Sitting of 13 December 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Abattoirs
    Mr. David Cameron: What steps she is taking to assist small abattoirs; and if she will make a statement. [20554]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): As we announced in the rural White Paper last year, agriculture Departments in England, Scotland and Wales have agreed to transfer £8.7 million to the Food Standards Agency for the three financial years 2001–02 to 2003–04, enabling the agency significantly to reduce inspection charges levied on many small and medium meat plants.
    Mr. Cameron: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but is she aware that in recent years the overall costs of small and medium abattoirs such as Mutch Meats in Witney have accelerated because of the need to remove waste, the BSE regulations, meat hygiene inspection charges and additional costs from foot and mouth? Does she agree that they need short-term help because of foot and mouth, but that in the longer term a proper answer is required to make those businesses viable? When will we get that answer? In particular, will it form part of Sir Don Curry's report? The terms of reference are not entirely clear. It is important that we examine abattoirs carefully to ensure that we do not end up with just a few mega-slaughterhouses.
    Margaret Beckett: Of course, I am aware that there have been a lot of problems in the abattoir sector, which I agree have been exacerbated by foot and mouth. It is not for me to say what Sir Don Curry's commission will consider—it is independent—but it is possible that it will examine what is happening in a number of abattoirs. I am not sure whether it will look more widely at the overall climate, but I am sure that it will take heed of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
    David Taylor: Is it possible to enter into negotiations with our European Union partners to review and revise meat hygiene laws to get a better balance between high standards and economic viability?
    984
    Are there ways in which we can encourage farmers to use nearby abattoirs, and supermarkets to relax their policy of using just a small number of industrial-scale abattoirs, which are often distant from the point of meat production?
    Margaret Beckett: The issue of whether people use facilities more locally or at a greater distance is likely to feature in one way or another in the various inquiries that have been set up to examine the foot and mouth outbreak. On the general issue that my hon. Friend raises, we continually press to get the right balance and to ensure that we have safety and high quality in food without overburdensome regulation. He will know that it is only a couple of years since an industry working group was set up to examine the sector. We keep it under review, but I do not anticipate making major proposals in the near future.
    Norman Baker: In recent years, every abattoir in my constituency has closed, with the consequence that farmers have to transport animals much further for slaughter. Are not longer lorry journeys bad for animals, bad for farmers in economic terms and bad for the environment? Is there not a case for Government to help abattoirs in particular parts of the country, including east Sussex, to reopen?
    Margaret Beckett: Abattoirs have been closing gradually for about 20 years, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. Of course, there are issues about distances; equally, there are issues about commercial viability. Most of the abattoirs that have closed have basically gone out of business. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we subsidise abattoirs. I do not find that an attractive proposition, but I am sure that some aspects of his comments will come up when the recent disease outbreak is examined.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have just one small abattoir left in my constituency, at Ilkley, which is well regarded by local farmers? Does she agree that we should be encouraging more small abattoirs to stop long, painful journeys for animals? The impact of the foot and mouth outbreak might have been reduced if more small abattoirs had been spread around the country.
    Margaret Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern for her constituents, although she will know that wherever animals are sent to abattoirs the journey has to comply with the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997. That gives considerable detail on measures necessary to protect animals. With regard to my hon. Friend's more general point about the number of abattoirs, as I have said, that issue is bound to be considered. I recall being told that, at the time of the 1967 outbreak of foot and mouth disease, there were about 1,500 abattoirs, yet there was a serious disease outbreak then, although it was not precisely the same as the one that we have recently had.

    Rural Services
    Mr. Chris Pond: What measures she is taking to support (a) shops and (b) essential services in rural areas. [20555]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): Since the rural White Paper was published a year ago we have provided substantial extra funding to boost basic services in rural areas. We have helped village shops and pubs, extended rate relief, helped rural schools and other services, extended sure start to rural areas and assisted bus services, to name just a few.
    Mr. Pond: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the opening today of the refurbished Shorne post office in my constituency? Is he aware that more than 1,000 of my constituents have signed a petition calling for improvements to a small parade of shops in Meopham called Camer parade? The viability of those high-quality businesses is threatened by poor access, especially for elderly and infirm people, and by the need for environmental improvements for which resources are not currently available. Does my right hon. Friend agree with those petitioners that local shops and other services are the life-blood of rural communities, and will he advise parish councils on how to access resources to make the improvements that are needed to such facilities?
    Alun Michael: There are several ways in which we can help local shops to remain viable. I especially welcome the news that efforts to stem the loss of post offices have succeeded in the case that my hon. Friend mentions. I congratulate him on undertaking an extensive consultation with his rural constituents. He has pointed to one conclusion and I look forward to hearing more about his constituents' views when I see him shortly, as he has requested.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: Will the Minister confirm that his Department has received a letter from my constituent Sir John Cave, chairman of the Council of the Devon County Show? Will the Minister acknowledge the real importance of the return of livestock to the show next year, and will he ask his officials to let the organisers of county shows know before the end of January whether they will get the necessary permits?
    Alun Michael: I am aware of the importance of the Devon county show, which is why I visited it this year. Despite the fact that livestock were absent, it gave a tremendous boost to communities in Devon to get together and it was a welcome event. We are aware of the importance of livestock to the Devon and other shows, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we must be careful not to jump ahead of the veterinary risk assessments that are available to give certainty that might turn out to be uncertainty. However, we will bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind and give the organisers of such shows the best information possible as soon as possible.
    Jim Knight: Will the Minister join me in congratulating all those involved in the successful award this morning by UNESCO of world heritage status to the Dorset and east Devon coasts, which are the first in England to receive it? What support can his Department give us in co-ordinating across that rural area the essential services that we need to provide for the visitors whom we look forward to attracting to our world heritage site?
    Alun Michael: I am delighted by that news and the fact that my hon. Friend has made the link between the
    986
    environment, conservation and the quality of the landscape, and the ability to attract people to the area to help the local economy. We are helping with the provision of services in a range of ways. I commend to hon. Members on both sides of the House the document "England's Rural Future", which as I said yesterday has been made available to the Library and the Vote Office. It describes the extensive work that has been done in the past 12 months, as well as giving our detailed response to the rural taskforce and the Haskins report.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The Prime Minister said on 20 September 1999 that
    "This is not a Government that has turned its back on rural areas."
    Why should anyone believe the Prime Minister when ever more rural shops are now going out of business and rural post office closures accelerating? In much of rural Britain, businesses are being forced into bankruptcy at a rate unprecedented since the war, and £700 million has been filched from county councils by a Government who fiddle the figures to favour their political friends.
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman's question is as much a caricature as it is a predictable and boring way of trying to talk up problems in rural areas. I suggest that he reads the facts in "England's Rural Future". He would then see that the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have been justified by the actions that the Government have taken over the past 12 months. Not least among those actions is the creation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, a powerful Department that is able to work for rural communities. We are getting on with that work seriously, while Conservative Members merely mock.

    Rhizomania
    Mr. James Arbuthnot: What representations she has received from interested groups on the Department's consultation paper on rhizomania. [20556]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): We have so far received around 30 replies from individuals by post and e-mail, and one reply from a regional branch of the National Farmers Union, but the consultation period does not close until January. In addition, my noble Friend Lord Whitty has discussed the consultation with the president of the National Farmers Union, and officials have met the vice-president and representatives of the sugar beet and potatoes committees.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Is the Minister confident that his approach will give the sugar beet industry enough time to develop disease-free varieties?
    Mr. Morley: The industry is aware of the problems with rhizomania. At least one variety currently available is resistant, but I accept that the more resistant varieties that can be grown in our climate, the better it will be for the industry. These are important and serious matters. The consultation period gives Ministers a chance to discuss with the industry how best to move forward.
    Paddy Tipping: Nottinghamshire is a large sugar-beet growing area, with a processing factory at Newark. Will my hon. Friend consider carefully representations from the area for an extension of the containment policy for another three years, so that disease-free varieties can be identified and produced successfully?
    Mr. Morley: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but we cannot ignore the significant increase in outbreaks that has occurred in Norfolk and Suffolk. One of the options under discussion is whether we could maintain the protected zones in other parts of the country—and that would include Nottinghamshire—where the problem is not so great.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that the proposal to remove protected-zone status from Norfolk and Suffolk will have a devastating effect on farmers in my constituency who grow carrots and potatoes for export? Is he aware of the crucial importance of the beet industry for Norfolk? Does he not agree that it is a disgrace that the Minister with responsibility for agriculture is in the House of Lords, where Members of this House cannot question him?
    Mr. Morley: We had an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall last week on that subject. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and indeed the whole ministerial team, are responsible for issues such as the hon. Gentleman raises. However, neither he nor the Department can ignore the current situation in Norfolk and Suffolk. I appreciate that it is not good news for farmers there. The sugar beet industry is important nationally, not just regionally. It is a very important part of our agriculture sector, but we must recognise the problems in Norfolk and Suffolk and try to reach a realistic agreement that will protect the interests of the whole industry.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: Why has the Minister ruled out the option of simply renewing our rhizomania status? There is no pressure from within the EU not to do so. I am sure that the Minister is aware that a recommendation to exclude Norfolk and Suffolk from the UK's protected zone will have a devastating impact on sugar beet production and horticulture throughout East Anglia. I plead with the Minister to show some common sense on this issue. Could he not allow a three-year extension of our protected status—including Norfolk and Suffolk—to see whether scientific tests can eradicate the soil-borne virus that so threatens our sugar beet industry?
    Farmers in Norfolk earlier this week overwhelmingly rejected the three proposals put forward by DEFRA. Their plea is that the Minister back the status that we have now. I hope that he will show some common sense.
    Mr. Morley: I understand the concerns in Norfolk and Suffolk on this issue, but the hon. Gentleman must accept that it is not true that there is no pressure in the EU. When the protected-zone extension was agreed last time, the negotiations were very difficult and a number of member states objected. The principal objection was that, unfortunately, rhizomania had established itself in Norfolk and Suffolk. We cannot ignore the facts: we must discuss the matter with the industry and try to work out
    988
    what is the best way to move forward. Unfortunately, the disease is well established in that zone, and the number of outbreaks has gone up. We cannot ignore that.

    Forestry
    Mr. Andrew Miller: If she will make a statement on her policy on forestry. [20557]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): Our policy is to implement the sustainable management of our forests and woodlands and to promote those standards globally. The standards we apply are set out in the UK forestry standard, published in January 1998. Our policies and programmes for forestry in England are set out in the "English Forestry Strategy", which we published in December 1998.
    Mr. Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, in first congratulating my noble Friend Lord Clark of Windermere, previously chairman of the all-party group on forestry, on his appointment as chairman of the Forestry Commission.
    Community forests are important in creating a buffer between some of our old industrial areas and residential areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that this programme is proving successful, particularly in the Mersey basin? Will he commit himself to working with landowners to look for an extension of these programmes?
    Mr. Morley: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on the appointment of Lord Clark, which was supported by the forestry Ministers from all the devolved Administrations. Lord Clark has a long history of involvement with forestry issues, and I am sure that his appointment will be widely welcomed.
    Community forests, and forests generally, have a tremendous role to play in regeneration and in reclaiming derelict land. I am pleased that the North West regional development agency has earmarked £10 million to take that forward. There is great scope for involving private sector funds and a range of organisations in taking forward community forests, which not only provide considerable benefits for local communities, as they have in the Mersey forest, but have scope for regeneration in a way that offers a range of benefits.

    Sustainable Development
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: If she will make a statement on the role of her Department in implementing the Government's sustainable development strategy. [20558]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): My Department has lead responsibility for the Government's strategy. DEFRA intends to put in place a departmental sustainable development strategy by spring 2002. The new Department's aims and objectives have sustainable development at their heart, and my Ministers and I have been actively working with others to take forward sustainable development—for instance, at the climate change talks in Marrakech and the World Trade

    989
    Organisation talks in Doha. We have called a waste summit, published a fuel poverty strategy and set up the policy commission on food and farming.
    Mrs. Calton: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Now will she say categorically who holds responsibility for sustainable development? The Chancellor stated in his pre-Budget report:
    "The Government is using tax and other economic instruments to put sustainable development at the heart of policy-making".
    The Green Ministers Committee has now become a sub-committee of the Cabinet Office and DEFRA has sustainable development as its No. 1 priority. Does the accountability for delivery of sustainable development lie with the Treasury, the Cabinet Office or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? Is this joined-up or disjointed government?
    Margaret Beckett: If I may say so, that is a thoroughly silly question. If the hon. Lady had been listening, she would have heard that I answered her question by saying at the beginning that my Department has responsibility for sustainable development strategy. She seems to assume that it is in some way a failure of my Department, and a criticism, that we have the Treasury completely on board with regard to sustainable development. The hon. Lady herself said that the Chancellor made a great feature in his remarks of the importance of economic measures to policy development. The Treasury has agreed that sustainable development should be an underlying theme of the whole of the next spending review. That is a substantial policy achievement, and I should have thought that if the hon. Lady understood anything about how this place worked, she would have congratulated us on it.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I hate to say it, but the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) asked an extremely sensible question. The Government's record on implementing the strategy for sustainable development is one of talking big and doing little. How sustainable is a Department for the environment that has no control over planning? What is sustainable about building millions of houses on greenfield sites? How sustainable is a Department for the environment that has no say over major transport developments? Whatever happened to joined-up government? How sustainable are Ministers who, having lost the confidence of farmers, are rapidly losing the confidence of environmentalists? They have even lost the confidence of their civil servants: in the short life of DEFRA, 14,230 working days have been lost through strike action. Is it not clear that this Christmas the first prize for the best and most stuffed turkey goes to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?
    Margaret Beckett: We can hear the midnight oil running through that—the hon. Gentleman needs to work a little harder at his jokes in future.
    It is a legitimate argument that planning and transport are important for sustainable development, but when arrangements were different and the responsibilities currently held by DEFRA lay with the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, there were those who expressed great concern at the implications of that—not least in rural areas, although urban environmental issues are important, too. Certainly, great concern was often expressed at the contribution of
    990
    Agriculture—not least to diffuse pollution. There will always be argument about precisely where the boundaries are drawn.
    We have set up a planning co-ordination unit with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in order to bring our information to bear at the appropriate times. A senior civil servant from my Department sits on the transport board. It is certainly arguable that relationships are just as good and just as close, and that just as much information flows as when those sections were all in the same Department.
    As for the notion that a loss of confidence is indicated by the fact—I am sorry to acknowledge it—that we have indeed lost a substantial number of days through strike action, that is a direct consequence of the policy initiated by the Conservatives when they were in government, which allowed and encouraged a great diversity of pay policy across Whitehall. Civil servants in our new Department have very, very disparate pay structures, which is what lies behind the industrial action.

    Fishing Industry
    Andrew George: What progress she has made towards producing a long-term strategy for the future of the UK fishing industry. [20559]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I welcome the contribution being made by the industry towards development of a strategy, through the Fish Industry Forum. The outcome of the common fisheries policy review that is now beginning will also be an important influence.
    Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Does he realise, however, that more than two years have passed since the Select Committee's report? In his response, he accepted that we need a long-term strategy for the future of the industry; and that there is clear evidence that the piecemeal and reactive response to the problems of the industry for more than a generation does not address those problems. They need to be addressed. Today's announcement that the decommissioning package has been oversubscribed more than five times is further evidence that the fishing industry is in crisis. Piecemeal responses are no longer acceptable.
    The World Wide Fund for Nature and the industry are making useful and intelligent long-term proposals for the industry. When will DEFRA produce a strategy for the future of the industry?
    Mr. Morley: We asked the Sea Fish Industry Authority to make proposals for a strategy on behalf of the industry. It produced a document that I very much welcome as a contribution towards that strategy. I have also held discussions with the Fish Industry Forum, the industry itself, the WWF and other interested parties. It is fair to say that we would have made more progress, but the foot and mouth epidemic has had a devastating effect on the Department's work load—as it has on other parts of the rural economy. We are committed to taking the matter forward and will hold a high-level meeting when we

    991
    intend further to develop the policy. We welcome the work done by the forum and its suggestions and will respond accordingly.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as devising plans to enable fish stocks to recover, we also need a plan to ensure that the fishing industry itself survives in the best condition to catch those fish? Will he look at the success of the oil and gas industry Government taskforce, which set out a clear 10-year strategy that is being implemented? Will he set up a similar taskforce for our fishing industry?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend has been a great advocate of a regional approach to fisheries, and I will certainly take his suggestions seriously. The important thing to recognise is that the most important strategy for the fishing industry is to ensure that we have a sustainable fisheries industry, with sustainable management. That involves addressing some of the problems in relation to the state of our fish stocks and the pressure on them.
    Mr. Michael Weir: The Minister will be aware that, under the Scottish decommissioning scheme, some 20 per cent. of the fleet has applied to be decommissioned. Although that is good for the industry, it has long-term economic consequences for fishing areas. Will he therefore consider a tie-up scheme to ensure that there is still a fishing industry when stocks recover?
    Mr. Morley: A tie-up scheme would not address the problem of the effects of decommissioning on regional areas. The arguments for tie-up schemes are phrased in a different way, and I am not altogether persuaded by them. Funds are available through the regional development agencies and the Scottish Executive to help regions affected by job losses and changes in industry restructuring, but the hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and I also say to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) that decommissioning has consequences and should not be seen as an end in itself. Decommissioning should be seen as only one of a range of options to deal with the industry's structural problems.
    Lawrie Quinn: I am sure that the House would want to wish the Minister well with his negotiations in Brussels next week, but will he confirm that his approach to those negotiations will be based on sound science, sustainability, especially for areas such as the North sea, and a long-term approach that will deliver for fishing communities such as Scarborough and Whitby?
    Mr. Morley: I can certainly confirm that, and I know that my hon. Friend is very concerned about the fishing fleets in Scarborough and Whitby, but the fact is that if we do not follow the science, even though that, on occasion, might mean taking very difficult and tough decisions, there will be no fishing industry. It is fair to say that, in this round of negotiations, the Commission's position on a range of stocks goes beyond the science and does not appear to have sound scientific justification. In those circumstances, I will most certainly challenge its position.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the Minister confirm that the long-term strategy for the United Kingdom fishing industry depends on the European Union treaties ratified by the House?
    Mr. Morley: The European treaties certainly have a major bearing on fisheries policy, but the hon. Lady should be aware that the way in which we manage our fisheries in our own waters and the strategies that we apply to our own fishing fleet are matters for the House and the Government.

