about publication in—the Gazette. There is no benefit in requiring orders in the Gazette. That would be a very unusual step. That is not the normal procedure with secondary legislation.

1061
Under the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, all statutory instruments are sent immediately after being made to the Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament to be printed and sold as soon as possible. As an operational matter—I made this point in debate in Committee—financial institutions are notified of the order and the requirement to freeze funds by a circular from the Bank of England. Surely, that is better than placing it in the Gazette, which is read only for very specific purposes.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I have not spoken to a number of amendments, as I said earlier, because of the time constraint. The wisdom of my approach is borne out by the clock.
I have one reflection on Amendment No. 71. Would the Minister agree that if the Treasury ceases to have reasonable grounds to continue to freeze funds, it is hard to imagine any conclusion that the Treasury could reach other than revocation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that could well be true, but that is not the point. The amendment imposes an obligation to revoke an order. As I understand the question, if the original reasons for freezing the funds no longer apply, we would have to revoke. I do not agree with that because there may be other good grounds which did not exist at the outset for an order to stay in force.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, that is a most interesting response to my further question. My understanding of my amendment is that it would cover any grounds and not just the original grounds.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are in danger of getting into a Committee discussion and I should not do that. The amendment states,
"if it ceases to have reasonable grounds".
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I would say,
"ceases to have any reasonable grounds".
1062
But we are on Report. I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Duration of order]:
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Procedure for making certain amending orders]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 5, line 24, leave out "further order states that the Treasury" and insert "Treasury reasonably".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 77. It has been made clear in debates on previous amendments that we tabled these amendments in response to the proposals made at the Committee stage that the Treasury should be required to have a reasonable belief that the relevant conditions are met when amending a freezing order as well as when making it. I said that we agreed to that in principle and that is provided for in these four amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 75 to 77:
Page 5, line 26, at end insert "and the further order contains a statement of the Treasury's belief"
Page 5, line 34, leave out "further order states that the Treasury" and insert "Treasury reasonably"
Page 5, line 36, at end insert "and the further order contains a statement of the Treasury's belief".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at six minutes before eleven o'clock.

  House of Lords Reform
  House of Lords Reform
  Baroness Morgan of Huyton
  Baroness Morgan of Huyton
  Toys Supplied with Foodstuffs: Safety
  Toys Supplied with Foodstuffs: Safety
  HM Prison Blantyre House
  HM Prison Blantyre House
  Football (Disorder) Act 2000: Detentions
  Football (Disorder) Act 2000: Detentions
  Sentencing Policy and Prison Occupancy
  Sentencing Policy and Prison Occupancy
  RAF Gliders: Location
  RAF Gliders: Location
  Port Services: Proposed EU Directive
  Port Services: Proposed EU Directive
  Bus Lane Contraventions: Penalty Charges
  Bus Lane Contraventions: Penalty Charges
  Mobile Phones: Use while Driving
  Mobile Phones: Use while Driving
  Strategic Rail Authority: Freight Competition
  Strategic Rail Authority: Freight Competition
  Porton Down: Security
  Porton Down: Security
  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Hardwood and Softwood Thinnings
  Hardwood and Softwood Thinnings
  Foot and Mouth: Appeal Costs
  Foot and Mouth: Appeal Costs
  DEFRA: Exeter Office
  DEFRA: Exeter Office
  Noise Pollution: Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Noise Pollution: Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Rural Payments Agency
  Rural Payments Agency
  Ofcom: Disabled and Elderly Consumers
  Ofcom: Disabled and Elderly Consumers
  Physical Activity for the Over-50s: Cross-departmental Group
  Physical Activity for the Over-50s: Cross-departmental Group
  Works of Art: Government Indemnity Scheme
  Works of Art: Government Indemnity Scheme
  Business Tourism
  Business Tourism
  "Music in Europe" Initiative
  "Music in Europe" Initiative
  Regional Cultural Consortiums
  Regional Cultural Consortiums
  World Athletics Championships 2005
  World Athletics Championships 2005