    Farmers Markets
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: What action she is taking to promote farmers markets in town centres. [20560]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): We are actively promoting farmers shops and markets as a good means of getting a higher proportion of the end price back to the primary producers. Farmers markets in town centres help to reconnect town and country. Our target is 400 farmers markets by 2003.
    Mr. Dhanda: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. Is he aware of a local initiative in Gloucester, involving the local authority, that has brought about a regular local farmers market right in the heart of the city centre on the third Friday of every month? That has not only benefited Gloucestershire's rural economy but provided consumers with a choice of good-quality fresh fruit. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a good model for other towns and city centres to follow?
    Mr. Morley: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I congratulate his local council on its promotional work. We have encouraged local councils to promote farmers markets. Indeed, there is a possibility of their receiving support from the Countryside Agency and, following the recent White Paper, through the rural enterprise scheme. I use farmers markets myself on occasion; they are a source of excellent-quality British food from regional producers, and I certainly commend them to the House and encourage their support.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Bracknell Forest borough council on its initiative of organising a monthly market in the town centre? Does he accept that many people in my constituency, which is not a rural area, like to use farmers markets and to buy local produce, because they know where it has come from?
    Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman is right, and I join him in congratulating his local council. Such markets are a way for local producers to obtain the benefits of added value by selling direct. Many producers, including some in my area, have seized upon such initiatives and developed them constructively. That is good not only for

    993
    farmers and producers but for consumers, because such markets provide high-quality products and increase local choice.
    Phil Sawford: Although we all welcome the growth of farmers markets, there is considerable concern in the farming community about the current restrictions on livestock markets and their long-term future. Given the length of time that has elapsed since the last case of foot and mouth was confirmed, will my hon. Friend review those restrictions?
    Mr. Morley: We will certainly review the current restrictions in the light of circumstances and the veterinary advice that we receive. I emphasise that risks remain even though it is very welcome news that we have had no further outbreak of foot and mouth since 30 September. Livestock markets still present a risk, so we must not drop our guard or be complacent. However, as the situation changes, we shall of course review it.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Macclesfield borough council has a beautiful paved area in front of the town hall and parish church in the heart of the town. The Minister has been very supportive of farmers markets, so will he be more specific about the assistance that might be available in the short term to establish them on a regular basis for the benefit not only of hard-pressed farmers but of consumers who want real British-produced fresh food?
    Mr. Morley: As a Department, we have helped to promote farmers markets and develop a national network. We have advised and supported them. It is possible to obtain advice and support from the Countryside Agency and the rural enterprise scheme. Last but not least, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's local council might be interested in providing support to an excellent initiative.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: What assessment she has made of how the mid-term review of the CAP will be affected by the enlargement of the EU; and if she will make a statement. [20561]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): We expect the European Commission to initiate the mid-term review in 2002. Agreement on the agricultural elements of the enlargement negotiations has yet to be secured, so it is not yet possible to assess precisely how the enlargement and CAP reform dynamics will impact on each other.
    The environmental damage and budgetary costs of extending the CAP to new member states both add weight to the UK Government's position that the CAP must be reformed sooner rather than later.
    Mr. Wyatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I realise that it is a complex issue. Farmers in my constituency keep cattle and sheep and others produce apples, pears, cherries, raspberries and strawberries. Our worry is that Tesco and Walmart—and not the consumer and the farmer—will be enabled. Can she be persuaded to ask the regional development agencies to hold a series of
    994
    one-day conferences so that we can discuss with fanners the type of economic reform that is needed and the help that we can give?
    Margaret Beckett: I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in the subject, and he made a very interesting suggestion. I undertake to consider whether that or other means will enable us to do more to draw in input from exactly the stakeholders to whom he referred.
    Sir Robert Smith: In the right hon. Lady's plans to take forward negotiations on CAP reform, what will she do to deal with the problem of the high value of the pound and its fluctuation against the euro, especially now that the agrimonetary compensation schemes are to come to an end? Is she working to find replacement schemes?
    Margaret Beckett: We recognise that agriculture is one of those sectors in the United Kingdom that has suffered an impact as a result of the level of the currency. The hon. Gentleman will know that Governments who have tried to meddle with the level of the currency have rarely been successful. However, I think that it is true to say that rarely have any British Government been worried by the level of the pound being too high, except for when Lord Lawson tried to keep it high deliberately.
    Our goals for CAP reform are to provide greater room for manoeuvre and flexibility and to try to steer resources away from what is known as the first pillar and into the second pillar of rural support—agri-environment schemes and so on. Indeed, if we can, we hope to break the link between support for market-distorting subsidies and direct support for production. The hon. Gentleman's ideas about the issues that we should pursue in CAP reform are, I am afraid, not at the top of our agenda.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that reform of the common agricultural policy has long been an ambition of all of us in this country? Does she accept that enlargement gives us an opportunity to examine the relevance of the CAP and to ensure that any change is beneficial to the enlarged Community in Europe?
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is right that enlargement is a key issue. It concentrates people's minds on the need for CAP reform, which has long been recognised in this country. There is also the additional pressure of the timetable negotiated by my right hon. Friends and others in Doha, under which the European Union has to get together a negotiating package of proposals, probably by spring 2003. All those things, along with the mid-term review that was already scheduled, bring greater pressure to bear than ever before in respect the need, and drivers, for CAP reform.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Before I go any further and get into trouble, the House should be aware of my farming interests.

    995
    Does the Secretary of State agree that to enlarge the EU, the CAP will have to be reformed? If so, does she also agree that every member, both new applicant countries and existing countries, should move towards a deregulated agricultural market, not a protected one?
    Margaret Beckett: I certainly agree that those are parallel processes. It is common ground in most quarters of the House that CAP reform should be pursued. Enlargement gives further impetus to the need for reform and provides a useful driver. I share the hon. Gentleman's view, if I understand him correctly, that we should aim for a thriving and successful agriculture industry that thrives and succeeds without needing all the direct support from the Government.
    Joyce Quin: In addition to the pressures for reform to which my right hon. Friend referred, does she agree that it is also important to treat developing countries more fairly in the world trading and agricultural systems? What work is she doing to build up a coalition for reform within the EU, in particular with key allies such as Germany, Sweden and Denmark, to ensure that all opportunities for reform are taken as firmly and robustly as possible?
    Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that. I agree that it is important to give developing countries proper access to our markets in this and other sectors. On alliances, we are building on the solid foundations that were securely laid when my right hon. Friend was a Minister in the Department. We continue to work in particular with the countries that she named. The intention was to have a further discussion, which would have been held fairly recently, but the Danish Government decided to have a general election instead. We anticipate reinstating that engagement soon.
    Hugh Robertson: As part of the Secretary of State's review of CAP reform, will she undertake to ensure that the needs of the horticulture industry are considered and, as more countries join the EU, that proposals for fair and transparent labelling are introduced?
    Margaret Beckett: The whole issue of labelling is frequently discussed in a variety of ways in the CAP as it stands, never mind how it might be reformed. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He will know that horticulture does not feature large on the list of top priorities for consideration in the mid-term review, but I can assure him that we will try to ensure that no opportunity for beneficial reform is overlooked.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is intriguing to hear the clamour from the Tories and the Liberals on the need for CAP reform. May I make a simple forecast? If my right hon. Friend or any other Labour Minister reforms the CAP, the farmers in all the Tory and Liberal constituencies will squeal like busted pigs and the Tories and the Liberals will vote against it.
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend has often shown remarkable prescience. For everybody's sake, I hope that we and our allies in the European Union will be successful in substantially reforming the CAP, because that is highly
    996
    desirable, but I accept that, whatever success the Government achieve, it will not be recognised by Opposition Members.
    Bob Spink: May I tempt the right hon. Lady to go a step further and talk not about reforming but entirely dismantling the CAP, which has proved to be entirely incompatible with enlargement? It is expensive and futile, and it is perceived as such. Should not the Government lead the way in Europe towards dismantling it?
    Margaret Beckett: It is arguable that the Government have been leading the way in negotiations in Berlin and elsewhere, although it is important that there is a core group of nations that are of one mind in seeking reform. I share the hon. Gentleman's view on the CAP, that there is very little to praise and much to blame.

    Meat Exports
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If she will ease the restrictions imposed on those exporting British meat. [20563]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The current restrictions on exports of British meat as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak are imposed by European Community law. As the disease situation improves, we are continuing to seek amendments that will ease them without jeopardising effective disease controls.
    Mr. Hoyle: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but could he go a little further? Sheep farmers in my constituency have suffered because they used to farm beef and, when the beef market collapsed and they could not export, they took up sheep farming, hoping to export at a better price. Unfortunately, the restrictions mean that they do not receive a price that reflects the true worth of their lambs. Can my hon. Friend introduce blood testing, as a way to ensure that exports can resume earlier?
    Mr. Morley: I returned yesterday from an international conference on foot and mouth disease in Brussels, where a whole range of issues was raised, including the possibility of a greater role for blood testing and new technology that could aid disease controls. The Government, with the support of the Commission and other member states that have been very sympathetic, have been successful in regaining our exports as quickly as we realistically could, given the scale of the disease outbreak. I appreciate that there are still many restrictions on my hon. Friend's constituents in the sheep industry. However, on the continent, prices for sheepmeat are good at the moment, and I am sure that farmers will benefit from that as we gradually expand the export market.
    Malcolm Bruce: What does the Minister propose to do about the French conditions, which will effectively keep British lambs out of the key French market by requiring that all lambs over six months have the spinal column removed? Given that we do not have a traceability scheme for sheep, it is obviously impossible to give that assurance, so we will be shut out of the market. The French need our quality and we need their

    997
    market. What is my hon. Friend going to do about that? In light of the decision on beef, will he ensure that the French comply with their obligations to have a single market operation?
    Mr. Morley: I got two questions for the price of one. First, the French proposals for additional sheep controls raise serious issues because we do not think that they are justified by the science or, indeed, by reference to consumer protection. The matter was raised at the last Agriculture Council and it will come up at the next one. Our position is that the controls place unnecessary restrictions on the sheep sector. On the recent European judgment, we were always confident that our position would be upheld by the European Court of Justice, and we now expect the French Government to comply.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is it not also important to review policy on the import into the United Kingdom of meat for personal consumption?
    Mr. Morley: Yes, we have been reviewing that, and the need to review border controls and inspection came up at yesterday's conference. According to the papers presented at the conference, this has been the worst year ever for foot and mouth outbreaks internationally, and of course we have suffered as part of that. We need to consider a range of measures, and certainly border controls are one of them.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the Minister join me in expressing delight at today's European Court ruling that the French ban on British beef was illegal? Will he now ensure that maximum pressure is brought to bear on the French Government to comply with the law without further delay? What consideration has he given to seeking compensation from the French Government for damage to British producers and exporters? Will that be done in the event of a failure to comply in a timely manner? Will he commit the Government to doing everything possible to help reopen that important market for British producers, which is worth hundreds of millions of pounds?
    Mr. Morley: I repeat that we welcome the ruling of the European Court, which we expected because we always argued that the French position was illegal. Just to be clear, the dispute was between the French Government and the Commission. The French Government went against the rules of the Community and the Commission pressed the case successfully. I understand that the Court has powers to impose a daily fine on the French Government if they do not comply, and I am sure that it will consider that. The Government do not have a statutory procedure on compensation, but United Kingdom companies and firms may wish to pursue it, and we will provide them with support, advice and assistance on that.

    Recycling
    Mr. John Baron: What plans the Government have financially to assist local councils in meeting their waste recycling targets. [205651
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): In the 2000 spending review, the Government found significant extra resources for local authorities. By 2003–04, the environmental protective and cultural services standard spending assessment, which includes waste services, will have risen by £1.1 billion over the provision for the previous year. There is also a private finance initiative provision of £220 million over the spending review period and a ring-fenced pot of £140 million over the next two years, on which we have now published a consultation paper.
    Mr. Baron: I thank the Secretary of State for her response, but that money is not enough and it is not forthcoming. Is she aware that, after the recent waste summit, Friends of the Earth and other bodies such as Waste Watch estimated that about £375 million will be required annually if targets are to be met? In addition, the £140 million that she mentioned, which was first identified in the 2000 comprehensive spending review, has still not been paid. My county council in Essex has not received a penny. If the Government—[Interruption.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has enough to go on with.
    Margaret Beckett: Of course, it is perfectly understandable and not at all unreasonable that organisations such as Friends of the Earth continually press the Government to increase further the already substantial extra resources that we are prepared to provide. Those issues will be considered in the next spending review. As for the progress of the hon. Gentleman's county council, I know that it has had discussions with our officials about projects that it has in mind but, as far as I am aware, it has not yet made an application.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend believe that in parts of the country where one local authority is responsible for the collection of refuse and another is responsible for its disposal, there is adequate co-ordination to ensure that recycling is given sufficient consideration and is high on the agenda?
    Margaret Beckett: As my hon. Friend will know, the Government recognise the importance of that. Indeed, one purpose of the recent waste summit was to press for more action to produce the recycling facilities that we need. I accept entirely my hon. Friend's point about co-ordination between different authorities. It is important that authorities try to develop waste management and waste minimisation strategies for their area because that enables the most efficient and cost-effective arrangements to be made.
    Gregory Barker: Given the Secretary of State's rhetoric about waste, can she tell the House whether over the past five years, the amount of waste generated per person in the United Kingdom has increased or decreased?
    Margaret Beckett: The figure is continuing to increase at a rate of about 3 per cent. a year. That is one of the reasons why the Government have made such a priority of waste minimisation, rather than just the handling of waste. Unfortunately, there has not been the investment

    999
    over the years in adequate facilities to manage and handle waste, or in facilities to minimise it. Those are all issues to which the Government are giving considerable attention.
    Miss Anne Begg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in areas where the local authority is seeking to build an incinerator, there is a fear that that will remove the incentive to recycle, so the incinerator will suck in large quantities of waste that should be recycled?
    Margaret Beckett: I am aware of that perfectly reasonable and sensible concern. That is partly why I told my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) that it is extremely important that local authorities have an overall plan for the handling of waste in their locality, and that they engage the public in discussion about such issues, so that there can be a properly considered set of proposals. However, there are occasions when any proposal for any incineration under any circumstances is opposed, on the grounds of the perfectly reasonable fears that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) mentioned.
    The Government do not accept that there is no place for some, perhaps relatively small-scale, extension of incineration facilities. Unfortunately, there is still a quantity of waste that cannot be dealt with by re-use or recycling, and there remains a need for some incineration. I am sorry that some who campaign very well on these issues refuse to accept that.

    Fuel Poverty
    Simon Hughes: If she will make a statement on her strategy on fuel poverty. [20566]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy and I launched the UK fuel poverty strategy on 21 November. It shows that since 1996, efforts to tackle low incomes and reduce fuel bills have cut the number of fuel poor by some 1.5 million. Our first target is to take the remaining 3 million vulnerable households—pensioners, families and the disabled—out of fuel poverty by 2010. At the same time, we will work with those expert in the subject to identify how to reach our overall goal of an end to all fuel poverty in the UK.
    Simon Hughes: In the week before the beginning of winter, in a country that has a high level of excess winter deaths—much higher than many other countries in Europe—does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the policy announced, which was expected to produce great things, is widely regarded as disappointing? Does he accept that we need to re-examine the Government's strategy, which was announced at the Labour party conference last year and set a target date of 2010 for eliminating, as far as practical, all fuel poverty? Furthermore, will he reconsider the definition of household income? By referring to household income, not disposable income, about a million people, on best estimates, are taken out of the programme, rather than vulnerable people being included in it.
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is being remarkably and uncharacteristically churlish. We are the first Government who have ever given a commitment to end fuel poverty. We say that we will achieve that by 2010, and it is obviously right that we concentrate on the key priorities: pensioners, families with young children on low incomes, and the long-term sick and disabled. We have also said—and I gave strong support to the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000—that once we have dealt with the priority categories, we will complete the objective by dealing with all those who are fuel poor. As to the definition, it is open to question whether that should include mortgage interest payments and housing benefit. Our commitment is to end fuel poverty on either definition.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: May I tell my right hon. Friend that low-income families in Hastings and Rye have received very well the insulation scheme support that they have been given? However, many people are not receiving such support. Eaga in particular is failing to deal with applications for months, and the target of 2010 may not be achieved in respect of some people who have already made applications.
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. There have been significant delays in the scheme because of the lack of sufficient heating engineers. We have recruited a further 400 engineers in the past six months and are now beginning to pick up speed. The home energy efficiency scheme has helped 250,000 households since its launch in the middle of last year and is installing more than 3,000 new central heating systems a month in pensioner households. We are getting on track and I believe that we will certainly fulfil our objectives by 2010.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader of the House for the business for next week?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I am gratified by the interest in the business for next week.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill.
TUESDAY 18 DECEMBER—A motion to approve the use of the facilities of the House for those Members who have chosen not to take their seats.
Hon. Members: Shame!
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Leader of the House answer the question.
Mr. Cook: That will be followed by the remaining stages of the International Development Bill [Lords]
WEDNESDAY 19 DECEMBER—Motion to approve a statutory instrument. Details to be announced in the Order Paper.
Motion on the Christmas recess Adjournment.
The business following the Christmas recess will be:
TUESDAY 8 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords]
WEDNESDAY 9 JANUARY—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill
THURSDAY 10 JANUARY—A debate on House of Lords reform on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 11 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 9 January 2002, there will be a debate relating to the 2001 broad economic policy guidelines in European Standing Committee B.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 16 January 2002, there will be a debate relating to the sixth environmental action programme in European Standing Committee A.
[Wednesday 9 January 2002
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union Documents: 8261/01, 9326/01, Broad Economic Policy Guidelines. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 152-ii (2001–02).]
Wednesday 16 January 2002
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union Document: 5771/01, Sixth Environmental Action Programme of the European Community. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports:HC 28-xi (2000–01); HC 152-i and HC 152-ii (2001–02).]
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for next week and beyond. Does he know
1002
that this a red letter day? I am sure that he does, as he is always very well briefed. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, and the House will wish to be reminded that today is the golden wedding anniversary of Lady Thatcher and Sir Denis Thatcher, without whom, of course, Thatcherism would never have been possible. Will the Leader join me, my hon. Friends and, I hope, all hon. Members in sending our congratulations and best wishes to the Thatchers and in wishing them very many years of happiness together?
Following the conviction of the killer of little Sarah Payne yesterday, will the Leader promise us an urgent statement on what the Government propose to do to give all possible reassurance to parents throughout the country that everything will be done to ensure that something as horrible as this cannot and will not happen again? I believe that it is very important that we make an urgent response to the events leading up to this ghastly incident.
The Leader of the House has told us that there will be a motion next Tuesday
"to approve the use of the facilities of the House for those Members who have chosen not to take their seats."
I notice that the resolution states that
"those Members who have chosen not to take their seats … may use the facilities within the precincts of the House and the services of departments of the House"
It refers to Members. Will the Leader of the House promise us that it is solely, therefore, a matter for the House of Commons? Will we be given proper and adequate time to debate such a serious matter? Will the motion be fully amendable? Given that it is a House of Commons matter, will there be a free vote on it? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that it is not subject to the deferred Division procedure, so that we can ensure that those who attend the debate are those who vote on it, and that there will be no hiding behind pink forms on a subsequent occasion?
I pointed out that the motion refers only to Members. That is important. Will the Members who are allowed on to the premises be asked to sign the same form as staff? I assume that their staff will not be allowed in because, mercifully, the motion does not cover them. Will the Members be required to fill in the form, which we have always regarded as important for our security? It asks:
"Have you ever been involved in espionage, terrorism, sabotage"
or
"actions intended to overthrow or undermine Parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means?
Have you ever been a member of, or supported a group or groups involved in any of the above activities?
Have you ever had a close association with anyone who, to your knowledge, has been a member of or given active support to any such group or activities?"
If such people—we are talking about Sinn Fein-IRA—are going to be admitted on to the premises, will they be asked to fill in the form? I hope that they will be. Will they be subject to the sanctions that are always enforced on others whom we invite into the parliamentary estate? Those are only some of the questions that will have to be resolved. I know that you will be watching matters closely, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the Leader of the House can give us explicit assurances before we even get to the debate.
Mr. Cook: I apologise for overlooking the golden wedding anniversary of Lady Thatcher and her husband;

1003
I regret failing in that courtesy. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for being so magnanimous on this occasion and I am happy to add my felicitations to his. If that casts a passing shadow over the festivities, I regret it, but I am happy to offer my congratulations.
On the appalling murder of Sarah Payne and the trial that has just concluded with a conviction, I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government already have several measures in hand to increase protection for vulnerable young children. We are introducing restraining orders and sex offender orders, which restrict the activities of known sex offenders. We are conducting a review of sentencing, which pays special attention to the risks posed by sexual and violent offenders. We are also expanding places on treatment programmes in prisons. We have introduced the possibility of extended post-release supervision for sex offenders, and are requiring the police and the probation services to work together to establish better arrangements for assessing sex offenders who have been released. I assure the House that we shall continue to do everything possible to protect young children. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will keep hon. Members informed of further developments.
Let me deal with the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked about Tuesday's debate. It is a House of Commons matter and there will not be a Whip on this side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nor a payroll vote?"] Nor will the debate be time limited; it does not qualify for a specific limit under Standing Orders and it will therefore be open ended. Like any other motion of the House, it is wholly amendable. Conservative Members can table any amendments that they wish. As the debate commences at 3.30 pm, Divisions cannot be deferred, and we would not wish to have a deferred vote on the matter. We want a full and open debate on whatever amendments the right hon. Gentleman cares to table, and to hold a vote at the end of it.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with a matter that dates only from 1997, when Speaker Boothroyd made her statement to the House. She withdrew from Sinn Fein Members access to areas within the parliamentary precincts. They had access without passes until then. They also had access to some 20 different services and facilities of the House.
The situation in Northern Ireland has changed since 1997. We have had the Good Friday agreement, and seen the election of the Northern Ireland Assembly. We have also seen the first ever verifiable act of decommissioning in the history of Northern Ireland and, only yesterday, the Northern Ireland Policing Board, including its Sinn Fein members, agreed on a new crest for the police, which includes a stylised version of the crown.
There have been enormous changes in Northern Ireland, and I do not see a case for this place remaining frozen in the position that it took in 1997, before all those events took place. One of the four Members currently barred from these premises is now a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive. If he can be Education Minister for a part of the United Kingdom, why on earth can he not have access to the Vote Office, the Library or the travel office in the House of Commons?
1004
Members in most quarters of the House support the peace process. If we really want to see peace in Northern Ireland, we surely ought to take this one modest step forward towards normalising the politics of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been eagerly awaiting the publication of the performance and innovation unit's energy review. Today's New Scientist claims to have a leaked copy of it. Now that the document is in the public domain, will the Leader of the House ensure that Members can have a copy of the report, and ask the appropriate Minister to come to the House and make a statement on it? Finally, does my right hon. Friend agree that anyone who has been married to Lady Thatcher for 50 years deserves a medal as big as a dustbin lid?
Mr. Cook: I shall not rise to the tempting invitation in my hon. Friend's closing remark.
As to the energy review, I have no idea whether the document that the New Scientist has is the right document. In my experience, leaks are often inaccurate. I told the House at the start of the review that I wanted to ensure that hon. Members were informed when it was complete, and that commitment remains.
Mr. Paul Tyler: We welcome the publication of the Leader of the House's discussion paper on the modernisation of the House. Will he give us some indication of his timetable for consultation on it, as all Members are obviously extremely interested in these matters? Even if it is not within the time scale of the business that he announces this afternoon, will he tell us when he expects there to be a debate in the House on the matter?
In that connection, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will look carefully at the way in which the proposals that he has so properly set out in this discussion paper apply to our recent discussions on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill? We take very seriously his statement that good security makes for good government. Is he satisfied that that has happened on this occasion? Given the Home Secretary's overheated threats last weekend, will the Leader of the House tell us whether every part of the Bill is essential to prevent and deter terrorist attacks over the Christmas holiday period? For example, does he really think that part 5 of the Bill, which relates to race and religion, must be on the statute book to deter and prevent terrorist attacks? What other parts of the Bill are essential for that purpose?
Mr. Cook: On the modernisation paper, I have requested the Clerk of the Modernisation Committee to mail a copy of my memorandum to all hon. Members, with a covering letter inviting comments and views on the proposals, preferably in writing, by 31 January. If we are going to take forward this modernisation package, it is important that we do so in a way that reflects the views of as many hon. Members among whom it is possible to get agreement as possible.
I stress that the objective of the package is to secure a more effective House of Commons. It is not about making life easy for Members of Parliament, and I do not imagine that any Member came to this place expecting an easy life. They did, however, expect the opportunity to do an effective job, and that is what we are seeking to secure.

1005
On the other matter, I was interested to hear the shadow Home Secretary say on the radio yesterday:
"I am fully convinced we can have this Bill through well in time for the Christmas break, and we need it."
I fully agree—we do need it and it can be done. We need the Bill because it contains measures that are important to the security of our constituents, such as ensuring that we have better control over airfields, better control over access to nuclear material and better powers for the Ministry of Defence police and the nuclear police. It is important to show our constituents that, given that we can identify those serious loopholes in our law, we can deliver on them in a reasonable time and we can have the Bill in place by the end of the year.
Mr. James Wray: Has the Leader of the House made time available to debate the shipbuilding industry throughout the UK? A question was asked in the other place about the number of schemes set up since 1997. I notice that the answer was nil.
Mr. Cook: I fully understand my hon. Friend's constituency interest and the great importance of the shipbuilding industry to our economy. There is an Adjournment debate on the matter next week, but obviously I shall consult my colleagues on what further facilities they can make available to allow my hon. Friend to register his views with them.
Sir Michael Spicer: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the appalling measure he proposes to introduce next week with respect to Sinn Fein/IRA does not apply to the staff of those concerned?
Mr. Cook: The position in relation to staff of the four Members who have not taken the Oath will be precisely the same as that for any other member of staff.[Interruption.] No, they will be subject to the same security vetting as any other member of staff.
Ms Debra Shipley: With reference to my right hon. Friend's answer on paedophiles, can a statement be made on the monitoring of all the features that the Government have put in place since 1997, to find out how effective they are? I took the Protection of Children Act 1999 through the House and I am very concerned that effectiveness is not being monitored, although such monitoring is desirable. With reference to paedophiles in particular, will my hon. Friend reassure me and the House that the sentencing White Paper promised for spring will be introduced then or preferably sooner, but certainly not later?
Mr. Cook: I can assure the House and my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State for the Home Department attaches great priority to the matter, and work is proceeding with all speed. I hope that we can keep to the timetable we have set ourselves. It is important that sentencing policy should be reviewed and, as my hon. Friend says, it is important that we put the sense into sentencing.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Leader of the House further clarify the grounds on which the decision
1006
has been taken to permit Sinn Fein/IRA and their staff access to the facilities of the House of Commons? To many of us, the decision displays further contempt for the traditions of the House. Furthermore, will the freedom being extended to Back Benchers be extended to the payroll? I know that hon. Members—principled Members—from the Government party are as appalled as me. Will the Prime Minister be present on Tuesday to explain to the House how he made a deal behind all our backs to bring this about?
Mr. Cook: I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the matter was discussed two years ago, so it has not arisen unknown and unheralded. As to the vote next Tuesday, it will be on a one-line Whip. If Labour Back Benchers do not share the view I have expressed, they are perfectly entitled to express theirs. As to other members of the Government, I shall move the motion on the Government's behalf and of course I shall, not unreasonably, look to the Government for support.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Leader of the House is aware that I have never been soft on Sinn Fein or the IRA, but is he further aware that Sinn Fein, at one time, would not take its seats in the Republic of Ireland or in Stormont, because there was no united Ireland at the time? Now it is involved in those bodies and involved in the Northern Ireland Executive. A Sinn Fein Member has toured the Floor of the House as a guest of the British-Irish parliamentary body. The more such people are involved in our activities, the more influence that will have on them. Their involvement means that they are selling out some of their distorted principles from the past, which is very welcome indeed.
Mr. Cook: Before I reply to my hon. Friend, may I clarify something that I said earlier? I am advised that it was the SDLP that agreed to the crest for the Northern Ireland police yesterday; Sinn Fein has no members on the policing board for the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
I fully recognise my hon. Friend's deep and long-standing interest in Northern Ireland politics, and I welcome the sentiments that he expressed. We are engaged in a process; we want that process to advance; we want to draw into that process precisely those who have resisted peace in Northern Ireland in the past. If we refused to take the modest step of allowing them into the precincts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Modest?"] Indeed it is a modest step to allow them access to the Vote Office and the Library. If we refused to take that step, would it be any surprise if they themselves doubted whether we were interested in taking the process any further?
Mr. James Arbuthnot: Will the Leader of the House confirm that he began by saying that Tuesday's debate would involve a free vote, went on to say that there would be a free vote for Back Benchers, and then said that the equivalent of a Whip would be issued to all Labour Front Benchers—all Ministers and all parliamentary private secretaries? That means that the right hon. Gentleman will, in effect, be whipping through the House of Commons entry to the House of Commons for people who deny the basic constitution of this country. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is saying?
Mr. Cook: The motion that we will move will reverse a decision made in 1997 in very different circumstances,

1007
and restore to those Members access to the premises of a kind that was commonplace when the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were in office.
As for Tuesday's vote, yes, it will be unwhipped for the parliamentary Labour party. But the right hon. Gentleman has been a Chief Whip: he is not wet behind the ears. He knows perfectly well that when a Minister moves a Government motion he will expect other Ministers to support him.
Richard Burden: I know that a private notice question was asked last week, but should there not be an emergency debate or a statement next week, given the events of the past 24 hours in the middle east? Does my right hon. Friend agree that our correct condemnation of terror attacks on buses in no way gives a green light for tanks on the streets of Ramullah, jet or helicopter gunship attacks, or what now appears to be a rather blatant attempt by the Sharon Government to topple President Arafat altogether?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend will know that there was a statement on the middle east the other week. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will want to consider when another might be appropriate. In the meantime, I fully share my hon. Friend's anxiety about the present desperate situation in the middle east. We are particularly concerned about the statement that the Israeli Government will not engage in further talks with Chairman Arafat. The fact is that there will be no progress on peace unless there is dialogue about peace. As I have told the House before, it is not by means of tanks or helicopter gunships or suicide bombers that we will establish peace in the middle east; we will do so only by means of negotiations at the peace table.
Mr. Alan Duncan: As we look across the Chamber at the crest of Airey Neave, we should bear in mind the fact that this is a week in which immigrants may have to swear an oath of allegiance, and in which IRA funds from the United States may finally have dried up. Next week, we will debate a completely contemptible motion giving special recognition to people who refused to swear any allegiance, and whose funds will now be provided by the state. Will that motion be amendable, allowing those people's cash benefits and allowances to be set at zero?
Mr. Cook: The motion will be amendable. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can table any amendment that is in order. That is out of my hands, but I would expect amendments of the kind proposed by the hon. Gentleman to be capable of being tabled and debated in the House.
The whole purpose of the peace process is to ensure that tragic deaths and murders such as that of Airey Neave do not occur again. It is therefore important to make certain that the peace process continues. Yes, it is challenging, and many people in Northern Ireland have had to face challenging decisions as a result of it; but I hope that the House will not shrink from what it is asked to do.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 238.
[That this House opposes the increase in segregated faith schools as outlined in the Education White Paper, Schools achieving success; notes that the White Paper says that church and other faith schools must be inclusive but that schools with a particular religious ethos cannot by their very nature be inclusive, because there is discrimination through selection with those of a particular faith being favoured over children who are not of that faith or indeed are atheist, that religious schools choose their children rather than the other way around, that an increase in religious schools may lead to less integration of communities, causing division; and being taught in a religious school is not necessarily a sound basis for living in a multi-cultural society; and further notes that events in Northern Ireland and also in Bradford indicate that we should be working for the greater integration rather than the division of our schools.]
In the light of recent reports on the riots in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford, which clearly point to segregated education as a problem; and of Lord Ouseley's report, published during the summer, which blamed segregated education for the lack of understanding between different cultures; and of the fact that, in opinion polls, an overwhelming number of people come out against any more faith schools, may we have a debate just on that issue before it appears in a Bill and is lumped in with lots of other things? Given the overwhelming opposition to more faith schools, we need to debate the issue.
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the anxiety that prompts my hon. Friend's question. The Cantle report drew attention to the serious problems that can arise in schools that have one single race or culture among their pupils. It is precisely for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has urged all faith schools to include children from other communities, cultures and faiths. My right hon. Friend will put that position forward when we debate the Bill.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: I seek further clarification from the Leader of the House in relation to the disgraceful motion that is to come before the House next Tuesday. In view of the fact that IRA-Sinn Fein youth were involved in serious violence against military installations in South Armagh at the weekend, supported and condoned by the leadership of Sinn Fein-IRA; of the murder of a man in South Armagh by republicans earlier this week; and of the fact that, as everyone knows, Martin McGuinness is chief of staff of the IRA, is it not appalling that the Government should come forward with the motion at this time, especially in view of the recent comment by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that Northern Ireland was becoming a cold house for Unionists? Is this not more evidence of that fact? Is it not appalling that at a time when the House is debating and considering stronger measures to combat terrorism, the Government should consider putting forward measures to allow IRA-Sinn Fein and terrorist front men into this House and this precinct?
Mr. Cook: I gently put it to the hon. Gentleman that his party has participated in over 2,000 committee meetings with Sinn Fein members present. Unionists sit on the Executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly with

1009
a Sinn Fein Member, the Minister of Education. I do not see that it is possible to have that type of co-operation and dialogue in Northern Ireland and at the same time to keep them out of the building of Westminster.
David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend recall how, during the 30 years of IRA terror, time and again all the parties represented in the House of Commons urged the IRA to drop the terror and adopt politics? Would it not therefore be right for office accommodation to be provided, possibly as a first step to Sinn Fein Members of Parliament taking their seats, bearing in mind the fact that, whether we like it or not, they were elected as Members of Parliament no less than ourselves? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise how sensitive this subject is but this is not a debate. It is the Leader of the House stating what the business for next week is. I ask hon. Members to be calm.
Mr. Cook: The last point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) is valid. Some 200,000 people took part in the elections of those four Members. Whether or not they voted for those Members, they are entitled to have their constituency interests adequately represented and looked after. I see no reason why we should deny those 200,000 electors Members who can have access to the precincts and to the House's facilities.
On the other point, my hon. Friend is correct. We have sought over the years to engage Sinn Fein and the IRA in the political process. We cannot now draw up the drawbridge and say that they cannot have a part in these political facilities.
Peter Bottomley: The Leader of the House might at some stage explain what use of the House was made by the people elected for Sinn Fein before 1997. To my recollection, they came here only for publicity and to provoke public reaction.
Last week, I raised with the Leader of the House early-day motion 513:
[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.]
The right hon. Gentleman said that the 18 signatures it had attracted were not impressive. The number has now doubled to 36. Does he need it to double again to 72 before he will allow hon. Members to demonstrate to our constituents that we understand how they feel about the matter? The Prime Minister said that it was a matter for the House, so will the Leader of the House give us the opportunity to vote on a motion of confidence in the present Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and to invite her to accept reappointment on the present terms?
Mr. Cook: I predicted last Thursday that after I had drawn attention to the fact that the early-day motion had only 18 signatures, the hon. Gentleman would be able to attract more. I congratulate him on his efforts since then, but I stand by the point that I made—that the number of
1010
signatures is still modest by comparison with the number attracted by other early-day motions, which have obviously achieved a resonance with hon. Members that the hon. Gentleman's one may not have. On the question of a debate, I cannot, even if I wished to—and I do not—avoid a debate on the matter. Any appointment made by the House of Commons Commission has to come before the full House for approval. That motion will be amendable and the hon. Gentleman may then, if he wishes, test the opinion of the House by seeking to amend it to reappoint Mrs. Filkin.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I was disappointed to discover that we will not have a debate next week on my right hon. Friend's plans for modernisation of the House, which would have given us the opportunity to lavish on him the praise that is his due for an excellent first step. It would also have given us the opportunity to add a few ideas. I offer my right hon. Friend the suggestion that it is nonsensical that when Ministers make statements to the House, we are not allowed to have the documents supporting those statements until the Minister has finished. If we could collect the relevant documents on an embargoed basis before the statement, we could ask informed questions instead of engaging in the knockabout that we have at the moment.
Mr. Cook: I hear what my hon. Friend says and we will consider what might be done on that matter. On the wider issue of the modernisation package, I remind the House that we are at the start of the process. We issued yesterday the proposals for a programme of work, not the outcome of that programme. My hon. Friend offers tempting reasons why we should have an earlier debate, but the best time for the House to debate the matter is when the Modernisation Committee puts firm recommendations to the House. In the meantime, we would welcome the contribution of any hon. Member who wishes to comment on the consultation document.
Mr. Edward Garnier: When the Leader of the House prepares his introduction to the motion next Tuesday, on access to the House of Commons, will he consider whether it is appropriate for the public to elect two sorts of Member of Parliament—those who are prepared to accept the constitution, take the Oath and use the facilities of the House and the Chamber in the way we all do, and those who are not prepared to accept the constitution and who have spent much of their lives campaigning to bring it down? Is it right that under our constitution we should have two sorts of Member of Parliament?
Mr. Cook: As I understand it, the hon. and learned Gentleman and his party would wish to make the distinction between the two sorts even greater than I propose. They would keep anyone elected who does not take the Oath out of even the precincts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am grateful for such ready confirmation of my interpretation of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. If the Conservatives want to make the gulf even larger than I propose, it does not lie with them to complain about two tiers.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate on Consignia, following

1011
reports of huge job losses and then speculation that they might not happen? The House deserves an answer on the future of Consignia at the earliest possible date.
Mr. Cook: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern and it is widely shared on both sides of the House. I am confident that opportunities for discussion will arise in the future, but I remind my hon. Friend that we introduced an Act of Parliament to confer greater commercial freedom on Consignia and the Post Office. The decisions that have to be taken are not for Ministers, but for the management. I hope that the management in making those decisions will work with, and fully consult, the work force.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Yesterday, the Leader of the House published proposals to make the House more meaningful. Many of them are useful and constructive, but how do they square with his refusal to allow a debate on the fate of the existing Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards? How can the House hold the Executive to account if it cannot debate its own procedures? The right hon. Gentleman said that we could have a debate on the next commissioner. Does he mean that a debate could be held after that person has been selected by the House of Commons Commission? Would it not be invidious to have a debate when a person has been appointed, and for the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) to move his motion then? How many hon. Members have to sign early-day motion 513 before the Leader of the House does his democratic duty and allows a debate on the existing Commissioner for Standards?
Mr. Cook: There is no minimum threshold for the number of signatures that must appear on an early-day motion to attract a debate. Many early-day motions with several hundred signatures have not been debated, and I regret that I cannot give a commitment that they will be. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has correctly apprehended what I said, so I repeat that the Commission does not make the appointment, the House does. The Commission can only make a recommendation. If the hon. Gentleman and, if I may use the term, his hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley)—who appears to have other pressing matters to attend to—really feel so strongly about the matter, I do not think that it would be invidious to expect them to table an amendment when the matter comes before the House.
Mr. Iain Luke: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my predecessor on gaining the Scottish Parliament's Committee member of the year award? The Committee that my predecessor chairs is called the Public Petitions Committee, and it allows ordinary people to access the Scottish Parliament and interact with its procedures. Will my right hon. Friend consider that as a model to be reviewed in future stages of the modernisation of this House?
Mr. Cook: I well remember Mr. McAllion's diligence and commitment to this House, and I am not at all surprised that that has been transferred to the other place in Edinburgh. I congratulate him on receiving the award.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is it not likely that the debate on Tuesday will prompt a
1012
consideration of the Oath? As currently phrased, the Oath does not fully or wholly accurately reflect the duties of Members of Parliament. Should it not contain a provision that all hon. Members should vote and speak in accordance with their own judgment and opinion? An advantage of such an Oath would be that Government Front-Bench Members would not feel constrained to support the Leader of the House on Tuesday.
Mr. Cook: I rather anticipate that my hon. Friends will feel enthusiastic about supporting me on Tuesday. I look forward to their willing and voluntary vote in that Division. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a talent for spotting points that the rest of us have not focused on. If he wishes to propose a change to the Oath we will, of course, consider it. However, I should be very reluctant for the House to revert to the version used in the previous century, when the Oath occupied a full page and swearing-in took much longer.
Helen Jones: Will my right hon. Friend be able to find time for a debate on the powers of public utility companies? Transco has caused massive disruption in the Hollins Green area of my constituency while laying a pipeline. Access for residents was cut off and good farm land spoiled. The company consistently displayed a cavalier attitude to people living in the areas. Can we have a debate on how the public utilities can exercise their very necessary powers while demonstrating proper concern for local residents?
Mr. Cook: I have noticed the growing number of articles in the press on the conduct of Transco. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that there will be an opportunity for a full debate, but I am delighted that she has had this opportunity to put on record a matter that is clearly of serious concern to her constituency.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does not the Leader of the House understand that Tuesday's motion will be seen first as a public relations coup for Sinn Fein, and secondly as appeasement of men of violence, given that the provisional IRA has only just begun to decommission very few of its illegally held arms and explosives? Does he further understand that there is a simple solution to the problem—that the hon. Members concerned could use the House's facilities if they took the Oath like everyone else? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is entirely wrong to try to push the matter through before Christmas in the hope of avoiding publicity, and to whip the payroll vote on what is essentially a House of Commons matter?
Mr. Cook: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that on one point he is grossly wrong—I do not anticipate any lack of publicity for what I have just announced and for what we will be debating on Tuesday. Indeed, I can think of no circumstances in which it would not receive publicity.
The act of decommissioning is described by the commission that we have appointed to prove and verify decommissioning as "significant". That significant step

1013
forward requires us to ask ourselves why we are still living in 1997 and have not recognised that there have been major changes since then.
Mr. Mark Francois: What is it?
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman shouts as loudly as that again, he will be removed from the Chamber. It is not allowed, and perhaps senior Members will tell him so.
Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that as well as the Cantle report, other reports were published on Tuesday dealing with the disturbances that took place in Burnley, Bradford and Oldham earlier this year. Those reports have many common themes regarding the causes of the disturbances. Those themes are relevant not only to those three places but to many others in the country where there could equally have been disturbances. Certain circumstances meant that the disturbances occurred in those three places in particular. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a good case for these issues to be debated in the House so that we can look at a way forward, because we never again want to see such disturbances anywhere in this country?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on this matter. He has deep commitment to and concern for his constituency, and I know the strong and active part that he has played in promoting community relations. He will be aware that the Minister of State, Home Office has followed the matter closely and played an active part in the preparation of the reports. I assure my hon. Friend that Home Office Ministers will be pursuing the necessary follow-up to the reports with great vigour and, at an appropriate moment, I am sure that they will share with the House what action they propose to take.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Leader of the House will understand when I say that I view the business of next Tuesday with the gravest concern. Is he establishing a precedent that no longer in this place are all Members equal? To qualify for our parliamentary salary and the use of facilities, we have to take the Oath or affirm. Is this a precedent? Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that Members of this House are no longer here on equal terms? If so, perhaps we should have a debate on this. Bearing it in mind that he will be inviting into this place people who are closely associated still with acts of terrorism and killing, what guarantee can he provide that they will not come in with weapons or be guarded by those with weapons and that our own safety will not be put in jeopardy? I was the last person to speak to Airey Neave
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Cook: I fully respect the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman speaks. May I correct one point of fact? The motion that we will discuss on Tuesday will make no provision for salaries to be paid to the four Members who have not taken the Oath. It will provide for them to have access to the precincts, as they had throughout the years of Conservative Government up until 1997. Such access
1014
will not differ from the access of those individuals. However, that provision of access to the precincts will not apply to any members of staff they bring with them, who will be subject to exactly the same scrutiny that any other member of the public or member of staff working for Members of Parliament undergo.
Mr. Michael Clapham: I refer my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 557 in my name.
[That this House is gravely concerned about the implications for asbestos-induced mesothelioma sufferers and their families by a recent Court of Appeal judgment that a claimant cannot recover damages if he was exposed to asbestos by more than one employer on the grounds that it is not possible to say which one was to blame, ending a situation of joining defendants and apportioning liability accordingly that has lasted for more than 20 years; is further concerned that the judgment directs that claimants may have a claim under the Pneumoconiosis (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979, costing the Exchequer tens of millions of pounds each year, and creating conditions for the insurance industry to escape its responsibility; and calls for this injustice to be righted by legislation if necessary.]
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the horrendous decision made in the Court of Appeal on Tuesday that people suffering from asbestos-induced cancer can no longer claim compensation when more than one employer is involved, on the grounds that it cannot be determined which employer the fibre that started the cancer came from. The judgment went on to suggest that people in that position may claim under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers Compensation) Act 1979, which was set up to provide compensation when the insurer could not be traced. The Act does not provide compensation in this case—it is not an alternative to common law damages. The Appeal Court declined leave to appeal to the House of Lords. Will my right hon. Friend bring the issue to the notice of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with a view to considering the possibility of bringing in a small Bill to rectify that massive injustice?
Mr. Cook: Obviously, I cannot commit myself to legislation without consulting my colleagues and reflecting on the matter. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the judgment, and can understand the sense of injustice and hard feeling experienced by those who lost such a case. I can see that the implications of the principle contained in the judgment could go much wider than such cases. I am informed that the Association of British Insurers is consulting its members on their response to the judgment, and I hope that a way forward can be found that will not deny remedy and justice to those involved.
Mr. David Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate—next week or in the first week of January—on industrial relations in the civil service? Given that the staff of the Department for Work and Pensions are on strike and that that may cause immeasurable difficulties for vulnerable people seeking benefits or advice in the pre-Christmas period, and that staff of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are also on strike, thus meaning that farmers will not receive the payments owed them under

1015
IACS—the integrated administration and control system—which in turn will cause them great difficulties, especially after the events of last year, is it not clear that macho management is not working and that it is certainly not delivering for the public?
Mr. Cook: I would be the last person to defend macho management—or macho anything else. I very much hope that a common way forward can be found.
The strike in the Department for Work and Pensions relates to the introduction of changes that will be very much in the interest of the public. Although I hope that we can find agreement on taking forward those changes with the support of the staff—without staff feeling threatened in any way—our duty is obviously to the public and to ensure that we provide them with the best possible service.
Mr. Mark Fisher: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the good sense and imagination that runs through his modernisation paper and especially on his comments that the proposals are a first step towards changing practices and the balance between this place and the Executive, and that the process will continue. I also welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the nature—albeit limited—of the free vote next Tuesday. That seems to go some way towards recognising that membership of the House and the use of its facilities are not in the gift of the Government—they are a matter for the House. It is the House—properly—on a free vote that should decide such matters.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is correct about the free vote for Members of the party. He is entirely free to vote as he wishes on Tuesday. I would have neither the temerity nor the courage to advise him how to vote on Tuesday.
I welcome his comments on the modernisation proposals. I also agree with him that, important though the package is, work will remain to be done and that modernisation will not stop with this programme.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Bearing in mind the motion that the Leader of the House will introduce next Tuesday, is he aware that the vast majority of Members take their responsibilities to Parliament very seriously indeed? Several of those Members are currently in shared accommodation and in accommodation that is not up to the standard of that occupied by other Members. Why the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting to the House that he will give Members who have no intention of taking part in its proceedings the same sort of space that he gives Members who take this place seriously?
Mr. Cook: Against the historic achievement of the Good Friday agreement, the first-ever verifiable decommissioning in the history of Northern Ireland and the election of the Northern Ireland Assembly, to argue over whether we can find a room for those Members does not match the gravity of that process in Northern Ireland.
John Cryer: Following an earlier question, may I remind my right hon. Friend that the board of Consignia has a long history of ignoring its work force and failing to consult them on major decisions? I was involved in a campaign to keep open the sorting
1016
office at Mount Pleasant in east London and visited the board of the then Royal Mail with three of my hon. Friends. I saw then the contempt with which the board treated the work force—collectively sounding like a third-rate 1980s management textbook.
Massive job losses are in the pipeline. Some of my constituents and people from the poorest parts of London will lose their jobs with Consignia. When we are talking about job losses on that scale, it is a matter for the Government and for the elected representatives who represent those people who are on the receiving end. Can we have a debate?
Mr. Cook: Of course, my hon. Friend raises a very important priority—ensuring that Consignia' s management consults fully and tries to reach consensus with the work force, because the problem that faces Consignia is common to the management and the work force. I am very much in favour of Select Committees having access to all available information and to hearing, whenever possible, Government policy announcements. I was a bit taken aback to hear the scale of redundancy that was announced first to a Select Committee. I hope that the management will now remedy that by moving quickly to try to reach agreement and a way forward with the work force.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On Monday this week, the report that the Home Secretary commissioned from Ted Cantle produced its first recommendation saying that the rights and, in particular, the responsibilities of citizenship need to be more clearly established and should be formalised into a statement of allegiance. That view was endorsed by the ministerial group on the issue, which states that the public realm is founded on negotiation and debate between competing viewpoints at the same time as it upholds inviolable rights and duties. Given the motion that will be moved in the right hon. Gentleman's name on Tuesday and the fact that the Ministers who made that comment will be invited to support it, is this an example of joined-up Government or double standards?
Mr. Cook: Not in the slightest. The citizenship of Britain of course embraces the fundamental right to vote in a parliamentary democracy. Many of the citizens of those four constituencies have exercised that right and they have elected those four Members of Parliament. The House has to ask itself whether it is consistent with what we preach in parliamentary democracy not even to let them into the precincts. The hon. Gentleman was a special adviser to the Conservative Government, so I find it surprising that he never expressed that view to those whom he advised at the time who, throughout their period in office, let those four Members into the precincts.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware that there have been requests for other debates from both sides of the House. Is it not passing strange, therefore, that the Government have selected next Tuesday for the debate to allow Members who have not taken their seats to use facilities in the House, especially when that party has not been prepared to nominate people to the police board and to take a fuller role in Northern Ireland? At a time when we have been debating international terrorism, is that not giving a wrong

1017
signal? The shadow Leader of the House said that today was a red letter day—perhaps some hon. Members and many people outside the House will think that it might be a white feather day.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's party sits on the Executive and the Government of Northern Ireland with one of the very four Members whom we are discussing. I cannot accept that it is right to sit down at the same meetings of the Executive in Belfast with him, but to say that he cannot even get in to use the Vote Office, the Library or the travel office here. That seems to fail to recognise the logic of the process, to which the hon. Gentleman has contributed greatly.
Mr. George Osborne: The Leader of the House said that the Sinn Fein-IRA Members would not be eligible for parliamentary salaries. However, will they be eligible for parliamentary allowances? If so, will not the British taxpayer hand over almost £500,000 to Sinn Fein-IRA? Will the right hon. Gentleman also investigate whether the ribbons in the Members' Cloakroom can support the weight of a kalashnikov?
Mr. Cook: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's last question is worthy of the House of Commons or its exchanges. I happily confirm that the motion will provide for allowances to be payable on the same basis as those for any other Member of Parliament who has been elected by his constituents.
Mr. Peter Lilley: To inform the debate on access to the House, will the Leader of the House make available the information about the terrorist activities of the Members concerned? At least one of them, Martin McGuinness, was to my personal knowledge the commandant of the IRA in Londonderry. I interviewed him when he was in that capacity and, during the interview, he told me that he had had a dozen Catholic informers killed. If he has, indeed, put that bloody past behind him and now believes that constitutional change should come about only by operating within the constitution, is not the appropriate test that he takes the Oath?
Mr. Cook: Martin McGuinness is, at present, the Minister of Education in the Northern Ireland Assembly. He plays a full part in the government of Northern Ireland and in the administration of the education system there. I think that it is wrong for us to say that that is all right for the people of Northern Ireland but that we will not allow him anywhere within the precincts of Westminster. As to what may or may not have been his past or the past of any of the others, we shall not get peace or make progress on the peace process if we constantly start from the very beginning and do not accept that some of these people have played a part in achieving a period of peace and stability in Northern Ireland.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The House will recall the tragic murder of a special constable on the A64 in north Yorkshire. What does the Leader of the House propose that I say to the constable's family and my constituents in the Vale of York who are deeply distressed to hear of the despicable motion that the Leader of the House has put before the House.
1018
In relation to the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill, does the Leader of the House agree with the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) that only a token gesture towards decommissioning has been made?
Mr. Cook: The de Chastelain commission described the act of decommissioning as significant. That is the basis on which we proceed.
On the hon. Lady's point about what she should say to her constituents, she might tell them whatever her predecessor said before 1997 when the four people involved were admitted to the precincts and had access to the facilities to which we shall propose on Tuesday they have access. Our proposal will be made in circumstances that are very different from those of 1997 when they had such access to the precincts. However, it is precisely to prevent murders and violence and the grief of relatives in the future that we signed the Good Friday agreement and entered into the peace process.
I make no apology for having a peace process that provides a relative peace and stability that Northern Ireland did not know beforehand. If we want that peace process to continue and we want to avoid murders in the future, we have to show our willingness to enter into that process.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Although I associate myself with the comments made by my right hon. and hon. Friends—I include my hon. Friends on the Unionist Benches—I wish to raise a matter that concerns my constituents in east Cowes. I refer to the loss of 650 jobs—one third of the work force—at GKN Westland that has been announced today as result of the downturn in the British aerospace industry. Would it not be a better use of time on Tuesday next week to debate the downturn in the British aerospace industry and what the Government propose to do to help those who are suffering because of it?
Mr. Cook: I fully sympathise with the position of all those, including the hon. Gentleman's constituents, who suffer as a result of the recession in the aerospace industry. That reflects the reality in aviation at present.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware from previous exchanges, Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry have sought to do whatever they can to make sure that we enable the aviation industry to come out of this difficult period. I am particularly concerned that we act to ensure that the skilled and experienced teams of people who will be needed in the future are available when the industry returns to normal.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Prime Minister opens the debate next Tuesday so that he can explain to the House and to the nation the extraordinary contrast between his laudable pursuit of the al-Qaeda network, which attacked the two tallest buildings in New York, and his craven behaviour towards the network of the IRA-Sinn Fein—they are inextricably linked in his own words—which attacked the two tallest buildings in London, namely the NatWest tower and Canary Wharf in 1996? These people whom he is inviting into the House should, as my right hon. Friend

1019
the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) suggested, be providing answers in criminal proceedings instead of being asked into the House.
Mr. Cook: The logic of the hon. Gentleman's position—I suspect that he may be prepared to follow it through—is that we would never have signed the Good Friday agreement.[Interruption.] He agrees with me on that. We would still have the IRA as an armed organisation at war with the British state. We would still have the IRA murdering people in Britain and letting off bombs in London. That is what the hon. Gentleman would embrace rather than the peace process.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Leader of the House mentioned the progress that has been made in the peace process, but that came about only at the last moment, at the eleventh hour and three quarters. Is he aware that there is every possibility that IRA-Sinn Fein will revert to their campaign of violence and terrorism against the British state? If their Members had taken their allowances and moved into their offices, what would happen if they did revert to that campaign?
Mr. Cook: Plainly, in the event of a breach of the Good Friday agreement and a reversion to the war with the bullet and the gun, many policies and attitudes will change, but it is precisely so that we do not have that reversion to violence that it is important that we maintain momentum in the peace process. We must be willing to show that we ourselves, and not only the other side, are committed to maintaining that momentum.

Asbestos Victims
1.30 pm
Mr. John Battle: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
deadly asbestos dust, which affects not only hundreds of my constituents but thousands of people throughout Britain.
This issue concerns not only families who are losing court cases but those who win cases, because even they are being denied their hard-won, legitimate compensation.
It is now estimated that as well as the hundreds who have died or who are dying from mesothelioma simply because they lived in the neighbourhood of the J. W. Roberts factory in Leeds before it closed in 1956, there may be as many as 1,500 mesothelioma victims in Britain every year, and that number is rising rapidly. Five years ago, and after seven years of campaigning, we won a court case and, in a landmark judgment, proved that Turner and Newall, which had taken over J. W. Roberts, was responsible for polluting people in Armley in my constituency. A handful of compensation claims have been paid.
In September, however, Turner and Newall was taken over by an American company, Federal Mogul. On 1 October, it applied in the UK courts to put its UK subsidiaries into administration. That decision immediately blocked compensation payments to Turner and Newall's asbestos victims. The administrators now refuse to deal with any compensation claims, despite the original court judgment supporting the victims. Cheques to victims have bounced. One victim received a letter offering compensation, and in the very next post, a notice saying that the offer was worthless because the company was in administration. That victim has since died.
As we know, administration proceedings can take years, but the administrator had three months—which are up at the end of this month—to produce a financial statement and hold a creditors meeting. However, the parent company in America has already ring-fenced its liabilities, and it can continue trading and making a profit. This is not only about a few cases in Armley or about Turner and Newall; it could affect all asbestos claims in Britain.
This has been an annus horribilis for asbestos victims in Britain. Judgments seem to protect the companies rather than the victims, as we saw in the Chester Street case in January, the Fairchild case in February and the Turner and Newall case in October. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) earlier, there has been another such judgment in the Fairchild case this week.
Asbestos victims are vulnerable and totally innocent, and they die of the worst forms of cancer imaginable. They did not bring it on themselves, and they deserve compensation. We urgently need a full debate so that we can have a co-ordinated Government response to ensure that victims get compensation and polluting companies pay. Tragically, these victims do not have years to live, and they cannot afford to wait. They need to be given hope by a debate in the House.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I have to give my decision without

1021
stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24. I cannot therefore submit the application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  EURO AND STERLING CHOICE
  Mr. Graham Allen presented a Bill to permit the use of the euro as well as the pound sterling as legal tender in the performance of financial obligations at or above a certain value; to provide for dual pricing of goods and services at or above that value; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 11 January, and to be printed [Bill 70].
Orders of the Day
  Animal Health Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Animal Health Bill
    New Clause 1

      ANNUAL REPORT ON ANIMAL DISEASES
      'In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 10—
      "10A Annual report on animal diseases
      The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament in each calendar year a report on measures taken by Government departments and agencies and other public bodies to prevent the importation into the United Kingdom of the diseases mentioned in Schedule 2A.".'.—[Mrs. Ann Winterton.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      1.34 pm
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Annual review of import controls—
      'In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 10.
      "10A Annual review of import controls
      (1) The Ministers shall prepare a report during each financial year reviewing all of the activities of government departments, the Food Standards Agency, local authorities, port health authorities and other relevant public agencies directed to the prevention of the introduction of disease into or within England and Wales through the importation of animals and other things, including their making of orders under section 10 of this Act, assessing the effectiveness of the action taken, and proposing such further action as may, in the opinion of the Ministers, be required to further reduce the risk of disease being imported.
      (2) The Ministers shall, as soon as possible after the end of each financial year, lay their report before Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.".'.
      Mrs. Winterton: I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who has responsibility for animal health, is on the Front Bench, having returned, no doubt triumphantly, from a conference that the Government organised in Belgium on the eradication of foot and mouth disease. A press release on the conference says that the Secretary of State addressed it on the way in which the outbreak developed and was tackled. However, she did not tell the conference the cause of the outbreak, which is one reason why the Opposition have tabled the new clause.
      Mr. David Drew: A bit late.
      Mrs. Winterton: It is not late. It will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that we are not in government; I remind him that both foot and mouth outbreaks, in 1967 and this year, occurred when a Labour Government were in office. In 1967, the relevant Minister handled the matter in an exemplary fashion and, as a result, the very good Northumberland report was produced, which pointed to the way forward for the future. I concede that, sadly, successive Governments

      1023
      have not done enough work on preventing further outbreaks of animal disease from being imported into the country.
      The saying "Prevention is better than cure" is echoed by the farming community today, despite the introduction of the Bill, which was conceived in haste to put right legal problems encountered during the foot and mouth epidemic and also to deal with matters relating to scrapie, about which there is no hurry at all. However, the Government have not addressed the real problem facing the country—our vulnerability to future infection. The United Kingdom will be as vulnerable as ever to the importation of animal, plant and even human disease, even after the enactment of the Bill.
      Mrs. Angela Browning: My hon. Friend will know that, although the Government introduced the Bill before their own inquiries reported, Professor Mercer's report for Devon county council makes action on imports the first recommendation in his conclusion.
      Mrs. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished former Minister and an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. She is right; in fact she has uttered the words that I would have uttered a little later in my speech; in fact, I probably will still utter them as the point is well worth making again. Well done Devon is all that I have got to say. Would that the Government had tackled the problem as a matter of urgency.
      New clause 1 would oblige Ministers to conduct an annual review of the effectiveness of actions by all the agencies concerned to prevent animal disease, including foot and mouth, from being brought into the United Kingdom. We are an island nation; many farmers have asked me why the sea that surrounds us, which should form a protective barrier, has not done so.
      Our defences against the importation of disease are minimal. At our airports and seaports, checks on baggage and goods in transit are infrequent, but when they are made, more often than not they reveal illegal imports of food, particularly meat. Many people travel extensively and visitors to the United States of America, Australia or New Zealand cannot fail to be impressed by the extremely tough and thorough precautions undertaken by those countries to minimise the risk of importing disease. I admire the policies of those countries and their actions, which have proved to be extremely successful.
      Why should the United Kingdom leave itself wide open to unnecessary risk of disease in the future, and why have the Government not taken any meaningful action to clamp down on illegal imports? I have no doubt that the usual talking shops will have been set up between representatives of the various agencies involved, such as Customs and Excise, the Food Standards Agency, local and port health authorities and the Home Office, in order to find a way in which import controls could be strengthened, but what action has been taken?
      Mr. Richard Bacon: None.
      Mrs. Winterton: What decisions have Ministers made to protect animal, plant and human health?
      Mr. Bacon: None.
      Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend takes the words from my mouth. Answer is there none. What a disgrace.
      1024
      What an insult to the farming community, which has suffered so much as a result of Government incompetence and inaction. How much longer must we wait until the nettle is grasped—
      Mr. Bacon: Until the next Conservative Government.[Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
      Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend is right. He is very enthusiastic, and so he should be. The Government's inaction will have been noted by people in the country. They look to the Government to do something to help the situation, instead of doing nothing. I am not sure whether Ministers are prepared to take the necessary action to protect the United Kingdom from a scourge similar to the recent foot and mouth epidemic.
      We may never discover the precise cause of the outbreak, mainly because the Government have refused point-blank to hold a full, independent public inquiry. At least the Devon inquiry undertaken by the county council, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred, points us in the right direction and recommends that prevention of disease through importation should be given the highest priority.
      Many organisations involved in the rearing of livestock have commented on the present unsatisfactory arrangements. In December 2000 the National Pig Association forwarded comments as evidence to the then Select Committee on Agriculture regarding the Government's handling of the classical swine fever outbreak in August last year. Those comments included criticism of the lack of speed of Government action, and went on:
      "The NPA fears that … UK pig producers are unreasonably exposed to a repeat outbreak of a disease such as Classical Swine Fever, due to the Government inaction on effective control of the import of contaminated meat."
      The association continued with an analysis of the lack of a governmental contingency plan:
      "The NPA fears that the Government will wash its hands of the consequent problems, in the event of such an outbreak."
      As a result of the classical swine fever outbreak, the NPA had clearly understood the Government's irresponsible attitude to the amount of food imports entering the country, which remains as big a risk today as it was last year or in February 2001.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I hear the hon. Lady's allegations about lack of action, inadequacy and illegal imports, but what firm evidence has she about the scale of illegal imports? What evidence has she that the measures that we have taken are not deterring illegal imports? I accept that if an activity is illegal, one cannot guarantee that it will never occur, but what is the evidence to back up the hon. Lady's allegations leading to all those terrible consequences?
      Mrs. Winterton: It does not become the Minister to be as complacent as he appears about the serious problem of animal, plant and human diseases that may come into this country in illegally imported meat and meat products.

      1025
      He is right that no Government can guarantee that no disease will enter the country in that way, but I wonder whether he has recently travelled extensively as a private individual—[Interruption.] Would he like to intervene on that point? I think that I heard him mention checks from a sedentary position. What checks?
      1.45 pm
      Mr. Morley: On the claims that are being made about measures taken in America and Australia, I have been to those countries comparatively recently and I must say that I have not noticed any particular differences from the checks and security in our country. I am not complacent about this matter. Some issues need to be reviewed and we want to do some tightening up. We are and have been doing that, so the claim that no action has been taken is completely wrong.
      Mrs. Winterton: When the Minister makes his speech, he can outline precisely what action has been taken. Frankly, it does not add up to a row of beans. I remind him that he made the following statement in a written answer:
      "The current epidemic has been caused by a specific strain of the foot and mouth virus (PanAsian Strain 0) which has occurred in a number of countries around the world. The precise means of introduction of the virus into Great Britain is unknown and the subject of continuing investigations,"—
      he can tell us later what those investigations have found so far—
      "but is most likely to have been introduced in illegally imported meat or meat products."—[Official Report, 9 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 445W.]
      There is a problem, and as I develop my speech, I shall show the hon. Gentleman that the Government have taken no meaningful action whatever.
      Mrs. Browning: I was astonished by what the Minister said just now in his intervention. Many years ago, I regularly did business with American companies and travelled to America. Some 10 or 15 years ago, it was a matter of routine that the Americans asked one to declare both in documentary evidence and in person at the airport whether one was carrying any foodstuffs or plant materials. They have sniffer dogs at their airports. The Minister must whisk through the VIP lounge and never see ordinary people.
      Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend makes her point very well and explains the reason why I asked the Minister whether he was travelling as a private individual. I, too, travel to the United States of America, and I do so at least once year. I am very much aware of the measures that that country takes to ensure that visitors do not import any disease through meat or meat products, and I admire it for what it does. I have also had the good fortune to travel to New Zealand and Australia. In New Zealand, they spray the plane. Elsewhere, one has to take off one's shoes. I know that visitors to New Zealand and Australia who have come from a farm or had an address at a farm have been put through checks to the 10th degree. Sniffer dogs can almost tell whether one has eaten an apple on the plane, never mind whether one has brought one into the country.
      Mr. Bacon: I, too, have been to the United States and Australia. Indeed, I have worked in both countries and,
      1026
      like my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I know how strict their controls are. Does my hon. Friend agree that even if the Minister will not take notice of us, he should take notice of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)? On Second Reading, he said:
      "As a regular traveller to the United States, I know how vigorously one is questioned there about any products that one is taking into the country. We have no such procedures".—[Official Report, 12 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 6201
      Of course, the hon. Gentleman probably does not go through the VIP lounge and must do what Opposition Members have to do.
      Diana Organ: I, too, have been to America—we have reached the moment when we all say where we have been on our holidays. I had to hand over chewed bits of carrot and apple that small children had been eating on the journey. I was delighted to be able to do that. However, the questions that we are asked on entry to the United States are a formality; 11 September is testament to the fact that security in their airports is not as good as ours.
      Mrs. Winterton: I was in America on 11 September because one of our children lives in Hoboken. We were on top of the twin towers on the previous Saturday evening. Internal flights in America have poorer security, but that does not apply to international flights. When people enter the USA, they put the fear of God into you, for good reason. When people enter the United Kingdom, the opposite happens. I shall consider that contrast in more detail later when I deal with some of the measures that the Government have introduced, which have proved useless.
      Mr. Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend probably knows that the 14 investigations at Heathrow found five tonnes of illegally imported meat. In every example that was drawn to the airport authorities' attention, illegally imported meat had been brought into the country. In some cases, blood was pouring out of suitcases. The authorities would have investigated more cases if they had the money and the facilities. We should debate such matters this afternoon instead of considering ways in which to cull more of our creatures.
      Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend makes a strong point, and he is right. There appears to be no co-ordination in the effort against illegal imports.
      Mr. Morley: That is an exaggeration.
      Mrs. Winterton: I shall ignore that point and get on with my speech.
      The Government received another warning about the danger of illegal imports. On 11 March, two weeks after the first outbreak of foot and mouth, Clive Lawrence, director of Ciel Logistics wrote to the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Ciel Logistics is approved to collect and recover consignments from airline warehouses and take them through the port health border inspection post. In his letter, Mr. Lawrence highlights the fact that the Ministry and Customs and Excise had long suspected that products were being illegally imported as

      1027
      passenger baggage, but did not have the resources to check. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) made that point. The letter states:
      "The issue had to be addressed when baggage handlers at Heathrow refused to handle the suitcases due to the smell and the blood coming out of the bags. Inspections carried out on Nigerian flights on the 7th, 8th and 11 th May resulted in 600 kgs of detained foodstuffs."
      Mr. Lawrence continues:
      "On one flight from Nigeria on 15th May, a check resulted in 2500 kgs being detained from passenger luggage. It contained various bush meats and a large quantity of maggot infested fish both wet and dry. We also recovered one whole dead deer freshly slaughtered in a suitcase."
      The mind boggles.
      Mr. Lawrence did not receive a reply from the then Minister for some time. In a recent parliamentary answer, the Under-Secretary referred to "improved publicity" to ensure that travellers are aware of import restrictions, and claimed that
      "at least 20 per cent."—[Official Report, 29 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 1085W.]
      of legal meat imports are being subjected to physical checks. That may be because of the imports from Belgium that were stopped recently. I believe that two or three consignments were stopped because of the checks on legal imports.
      As I said earlier, I do not believe that travellers who enter the country are informed that they should not bring in any animal or plant produce, nor are they questioned or required to fill in any forms to say that they are not doing so.
      When we come into the arrivals section as ordinary travellers, there are, to the best of my knowledge—I checked when I last went abroad—no big notices telling us what we should or should not bring in. The only evidence of "improved publicity" that I could find in my local airport, Manchester—one of the most successful and best run in the United Kingdom—was one small, peeling poster that had been placed in the departure area rather than in arrivals. That is quite extraordinary and pathetic. I look forward to hearing the Minister outline the precise action taken since February to eliminate illegal imports.
      The animal origin legislation is based on EU directive 97/98. The Miscellaneous Products of Animal Origin (Import Conditions) Regulations 1999 were made on 26 January 1999, laid before Parliament on 3 February and came into force in the United Kingdom on 1 March that year. Any product of animal origin arriving at a United Kingdom port or any other European port needed to be inspected for port health clearance before being allowed free circulation in the Community, yet Her Majesty's Customs and Excise continues to claim that it does not have the resources to continue to target the flights that more commonly carry illegal imports. That must be looked at, because the dangers are inherently greater from some parts of the world than from others.
      Mr. Lawrence also has proof of the fact that the meats are often contaminated. His company found that one consignment was smuggled through in December 2000 as a cargo of vegetables and undeclared to customs. It was investigated and found to contain 15 dead monkeys and some tortoise legs. Laboratory checks showed a risk of Ebola contamination. Fortunately, that consignment was found, but it is generally acknowledged that the majority of luggage goes unchecked.
      1028
      I wonder whether the Minister has seen the video prepared by the National Pig Association, which highlights the dangers facing this country from Ebola contamination. Although we are talking about animal health today, in cases such as that it is clear that plant health and human health are also implicated. If Ebola and other viruses about which our doctors know virtually nothing are imported, the effects will be far greater than the devastating effects of the recent foot and mouth outbreak.
      On 4 December 2001, the Minister responded to a written parliamentary question about the additional biosecurity measures that have been implemented to check imports since February. He stated:
      "Adequate measures are already in place to control legally presented imports of meat and meat products."
      That may well be true; I have mentioned recent finds of legally imported meat of a cheap or substandard nature coming into the country. I wonder whether those checks would also have applied to the chicken imported from Thailand and elsewhere in the far east—reported on the front page of, I think, yesterday's Daily Express—that had been contaminated by pork and was full of water. That chicken was being used by the catering industry. Very strict checks and conditions should be placed on the catering industry and others to prevent the importation of such cheap substandard produce. We have been talking about legally presented imports, but does the Minister choose to disregard those meat imports that are not legally presented? That would appear to be the case from the lack of action taken by the Government.
      The Minister's written reply continued:
      "Port health authorities and local authorities are requested to undertake checks at port of entry and at premises of destination to ensure that products not eligible for trade are detected."—[Official Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 261–62W.]
      2 pm
      Will the Minister clarify the divisions of responsibility for food import checks? He says that port health authorities and local authorities are requested to undertake checks, yet the Food Standards Agency also holds responsibility. Will he confirm the exact role it plays in import checks? Will he consider giving that Government agency, which has gained cross-party support for its vigilant attitude to food safety, full overall responsibility, or should a new body be formed to take responsibility for checking for illegal imports?
      The National Farmers Union has written to Members, stating that the range of different agencies involved and the undoubted practical problems associated with enforcement are putting the United Kingdom livestock sector under continued threat. Who could argue with that?
      Mr. Wiggin: Is not the FSA a responsibility of the Department of Health? That is another example of a lack of joined-up government.
      Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend is right. The FSA relates to health, but it also relates to animal health. My point is that there is no joined-up government; it is absolutely disjointed. Various bodies hold various responsibilities—there appears to be no coherent policy whatever. I genuinely believe that the Government must urgently address that matter.

      1029
      The NFU also questions whether the Government have shown sufficient commitment on the vital issue of illegal imports. Although the union acknowledges that the United Kingdom may never be able to achieve 100 per cent. protection from the import of animal disease
      "much more can and must be done to reduce the risk of a re-run of this year's hugely damaging and costly events."
      The Minister has told the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that, in his view,
      "the risks of a further outbreak remain very high"
      and we all agree that there may very well be cases before the outbreak is definitely over.
      Why, then, are the Government considering legislation that I believe to be hasty and insensitive to the needs of the farming community and that allows the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to plan for future outbreaks? Why do not the Government take preventive action and consider eradicating the possibility of further epidemics by removing the very source of disease through stronger food import controls?
      David Taylor: The hon. Lady makes the strong point that, as well as introducing new measures to control future outbreaks, the Bill ought to reduce the likelihood of outbreaks or the rate at which they develop. No doubt she will support my new clauses 9 and 10.
      Mrs. Winterton: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will support new clause 1, as one good turn deserves another. The point of tabling my new clause is to return us once again to everything that this country has gone through since February and the cost, not just to taxpayers, but to farmers, their families, animals, DEFRA officials and veterinary surgeons. The answer is prevention, which is the first issue we should consider. Through tabling the new clause, I seek from the Minister an indication that the Government are serious.
      Mr. Drew: Is the hon. Lady saying that the Animal Health Act 1981, which gives powers regarding the control of imports, is insufficient? If so, why has she not tabled a new clause to that effect?
      Mrs. Winterton: I am saying that, even if the Act were sufficient, the powers are not being used. I have tabled a new clause that would make the Minister responsible produce an annual report outlining precisely the actions taken. It is a spur to make the Government solve the problem more quickly.
      Whatever mechanism is used, action should be taken. The new clause may not be perfect, but it is an honest attempt to raise what I believe to be the most important issue facing the agriculture community and, indeed, people living in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: Nothing in new clause 1, or indeed new clause 4, would strengthen powers relating to animal health. What we seek is a commitment from the Government to be more open in their measures to crack down on illegal meat imports and deal with the concerns of those in the farming industry, who often describe in anecdotal terms what is happening in this
      1030
      country. Surely, if the Bill seeks to penalise farmers for poor biosecurity, we should seek from the Government a similar undertaking to be as open and honest as possible in all their efforts to ensure that both illegal and legal meat imports are of the highest quality.
      Mrs. Winterton: That is a sound point. We look to the Government to take the necessary action. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I would have liked the new clause to go much further—but we must be realistic and appreciate that, in the numbers game, it is hardly likely that the Government will accept this modest proposal. I am trying to give them an opportunity to accept it, to demonstrate their acceptance by what they do from now on, and to place in the House a record of what they have done. If by any chance they feel that they have not the necessary powers, they should bear in mind that, as the hon. Gentleman hinted, they could have introduced them in the Bill. They have introduced enough draconian and sweeping powers that run contrary to natural justice. I am amazed that they have not put first things first on this occasion.
      David Taylor: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Winterton: I will. I must make some progress after that, but I do not want to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, who is to be my ally.
      David Taylor: Not on this occasion.
      The hon. Lady welcomed and endorsed the suggestion by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) that illegal meat imports should be of the highest quality. Can she tell us how we can attain such an elusive goal?
      Mrs. Winterton: I think the hon. Gentleman jests. He knows quite well that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) did not mean that at all.
      David Taylor: He said it.
      Mrs. Winterton: If he said it, no doubt he will wish to correct the impression that he gave. I know the hon. Member for Ceredigion—I know the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) as well, of course—and that is not a view that he would ever express or espouse. I shall rush to his defence, and pull out my trusty sword.[Interruption.] There will be no blood on the carpet this afternoon; that would not do. I fear that you are about to rule us out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: I had better get on.
      As I have said, new clause 1 is very modest. An annual review of import controls would ensure that the situation remained under constant appraisal, and—a more urgent requirement—that local authorities and central Government adopted a joined-up and collective approach to import checks. I urge the Government to consider the proposal carefully, and then to implement an annual review with immediate effect. It would cost them nothing apart from a lot of good will, and they would do much good in the process.
      On 14 June, the Netherlands banned the import of pigs and fresh pigmeat from Spain after an outbreak of swine fever. That move by Dutch officials strengthened action already taken by the European Commission, which at the

      1031
      time banned live exports from the region of the country affected. Why could the United Kingdom not adopt a similar approach to defend our shores from a repeat infection of animal diseases that have such catastrophic consequences for farmers in rural areas, for our economy and, indeed, for our international reputation?
      We believe that it should be Government policy to defend the high standards of British agriculture, especially those that underpin Britain's exemplary record on animal welfare. Food imports that do not match the standards required of British farmers by law must not be allowed to undercut British produce, and thus undermine British standards.
      I urge the Government to ban unfair agriculture imports—not, I hasten to add, imports that are unfair in terms of pricing, but those that have not reached the quality that we expect our farmers to produce. The Government have repeatedly refused to go along that route.
      Mr. Morley: It is illegal.
      Mrs. Winterton: The Minister says that it is illegal. That means that we have imported legally the chicken breasts that I mentioned earlier that were on the front page of the Daily Express.
      Mr. Morley: There is a misconception. I have heard it before. A proposal to ban imports that do not meet our standards would be illegal. All imports into this country have to meet the same standards that are applied in relation to the EU: for example, standards on slaughterhouses. It is true that some products and production methods in the United Kingdom are higher than those standards. There are various reasons for that and various choices, but all imported meat has to meet those EU standards. In that case, they are legal. A proposal to ban them would be illegal.
      Mrs. Winterton: The recent outbreak started in February. If the Government had been the French Government, they would have immediately stuck two fingers in the air—[Interruption.] It may cost them a lot of money, but I bet that our producers will not receive compensation for the lack of business and the terrible difficulties that they have faced because of the French ban on British beef. If foot and mouth had been imported into France, as it was into this country, the French would have immediately, not knowing what the source was—the UK Government do not yet know—ceased the import of meat and meat products from countries where there was endemic foot and mouth. Consumers and farming communities in the UK would have liked that sort of action in order to protect animal health and human health in the UK.
      Mr. James Paice: Is not the fallacy in the Minister's argument illustrated by the fact that recently five plants in China have been licensed by the EU to export chicken meat to Europe, yet they have not been properly or fully inspected by EU inspectors? There is no way of knowing whether those meat products will meet the standards required in this country. Whatever the theory may be, in practice those products are coming in and do not meet our standards.
      Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend makes an exceptionally strong point that cannot be refuted. It is
      1032
      disgraceful that there are double standards. What the EU says is not necessarily carried out. I urge those in the catering industry and in supermarket chains, which hold such power over the sale and processing of food, to recall what my hon. Friend has said—not to buy products from those plants and instead to buy from plants in the UK, where the birds have been raised to a good standard of husbandry.
      Mr. Drew: The hon. Lady may be intrigued to know that, during its visit to Brussels and to the World Trade Organisation in Geneva, the Select Committee on Agriculture took up that point. Representatives of third-world countries regarded the demands of the EU to inspect as somewhat protectionist, so there is a balance to be reached. It is not as clear-cut as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) alleges. A degree of checking goes on. It can always be improved, but the position is not that clear cut.
      2.15 pm
      Mrs. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I am not in a position to know whether the plants that he knows about have been inspected properly. I am not so concerned about whether China believes that we are trying to protect our market. If we are, we are doing so for good reasons of animal husbandry and for the quality of the food produced.
      I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his travels. I understand that the Select Committee will be going even further afield in due course. No doubt in the Tea Room he will tell me of his experiences. As he travels, not as an ordinary person, but as a member of a Select Committee, I hope that he will take the opportunity to go around every airport, open his eyes and look at what other countries do. If he goes to New Zealand, or even perhaps South Africa and the United States, that will be a very good experience for him. What he sees will bear out everything that I have said.
      I think that I have spoken for far too long—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hear, hear? Everyone has been asking me to give way and I have been very generous. If I had not given way, Members would have been critical. I apologise if I have spoken for too long, but I heartily recommend the new clause. It is not necessarily perfect. It does not necessarily go far enough but it puts down a solid marker as to what the Government might do to bring immediate improvement to the dreadful situation that faces the UK as a result of the importation of illegal meat and meat products.
      Diana Organ: In health policy, whether it is about human or animal health, the essence is to prevent rather than to cure. Any health policy should include measures to prevent the disease, rather than deal with the symptoms. That is a positive way forward. As a result, I support new clause 4.
      It is important that we take this issue forward. The terrible events of foot and mouth over the summer show that we must do something to make controls on imports much tighter. We do not yet know how foot and mouth came into this country. There are three inquiries on the go but they have not published their reports yet. The most important one in relation to this issue is the inquiry about

      1033
      lessons to be learned, which is chaired by Dr. Iain Anderson. I believe that it starts tomorrow and will publish within six months of starting, but its terms of reference are important:
      "To make recommendations for the way in which Government should handle any future major animal disease outbreak, in the light of the lessons identified from the handling of the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak in Great Britain.
      In its first recommendation, the Devon inquiry made the same point: the lesson to be learned is about the protection of this country from the invasion of disease. That recommendation said:
      "We therefore find that methods of import control must be tightened to the highest international standards and if necessary be the subject of new legislation. It is important that new powers are implemented properly at ports and airports with the increase in staffing that that implies."
      Another inquiry also supported that view. Following the 1967 outbreak, the Northumberland inquiry recommended that we should tighten and have greater security on import controls at ports and airports to stop disease coming in. The Government have chosen to introduce the Bill before any of the inquiries that are examining the 2001 outbreak report, but in the light of recommendations from those other notable reports, it is right that new clause 4 should be included in the legislation.
      We are not sure where the FMD outbreak came from. It is highly likely—but it is only speculation—that it came from the importation of illegal meat that entered the food chain, possibly because certain farmers did not observe the recommendations on the use of swill. As we heard from the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), other countries appear to have tighter controls, and we have rehearsed the reports of holiday entries into north America, which has greater questioning, monitoring and controls. According to the hon. Lady, it seems that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee may have the opportunity to visit New Zealand, and it would look carefully at the import controls in place in Auckland should it do so.
      We do not seem to have those import controls at our ports and airports and it is right to put them into legislation. However, to do so, we need more resources. The current officials of the port animal health teams do not have sufficient resources to carry out the checks that would be necessary. It is right that we should put the resources in. One can always call for more resources, but if we are seeking to improve our biosecurity, they will be necessary. At the moment, through the Bill and other measures, we ask farmers to look to biosecurity when there is an outbreak of disease, whether of classical swine fever or FMD.
      Mrs. Browning: I do not disagree with the hon. Lady's remarks, but I am puzzled on one point. It is clear that new measures will require new resources, but why does new clause 4 not contain a recommendation to that effect?
      Diana Organ: The new clause would provide for an annual report, and it would automatically follow that better import controls could not be instituted without resources. If we are to have good national biosecurity, we need to put the resources in. The Minister has rightly said
      1034
      that we need better awareness among the travelling public. However, the problem lies not with the naive travelling public, but with those people who deliberately import meat illegally. The odd traveller who has a deer or a tortoise in his suitcase is something that we might want to check, but we do not need the new measures for him. The problem is those people who are deliberately engaging in illegal trade and bringing substandard food products into this country.
      Mr. Paice: I agree with much of what the hon. Lady says, but she cannot be allowed to get away with asserting that we should be worried only about those people who, to paraphrase her remarks, are in it commercially. We have heard many stories of people bringing large quantities of meat into Heathrow in private suitcases, and they presumably do not do so on spec but have a destination for it. The problem goes further than that. What should be done about the countless number of much smaller items such as ham sandwiches and other consumer items that are brought in? [Interruption.] Before the hon. Lady seeks to ridicule that question, I assure her that if she tried to take such items into Australia or the US she would not get past the first post. We should take the same care in this country.
      Diana Organ: We need a risk assessment. We cannot absolutely eradicate all risk of people bringing in the last little bit of a ham sandwich tucked into their pockets. In the examples that we have heard about, of suitcases going round Heathrow with blood dripping from them, the system has caught up with the travellers responsible and prevented such illegal importation. What we need to do now is to provide more resources, and an annual report, to help to tackle the problem of people who import illegally as a commercial business, in the way that Customs and Excise tackle the illegal importation of alcohol and tobacco products. We need a proportionate response—that phrase was much used in Committee—and I am much more concerned about larger quantities of meat that might enter the food chain than about the naive traveller with his accidentally imported bit of ham sandwich.
      Mr. Paice: I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the conclusions of the Department's scientists that the outbreak of swine fever in the late summer and early autumn of last year was caused by the illegal importation of a pig product, assumed to be a pork pie or a ham sandwich. The consequences for the pig industry in East Anglia were devastating and that is why we cannot ignore that relatively small problem.
      Diana Organ: We are not sure how the swine fever outbreak started, although there has been much speculation. We must use better targeting—
      Mr. Bacon: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Diana Organ: May I answer the first intervention before I do so? We have to target resources, but my concern is that we need more systematic and rigorous controls at the point of entry so that we can catch people

      1035

      who import, illegally and for commercial purposes, meat that will enter the human food chain. We have already caught many of the other offenders.
      Mr. Bacon: I draw the hon. Lady's attention to a report published today by the Health and Safety Executive. It is called "Reducing risks, protecting people". On page 67, under the heading
      "Comparison of risks against costs".
      it says:
      In comparing costs against risks the Health and Safety Executive, when regulating, will be governed by the principle that there should be a transparent bias on the side of health and safety … need to err on the side of safety in the computation of health and safety costs".
      For duty holders,
      the test of 'gross disproportion'"
      should be seen in that light.
      Is not that evidence that the Government recognise that the potential costs of getting it wrong are so huge that it is worth a bit of investment—a favourite word of the Government—"up-front" to ensure that we get it right?
      Diana Organ: There will always be some level of risk, especially on food issues. We seek to improve the biosecurity of the nation through the Bill, but we cannot have a 100 per cent. risk-free situation and say that nothing will ever break through the barrier that we are trying to erect. There is always a cost to set against every benefit. I am arguing for greater and more targeted resources and an annual report, because it is obvious that the present measures have failed us in the past.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: The debate is slightly off target, because it is not important that we decide today what constitutes the greatest risk to animal health, be it a ham sandwich or an illegal cargo of Brazilian meat entering via the Republic of Ireland. What we need to decide is whether it is right and proper that the Government should tell us annually what steps they have taken to crack down on such offences. It is on that basis that we could hold the Government to account. We need that open accountability and auditing of the Government's work. The hon. Lady is answering the points well, but the debate is not concentrating on the crucial issue.
      2.30 pm
      Diana Organ: I give great thanks to the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. This is a sub-debate which does not go to the heart of the matter. The real point is that we want an annual report and more targeted resources. More information should be given to the travelling public, but we want the Bill to improve control measures at ports and airports and to strengthen biosecurity.
      Mr. Colin Breed: Most hon. Members have received correspondence from dismayed farmers and people in the agriculture industry, expressing much the same sentiments as have been heard in the past hour. Many people involved in this exercise recognise that we need stronger and better regulation of food imports. As has been pointed out, the new clauses offer a mechanism for keeping matters under constant and vigilant review.
      1036
      People who work at our ports and airports would welcome having the matter raised regularly, as that would ensure that they were given the support needed to do their jobs effectively. Financial support is important, but so, for instance, are proper notices and leaflets. They would bring the matter to people's attention before they disembark in this country, and they represent a cheap way to remind people to take care.
      Tony Cunningham: That is an important point. Some options are simple and cheap. For example, people checking in luggage at airports are asked whether they packed the bag themselves. Similarly, a few simple questions when people return to the country would remind them of the portion of pork pie or sandwich that they have in their possession. They do not bring such material in deliberately, but an appropriate question and the correct signage could be helpful.
      Mr. Breed: I agree. That would command the support of most people. However, some ports have better facilities than others. Early on in the foot and mouth crisis, I spent five or six weeks submitting requests to visit ports to look at their facilities. Eventually, it was agreed that I could visit Felixstowe.
      Felixstowe has impressive facilities for checking imports. Refrigeration units allow refrigerated containers to be checked, and a computerised system checks containers' provenance. In addition, the port has many expert staff, who do admirable work. Trading standards officers, the port health authority and the Customs and Excise work together as they check containers. That was impressive.
      I wonder, however, whether I was allowed to see Felixstowe because it would make me think that other ports' facilities were equally impressive. I suspect that they are not. People who deliberately try to introduce illegal meats are unlikely to bring them through the port at which there is the greatest likelihood that they will be caught. They are more likely to go for the weakest link in the chain of security around the country.
      We need to ensure that all airports and seaports have the proper facilities. Improving security arrangements at one port will only put more pressure on other ports and other forms of entry. I hope that the Government will recognise that part of the war against foot and mouth disease and other diseases involves improving ports' facilities. Officials' ability to do their work properly needs to be reviewed regularly.
      I was interested to read recently that European legislation in the new year will try to make the whole of Europe a fortress against third-country imports. A clear problem at Felixstowe involved imports from European countries which had originally been part of third-country imports into those countries. Officials' ability to check those imports was insignificant.
      It is a weakness in the system that imports from Thailand, Brazil, South America and Asia, for instance, can go to other European countries before being passed on to Britain. Such imports are subject to very little checking. I do not know what input Britain has had into the discussions of the forthcoming European legislation, but it is a major problem. Being an island, Britain has more ability to protect itself than other countries. I hope that we have contributed to discussion of the introduction of that legislation and made sure that we do not suffer from third-country imports that pass through another European country.

      1037
      The new clauses have been tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The proposals that they contain do not go much beyond what the Government were doing anyway. If there had been regular reviews or reports after the 1967 outbreak, some of the measures that we now believe to be necessary might have been introduced earlier. If those matters had been raised in a debate or report, we might have been alerted beforehand to some of the problems at the heart of this year's foot and mouth crisis.
      If things like the movement of animals—and especially of sheep—the growth of market traders, and the conditions in markets had featured in previous annual reports, we might not have had to face some of the problems encountered this year.
      The new clauses are based on common sense. If the Government are undertaking regular reports and reviews, there is no reason why—given their new-found transparency and openness about the actions that they are taking—they should not publish their findings and present them to Parliament. A proper annual review could take into account the new information arising from the inquiries that are in hand. It would allow the House to adapt to new circumstances and to ensure that new forms of security and defence were established. In that way, we could avoid subjecting the country to more disease than might reasonably be expected.
      I hope that even if he cannot support the new clauses, the Minister will support the desire expressed in them for openness and transparency so that a regular review is not just seen by a Department but laid before Parliament. That would ensure that we are vigilant in future, bearing in mind the enormous cost of foot and mouth for the country and the way in which it has ravaged our rural economy. Producing an annual review and report would be an inexpensive and reasonable way of doing that, and I hope that the Minister will support the new clause.
      Mr. Drew: I congratulate the official Opposition on catching us up with regard to new clause 1. If they had got a move on in Committee, we might have had this debate then. I remember that the new clause was first down in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ). However, as an altruistic soul, I do not claim ownership. I am looking forward to what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say. There is a unanimity of purpose in dealing with imports and, more particularly, improving co-ordination of the way in which we deal with them.
      In a sense, I am pleased that the official Opposition are not aiming to strengthen existing legislation on controlling imports. I have talked to the National Farmers Union, and have been led to believe that the Animal Health Act 1981 is sufficiently strong to control imports of illegal and unacceptable foodstuffs into the country. It is a question of co-ordinating and monitoring the situation and, as new clause 4 specifies, publishing a report of what is going on.
      I hope that my hon. Friend can tell us what is happening. There is a need to tighten things up, although we might be 20 years or more too late, as the Northumberland report highlighted. It is amazing what people can find in the Northumberland report as worthy of prioritisation. When I look through it, I do not always
      1038
      find some of the things that it is said to have mentioned. It is a good report, but it is about a different outbreak at a different time. We can learn from it but we cannot treat it as tablets of stone and implement every recommendation as if things have not moved on, because they have.
      So many organisations are involved in controlling imports that we must consider the issue carefully. They include Customs and Excise, the Home Office, the Food Standards Agency and local authorities. Two-tier systems—or three-tier, like mine—have district environmental health officers and county council trading standards officers and, last but not least, the port health authorities.
      Mrs. Browning: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman praying in aid the excellent work of the trading standards officers in Gloucestershire county council. However, I recall that only yesterday, in Westminster Hall, he was advocating abolishing Gloucestershire county council.
      Mr. Drew: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to say that that is why I am calling for unitary authorities. In that way, we might have some real co-ordination, with different officers working in the same way. I am in no way being derogatory about the excellent work they do, but rationalising the services makes sense. These proposals are about improving co-ordination and making sure that people work together.
      2.45 pm
      The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) hit the nail on the head, which he does more often than not. We are not simply talking about the main ports of entry. Not a lot of people know this, but I have in my constituency a port called Sharpness. On a busy week, about 10 ships come in to it. I am loth to remind my hon. Friend the Minister, but we had an immediate rapport about this when I came to this House. My hon. Friend told me that he had managed to negotiate an improvement in the herring quota for my constituency. The only problem was that although I have a port in my constituency, I do not have a herring fleet, and I put him right later on. It appeared in Punch, and is a legitimate source of interest between us.
      Sharpness is the epitome of the problem. It is a very small port, although its tonnage is growing. The idea is to have permanent people on the port side looking at every cargo that comes in. We have foodstuffs coming in, but nothing mainstream. New clause 4 puts forward ideas for improving that. Given that unity of purpose, my hon. Friend the Minister would be churlish, to put it mildly, if he did not allow us to consider ways in which to improve the situation. We can talk about that, in this place or the other place, and about how to use the existing legislation more effectively.
      There is an issue here concerning our relationship with the European Union. I had the opportunity to speak on this matter about a month ago when we considered the potential of the European food standards agency. In many respects, our Food Standards Agency, introduced by a Labour Government, has set the trend for other countries within Europe and further afield. They regularly draw on the evidence of the Food Standards Agency to see what

      1039
      good work is being done. We cannot introduce the sort of measures that we want in isolation from Europe. Whatever our view of Europe, we must accept that much of our trade is there and that much of it will come through Europe, whether it is legal or—dare I say—illegal. We must work with other EU countries, and that should be done through the Food Standards Agency. Whether we are talking about our Food Standards Agency being at the forefront or working in tandem with the European agency, I do not mind.
      If the Food Standards Agency is to be the lead agency, as looks highly likely, I accept that the Food Standards Agency should report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as well as the Department of Health. That is one of the only recommendations that I made when looking at DEFRA's terms of reference. We can have that argument another time. How do we empower the Food Standards Agency, what do we expect it to do, how do we monitor its performance and how do we expect the other Government agencies and Departments to relate to it?
      Finally, when we talk about farmers improving their biosecurity, there is a trade-off with the need to know that there is a so-called level playing field. It will be more level if farmers know that there is a regime that not only deals with imports but tells people what it does. Because there are various agencies trying hard to do what they can, it is never completely clear who is taking the lead and what they are doing.
      I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to allay a lot of fears. The debate has been important; I am glad that it has come at the start of the Report stage rather than getting squeezed off the end, as happened before. This is an important point, and we will have done a great deal of good if we make sure that things are tightened up and we all know where we are going.
      Mr. Michael Jack: Perhaps I might tempt the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to save the House further debate on this subject. I should be delighted if he would intervene to tell me whether he agrees or disagrees with the proposal. New clauses 1 and 4 focus centrally on the production of a report, and some cogent arguments have already been put by hon. Members in support of that idea. Would the Minister like to stop me going on for too long by telling me whether he agrees or disagrees with the proposal?
      Mr. Morley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman who—as ever—goes straight to the point. Obviously hon. Members want me to respond, but I cannot do so in an intervention. I can only say that I think that the case is being made well and I am very sympathetic in principle to the idea of the report as well as to the general principle of being open and transparent. However, I am not sure whether the Bill is the right vehicle for that, as the issue is one of imports—not animal health. However, I am prepared to take the proposals seriously and to consider whether we can do something along those lines.
      Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. When he appeared before the Select Committee and we probed him, as many have done, as to why the measure had been so hastily and speedily introduced, he reminded us—including those of us who have served in the ministerial area that he occupies with
      1040
      such distinction—that legislative opportunities do not come often. However, there are precedents that might give him comfort as regards his worry that the Bill is not the right legislative vehicle: the exercise rewriting in plain English the UK tax laws resulted from Parliament agreeing, in a Finance Bill, that an important report be produced. That may offer the Minister a degree of comfort. That is one reason for the request in both new clauses that a report on action to deal with illegal imports, in the first instance, be laid before the House.
      Westminster Hall offers us more opportunities to debate such reports, which would also enable the Select Committee to go through such matters. By the time the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will have resolved his internal struggle as to whether he will sign up to the proposal to produce such a report—whether enshrined in law, as I should prefer because that would guarantee that it was done, or undertaken outside the provisions of the Bill.
      As other new clauses and amendments rightly point out, it is also important to develop a strategic approach towards not only foot and mouth but a range of potentially lethal and infectious diseases—as suggested in schedule 2—that threaten us in the United Kingdom. The proposed report would assist in the development of a biosecurity strategy to which all parties could make a contribution.
      When the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) spoke to his new clause, he talked about the Food Standards Agency. I do not think that is the right lead body: in essence, the issue relates to animal health and, as many hon. Members have already pointed out, it involves many governmental and non-governmental agencies. DEFRA would offer the best co-ordinating point for all those elements, so that each can make their contribution to the production of the report.
      The report could also be developed as an action document for a wider biosecurity network. I have studied the information issued by DEFRA in its briefing: "The Animal Health Bill—frequently asked questions". The strategy for dealing with importation covers little more than one A4 page. Most of it describes various forms of publicity. The most far-sighted statement is:
      "We are also looking at a wide range of other options to ensure the rules on imports are enforced effectively and efficiently. These include, for example, the possible use of sniffer dogs and x-ray machines."
      I am sure that the Minister will tell us that much more is really going on, but why not deal with the problem rigorously by producing an annual public report? The Minister might have been on his way back from Brussels and thus unable to listen to "Farming Today" when a spokesman was talking about changes in EU legislation. Those changes may in due course be relevant, but we cannot wait until then. The spokesman referred to the areas where there are risk factors for foot and mouth alone: in Russia, the middle east, north Africa, Asia and south America. We could add to those factors the variants for the possible importation of suspect material: illegal immigrants, tourists, legitimate immigrants—one could go on, but this is neither the time nor the place for a debate on all those factors. Given the complexities, however, there is a real need for the Minister to sign up to the production of a report that could form part of a proper biosecurity strategy to deal with those problems.

      1041
      We should not let people forget the foot and mouth outbreak. Although the previous one was in 1967, the cases of swine fever and other diseases show that it may not be long before there is another outbreak. It is better that we are rigorously prepared; the report would make a contribution to that.
      Mrs. Browning: The Minister will be aware that, in Committee and during today's debate, I have drawn his attention to the first conclusion of Professor Mercer's inquiry into foot and mouth in Devon. It is an indictment of the Government that, in drawing up primary legislation, on Second Reading and in Committee, they flatly refused to address the urgent need to ensure that action is taken to deal with imports. We must do that if any lesson is to be learned from the recent foot and mouth outbreak.
      In his evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Minister acknowledged:
      "The legal imports were never responsible for this outbreak. We do not really know what has been responsible … it was probably some form of illegal import."
      If that is his view, it beggars belief that—on the precautionary principle—the Government have included no provisions that address that problem. What is worse, when they were presented with reasonable amendments in Committee, they refused to accept them and voted against them. New clause 1 offers us the last sliver of a chance to extract from the Government a tangible piece of documentary evidence as to how they are dealing with a clearly perceived problem: the most likely cause—in the absence of other evidence—of the recent foot and mouth outbreak.
      I support the new clause. However, umpteen glossy Government reports pass through the House, so I hope that, if the Minister is amenable to the suggestions and produces an annual report, he will not see it as a soft option. The report will need to give tangible and quantifiable evidence and to demonstrate year-on-year progress. It must be devoid of any of the usual spin doctor waffle—the matter is important and it deserves better treatment than that. The report will need to be statistically—
      Mr. Morley: Is this a persuasive case?
      Mrs. Browning: I have a certain sneaking affection for the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh!"]—and I have tried every course. On Second Reading, I went out of my way to say nice things about him. Throughout Committee, I read him interesting extracts from publications—but now there is no more Mrs. Nice Guy. I shall lay it on the line: as my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) correctly pointed out, we are talking about animal disease. Clearly, there is a read-across from our concerns about the danger that imports present and the spread of animal diseases in this country to harmful human diseases and human health risks.
      As time goes by, there may well be communality between the procedures that are put in place to address both issues, but the Bill deals specifically with animal disease, and it is on that basis that the Minister should
      1042
      recognise that—although he accepted not a signal amendment in Committee from any party or, indeed, his own Back Benchers—now is his chance. Christmas is coming, and he should remember the lowing animals around the manger. Now is the time for the Minister to show the softer side of his nature and support new clause 1.
      3 pm
      Mr. Simon Thomas: At the start of what I hope will be a short contribution, may I clear up any confusion that may have been caused in Leicestershire because of my earlier remarks? Of course, I wanted to refer to legal meat imports. It is important to realise that legal and illegal meat imports present a risk to animal health. As has been rightly said, there is a public health issue as well. Certainly, all of us who are here to serve, to protect and to provide services to the public should be concerned when we hear of the cases involving Ebola-carrying monkeys.
      I simply want to take this opportunity to encourage the Minister to accept either new clause 1 or new clause 4, because there is a great deal to be said for them. A bit of politicking has gone on, which is quite natural, and the Government have been accused of being rather lackadaisical in their attitude to illegal meat imports. However, when I met representatives of the county committee of the Farmers Union of Wales in my constituency last Friday, they told me that they were being asked to do an awful lot to improve and maintain biosecurity. They pointed out that they had to face the financial penalties for not reaching the Government's standards, and they simply said, "Ask the Government what they are doing for us." They wanted to know what the Government are doing to protect their industry and farming communities from illegal meat imports.
      Legal and illegal meat imports involve an economic cost that affects how we try to get our local farmers to sell their produce successfully. The point that the farmers wanted me to get across—I am delighted to have the opportunity to do so—is that they want the Government to show clearly how they are checking meat imports, ensuring that higher public standards are meeting consumers' concerns and weeding out illegal meat imports.
      The FUW would like an annual report to be published to show what percentage of meat imports are checked and at which locations those checks take place. I accept that those checks take place at large ports such as Felixstowe, but we also heard about the smaller ports such as that in the Stroud constituency, as well as Fishguard and Swansea, where such checks are not carried out regularly and where curious meat imports end up. South American beef is sent to the Republic of Ireland, somehow acquires EU status and is then imported into this country. We would like an annual report to explain how such things occur.
      If the Minister does not accept either new clause, I hope that he will at least undertake to produce a report. If he does that, I would still commend new clause 4 to him. Despite the virtues of new clause 1, by which Conservative Members try to address similar aims, the advantage of new clause 4 to the Minister is that its terms are much more detailed and thorough. It states which agencies should be covered by an annual report and casts

      1043
      its net a little wider than just the narrow confines of the Bill. We seek a wider-ranging report on animal health issues that might be addressed not only by the Bill, but by the actions of other Government agencies and Departments—for example, the Food Standards Agency under the Department of Health.
      There are great advantages in both new clauses, but new clause 4 has the added advantage that the National Assembly for Wales would receive a copy of the report. Two serious animal diseases—brucellosis and tuberculosis—are dealt with as animal health matters by the National Assembly, not by the Minister here. Plaid Cymru would like to amend the Bill and suggested some changes on Second Reading, although not in Committee because we did not get to that point. Under amendment No. 19—if we ever get there—we shall try to give the National Assembly greater powers to deal with animal health issues.
      Indeed, the National Assembly's Agriculture and Rural Development Committee has said that it wants such powers, but it wants to have them through secondary legislation, which is a slightly different way from the one I would advocate. All that has the virtue that the National Assembly should receive a copy of such an annual report and debate it, and it should be able to suggest any improvements to primary legislation that are needed to crack down on illegal meat imports.
      I hope that the Minister will either undertake to produce such a report, or, even better, accept one of the new clauses. However, whatever happens, I hope that he will accept that the farming community and the public need to see an annual report from the Government in which they set out the steps that they are taking to ensure that there is no further outbreak of foot and mouth, or any other serious animal health problem, in this country. I hope that the Government will take all necessary steps to ensure that no such outbreak occurs and that they will be openly accountable.
      Mr. Paice: The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) referred in his opening remarks to a point that I want to make. I endorse what he said about the pressure that is properly put on farmers to improve their biosecurity. The vast majority of farmers realise that more can be done, but probably those who realise what can be done have already done it—that is the nature of such things. However, the need for biosecurity is recognised and accepted by the industry.
      Alongside that, the Government have been making noises during the past few months, if not years, about farmers taking increased responsibility—using insurance mechanisms or whatever—for the consequences of animal disease. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to start with that issue because it behoves the Government to do their bit to minimise the risks against which farmers must take their own biosecurity measures.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and other hon. Members have said, the advantage of an annual report is that it would give the House and others the opportunity to find out what was happening. In itself, it would solve nothing. In theory, an annual report could say that nothing had been done and that could go on year after year, but we all know that the reality is that such exposure of the actions taken, or not taken, would result in improvement.
      1044
      It is worth making the point that when the House passed the Food Standards Act 1999, about which I spoke on behalf of the Opposition, we tried very hard to give the FSA the responsibility for monitoring the standards of imported food. I recognise that that issue relates to human health, rather than animal health, but, as several hon. Members have rightly said, there is a tremendous amount of conjunction between those two issues. Of course, some diseases affect humans and other animals.
      I make the aside, but it is an important one, that if we are facing climate change and a gradual warming of this part of the world—most people now accept that that is happening—we shall be increasingly at risk of diseases that have not yet reached these shores. We are dealing not only with known problems, but with those that might arise in future. It is a great shame that the Government strongly resisted making the FSA responsible for import controls, for example.
      I also want to refer briefly to the world trade in food. I readily accept that we are debating whether an annual report should be published on how we address the animal issues that relate to imported foods, but we need to return to the point about new legislation that the Minister made in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde. Of course, the Minister is right to say that, strictly speaking, food can be moved freely in the European Union, but I remind him that there is a treaty article—it was 36, but it now has another number—that allows any Government to impose import controls for reasons of human or animal health or welfare. The power can therefore be used if necessary. The power's use is considered by the European Court of Justice, and France used it over BSE. As a result of decisions made at the European Council, the court decided that its use in that case went over the top.
      In an intervention, I referred to food imports from China and the increasing amount of meat imports, including poultrymeat, that come from Brazil and Thailand. We therefore need to question whether the controls exercised by the EU on our behalf are sufficient. I hope that an annual report would be able to refer to the implementation of the European controls.
      It has been argued that the developing world would see the introduction of certain standards as a trade barrier. Like most Conservative Members, I am in favour of free trade as long as it is fair trade. The non-governmental organisations that assist the developing world frequently use the term "fair trade", and I have no qualms about the concept. However, if standards are imposed in this country or in Europe, we cannot have fair trade if products that do not meet those standards are allowed into the marketplace. The Government or the Commission must either prevent such imports or provide public support to domestic producers to compensate them for the extra costs that would be imposed on them.
      A couple of months ago, the Minister created agricultural headlines when he expressed his belief that subsidies were doomed and would go. I do not want to enter that debate now, but his view hardly suggests that the Government are willing to set out the compensatory approach that I have just described. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, we must recognise the importance of the famous level playing field for imports.
      The two main apostles of the free market are the United States and Australia. Although we can argue about whether they are as white as white as they sometimes

      1045
      pretend, the fact is that their import controls on food products are extreme while the controls in this country are a joke. During the summer recess, I went to Australia with colleagues from both sides of the House and, when we arrived, our bags were searched and we had to take our shoes off.
      Mr. Morley: That was because of foot and mouth.
      Mr. Paice: Of course it was because of foot and mouth. However, we were struck by how seriously Australia took the issue. Accidentally or not, there was no way in which one was able to bring in any food product however small. Until and unless we adopt such policies in this country and throughout Europe, we shall continue to face the dangers associated with the import of foodstuffs.
      When I referred to the outbreak of swine fever in East Anglia, the Minister said that his scientists had concluded that it was probably—the case cannot be absolutely proven—caused by an illegal import or an import of pigmeat in some form or other, probably a ham sandwich, from a country where the far-eastern strain of classical swine fever is endemic. As we do not allow pigmeat imports from any of those countries, the import of this product would have been illegal.
      If the scientists are correct—I have no reason to doubt their findings—the word "probably" becomes terribly important. The precautionary principle applies and I am sure that the Minister, who is a reasonable man, will agree that "probably" is sufficient to justify precautionary measures.
      3.15 pm
      Despite that case, I have seen no evidence that suggests that controls have been improved at our sea ports or airports. I hope that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong and will point to the range of measures that the Government have enforced since the veterinary report into swine fewer was produced to show that significant improvements have been made. I suspect that he will not be able to do that, and that reinforces the case for the publication of an annual report.
      The Minister was impressive in his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde. The hon. Gentleman showed that he was open minded and, even if he cannot make a commitment in the next few minutes, I stress to him that we can make further progress on this matter in another place. I hope that he will undertake that this crucial issue will be considered there. No one has spoken in this debate against the proposal in the new clause, and I hope that he will appreciate that.
      Mr. Wiggin: I have opposed the Bill since its introduction and the only redeeming feature in it would be the inclusion of new clause 1. The Bill is draconian and remains unamended. It is extremely worrying in every way.
      When the Minister was in Brussels yesterday, he will have heard about the new vaccination testing that will allow the tests to differentiate between vaccinated and infected animals. That means that vaccination will become a more effective tool in combating foot and mouth. Although there is no demand for a general
      1046
      prophylactic vaccination of all livestock, it could at least be used as a ring-fenced measure. However, for that to be viable, the tests would have to be fully validated and international rules for the trade in meat from treated animals would have to be changed. Perhaps that is what we should be debating today.
      Mr. Byrne, the European Commissioner responsible for foot and mouth and food safety, made the point that he wanted all new proposals to focus on improvements in livestock management. He warned:
      "This will require improved identification and traceability"
      and would lead to more restrictions on animal movements. More resources could also be devoted to stopping illegal imports of contaminated meat.
      If we adopted new clause 1 and could move away from the concept of slaughter, a huge part of the Bill would become obsolete. If we could focus on preventing the import of disease and not on the 5 million animals that were slaughtered, we would be doing something positive and not concentrating on passing a draconian Bill.
      I have examined other parts of the Bill and hoped that science would throw light on them. It did, because one of my constituents was the first to be genotype-tested for scrapie. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not the sheep?"] Mrs. Sue Farquhar will be grateful to hon. Members for pointing out that it was her flock of Shropshire sheep that were genotype-tested. She is from Hansnett farm in Canon Frome and, in an article in Farmers Weekly a few weeks ago, she and her husband advocated that all sheep owners should have their flocks scrapie tested. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that that was a positive suggestion.
      However, Mrs. Farquhar rang me yesterday in some distress. The results that she had been promised would take two weeks to arrive came back four weeks later and 80 per cent. of them were wrong.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are wandering a little away from the point.
      Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If it were accepted, new clause 1 would be the only reason to support the Bill. If it is not accepted, we shall need to consider all the different reasons why the scrapie tests have been invalidated. That is why I may have strayed briefly from the point. However, I feel that if I cannot mention the matter, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will have let down my constituent, but worse than that, I will have let down all livestock owners in the UK—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That may be so, and I would hate it if the hon. Gentleman were to let down his constituent, but he really must confine his remarks to the new clause.
      Mr. Wiggin: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall return to the new clause and, in particular, to the point that it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that they do not allow the importation of any new disease. Whether or not they decide to eradicate existing diseases is by the by, as you rightly pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      I shall close, then, with the thought that the Bill's drafting and its draconian elements, and the fact that I have been unable to tell the Minister about scrapie, mean that it is essential that we support new clause 1, and I hope that Labour Members will do so.
      Mr. Bacon: I shall start where my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) left off—with the difference between the Government's talk and their action. Just this morning, I was speaking to a leading figure in the pig industry, who said:
      "The Government has done nothing that would give anyone any confidence that a new outbreak isn't incubating right now."
      [Interruption.] I think that I heard the Minister say that it is not true. If it is not true, the Government are failing to communicate what they are doing, because that is the pig industry's impression. I have been in the House only a short time, and sitting on the Public Accounts Committee week after week, hearing tales of the Government getting things wrong, I have been particularly struck by the fact that one of the most important functions of Government is to identify and manage risks. The risk that we face from illegal animal imports, which new clause 1 does something to address, is extremely serious, and the Government failed even to mention it when introducing the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said.
      This country has been exposed to the risk of many diseases from imported products over the years. We have had foot and mouth from Argentina, swine fever from Denmark and the Netherlands, enzootic bovine leukosis from Canada and maedi visna from Iceland, and I could go on. Indeed, my constituency was heavily affected by classical swine fever. Irrespective of whether new primary legislation is needed, what the Government are doing to co-ordinate the various agencies and to ensure that their powers are being properly used is exceptionally important.
      As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) pointed out, many agencies are involved. Customs and Excise is responsible for controls on the international movement of all goods. Local authorities are responsible for inland checks on illegal food products, including those that have been illegally imported. Port health authorities are responsible for border checks on imported foods. The Meat Hygiene Service is responsible for enforcing hygiene controls on meat imported into licensed UK cutting plants. Again, I could go on. There is a perception, which is borne out by reality, that there is no, or at best insufficient, cohesion between those bodies.
      The Government recognise that. I am told that an interdepartmental taskforce is reviewing the co-ordination of responsibilities. On Second Reading, the Minister referred to that, saying that he did not think that there was a need for primary legislation, but that
      "DEFRA has been leading interdepartmental discussions"—[Official Report, 12 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 666.]
      with various agencies. That was a month ago, and I am not sure how much action has taken place since then. People want action and change, not simply talk.
      The National Farmers Union acknowledges that, theoretically, the necessary legislative powers already exist. It goes on to say:
      "However, we believe that there is an urgent need for a far more comprehensive review of the overall framework and resourcing of the UK's system of import controls to ensure their effective implementation.
      Such a review should include a fundamental examination of the activity and responsibilities of central government, its agencies and local government in order to ensure coordinated activity and an effective import control regime".
      1048
      It cannot be the case that we now have an effective import control regime, or we would not be spending so much time talking about the issue today. The regime cannot be effective when so many industry bodies are flagging up the fact that they think it is not.
      The National Pig Association, which is of great interest to me because of the pig farming that is undertaken in my constituency, said:
      "It is likely that both outbreaks"—
      foot and mouth disease and classical swine fever—
      "started as a result of illegal imports of meat. There is an urgent need for the Government to act to reduce the risk of further outbreaks of imported diseases."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to the Devon foot and mouth inquiry, which is, perhaps, one of the most important pieces of evidence that has come to light so far. It is the first independent, or at least quasi-independent, review of the crisis. Its conclusion is so important that I should like to make sure that it is all entered on to the record. In paragraph 1.1 of its preliminary findings, the inquiry says:
      "While it is certain that the disease entered this county via sheep bought by a Devon dealer from Longtown market in Cumbria, how it entered Britain is still a matter of conjecture. What is clear is that food is different from other internationally traded commodities and must be treated as such. It is fundamental to our existence, perishable and climate sensitive. No country or region can hope to meet consumer demand entirely from within its own boundaries. All of which means that while food traded internationally and within national borders is inevitable, it requires sensitive handling and rigorous bio-security. It was suggested to the inquiry that import controls of meat and other livestock products at the points of entry are inadequate and below the standard in countries free from Foot and Mouth."
      That is why the inquiry goes on, in its first finding, in paragraph 1.2, to conclude:
      "We therefore find that methods of import control must be tightened to the highest international standards and if necessary be the subject of new legislation. It is important that new powers are implemented promptly at ports and airports with the increase in staffing that that implies."
      I referred earlier to the report of the Health and Safety Executive, "Reducing Risks, Protecting People". If we were to approach the risk management of imported diseases and related health and safety issues in the same way that manufacturers approach safety in their plants, we would have what are known as hazard analysis critical control points, or HACCPs. Imports are an obvious critical point of entry for disease into UK agriculture, but when introducing the Bill, the Government did not, despite the recommendations of the Devon inquiry, which my hon. Friend pointed out, even mention them.
      Earlier this week The Daily Telegraph reported that there has been a new outbreak of Ebola in west Africa. That is, of course, a matter for human as well as animal health. Ebola has a fatality rate of about 70 per cent. It is suspected, although no one knows for certain, that it is carried by bats and ground rodents. Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), in the light of such reports it behoves the Government to examine seriously whether the resources devoted to controls at airports and ports of entry are adequate. Customs and Excise rakes in about £100 billion a year on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. It beggars belief that if the risk of a disease entering the country were sufficiently high, it would not be worth spending a considerable proportion of that sum to increase the security and biosecurity of people in this country.

      1049
      New clause 1 is a modest step in the right direction in that it at least places an onus on the Government to report back to the House on their actions. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will consider what has been said in this debate. On Second Reading, virtually every Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour Member who spoke referred to the need for greater controls on imports. It is time that the Government took the issue much more seriously, and they could do so by accepting new clause 1.
      3.30 pm
      Mr. Morley: We have spent two hours on new clause 1, which, I accept, deals with an important issue. I am not at all complacent and recognise that preventing disease at the point of entry is a key issue, but it is not the only issue. There are three issues in disease control: preventing disease from getting here in the first place, which we have debated; controlling the spread of disease once it appears in the country; and, of course, eradicating the disease and the measures needed to do that. All those criteria are important.
      I have differences, not necessarily with Members who have spoken this afternoon, but with people who try to present the issue of import control as the only method of controlling disease in this country. Some of them would be happy to have import control barriers and stop meat coming in from other countries. It is a myth that everything that comes from abroad is substandard; that is not the case, and no one in the House would suggest that. However, some Members have suggested that our import controls are substandard in comparison with other countries. There is no evidence of that; our import controls, procedures and methods are as good as, if not better than, those of any other European country.
      Unlike a lot of Members, the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) has been to see one of our border inspection posts, through which all third-country imports have to go. They are well run, efficient and well resourced; some are very modern indeed. That does not mean that we should not look at whether we should make them better and whether there is a case for strengthening border controls and inspections. The Department has been doing that; we have spent more money on publicity at points of entry so that people are aware of controls. We have had a cross-Department review as the issue is a multi-agency one, involving Customs and Excise, port health authorities and local authorities. The Food Standards Agency provides an overview, but it does not exercise regulatory control over the inspections. Our minds are certainly not closed to improvements and, if necessary, strengthened law and regulations. I have doubts about adding the new clauses to the Bill because the powers that we have at present can be changed by order. Parliamentary time is a precious resource; if regulations on import controls need to be changed, that can be done by order, so primary legislation is not necessarily required.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am dismayed—[Interruption.] Well, I shall probably be even more dismayed later. The Minister is introducing draconian and sweeping powers to deal with the spread of disease and its eradication, yet the Government have not done anything of any consequence—and he knows that they have not—about
      1050
      the importation of disease into the United Kingdom. We can gather from what he has said that nothing done so far has been in the least bit effective. In an intervention, he gave a different view from the one that he is giving now. Will he revert to type and accept the new clause? He could have done something about the problem in the Bill and taken action, but that has not happened.
      Mr. Morley: The hon. Lady is again confusing the facts. The Bill deals with animal health, but import regulations deal with a different subject although, of course, if necessary, they can be changed. However, I come back to the point that allegations are just allegations; the evidence is not there. That does not mean that illegal imports are not coming into the country—the fact that we have been seizing them demonstrates that they have been coming in. There have been seizures of illegal commercial imports; the bush meat seizures at Heathrow airport are an example of Customs and Excise applying a risk assessment at points of entry and taking efficient action. Some of the people involved in the organised illegal bush meat trade have been sent to jail. I may be wrong, but that has never happened before, and it shows how seriously the Government treat illegal imports and demonstrates that action has to be taken.
      Mr. Bacon: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that primary legislation was, in his view, almost certainly not necessary. However, the excellent new clause 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friends, and new clause 4, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), are agnostic on the question of whether or not primary legislation is required; they merely require the Minister to report back to the House.
      Mr. Morley: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to get to it, I shall answer his point later. I want to deal first with the myths and put things in perspective.
      We are not out of sync with other countries, especially European ones, in the measures that we have taken to protect our consumers as well as animal and public health. I saw an interesting television programme about American border inspections. The Americans take that seriously, and I do not wish to imply otherwise, but the programme showed a guy searching luggage. He found some imported meat, including dead tropical rats, but because he could not find dead tropical rats in his guidebook he said that they must be all right, and allowed them into the country. That does not strike me as wonderful enforcement at the point of entry.
      Let us put things in perspective. We need to look at enforcement. At the conference yesterday, I saw the presentation by the Food and Agriculture Organisation, which hon. Members have mentioned. The person giving the presentation was also in the European Union foot and mouth disease group. The presentation showed the scale of the spread of foot and mouth and indicated that 2000–01 has been the worst year ever for international outbreaks, not just those in the UK. A survey of risk assessment by the group demonstrated that the UK was last in risk assessment, which proves that one should not be complacent about many of the issues.
      We shall have to look at those issues, but they are not the only ones. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) rightly said that the Devon inquiry was

      1051
      the first one. As she said, we know that the disease came to Devon via sheep movements in the country but, incredibly, the report did not mention biosecurity measures to stop the spread of disease.
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Nobody participating in our debate or in the Bill's Committee stage has suggested that importation is the only thing that matters, although it is important, as the Minister will acknowledge. It would help to put things in perspective if he told us the total resource or financial commitment that the Government are making available towards preventing the importation of illegal food, and the number of people employed in that role.
      Mr. Morley: That is a multi-agency responsibility that goes beyond government, so I do not have the figures immediately to hand, but I am happy to try to get them for the hon. Gentleman, as I believe in being open and transparent. As has been said, having a report is not a bad thing so that people can see what is being done. From the Government's point of view, it is a good idea to demonstrate what is being done by giving the number of prosecutions and seizures. I am not against that principle. In fact, my hon. Friends the Members for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who tabled new clause 4, made a good case; a case was also made for clause 1. My hon. Friends tabled a similar amendment in Committee, so they have been thinking ahead.
      To a certain extent, we already conduct a review. Under the Animal Health Act 1981, a report on expenditure incurred, prosecutions under the Act, and the incidence of disease in imported animals is produced every year. Of course, that report deals with imported animals so it is not quite the same as the report proposed in the new clauses. I recognise that, and I do not disagree with the very persuasive arguments advanced by my hon. Friends.
      The question is whether it is legally possible to include such a clause in a Bill that does not concentrate on imports. That does not mean that we do not take the new clause seriously; we do. The issue is the nature of the Bill. I will consult the Department's lawyers and other Departments, as it is a cross-Government matter. The principle of an annual report is perfectly reasonable and fair. If a measure along the lines of the new clause can be arranged, whether it is introduced in the Bill or elsewhere, I am willing to press the case.
      Mrs. Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, which warmed up a little towards the end, but having considered the matter and listened to the debate, in which virtually every speaker from both sides of the House supported the principle of an annual report, which the Minister himself accepted, I fear that I cannot accept his undertaking to introduce the measure in another form, for the simple reason that we know that there is tremendous pressure on legislative time.
      Unless I can have a cast-iron guarantee that the measure will be introduced in the other place, I must press the motion to a Division. If the Minister can give me a cast-iron guarantee now that the measure will be introduced in the other House during the passage of the Bill, I shall accept what he says.
      Mr. Morley: The hon. Lady knows that, because of the wording of both new clauses, I cannot give a cast-iron
      1052
      guarantee. I have given the House an undertaking that I am willing to consider ways in which we can advance the principle. That may well involve changes in the Bill, but I shall have to take advice on that, and I shall certainly do so.
      Mrs. Winterton: Although the Minister accepts the principle of what we have been seeking, we want the measure itself. My original decision must therefore stand, and I must press the motion to a vote.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 318.

      Division No. 111]

      [3.42 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Allan, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Amess, David

      Francois, Mark

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Gale, Roger

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gamier, Edward

      Bacon, Richard

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Baker, Norman

      Gidley, Sandra

      Baldry, Tony

      Goodman, Paul

      Barker, Gregory

      Gray, James

      Baron, John

      Grayling, Chris

      Barrett, John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Beggs, Roy

      Greenway, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Grieve, Dominic

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Bercow, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Harvey, Nick

      Boswell, Tim

      Hawkins, Nick

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Hayes, John

      Brady, Graham

      Heald, Oliver

      Brake, Tom

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Brazier, Julian

      Hendry, Charles

      Breed, Colin

      Hermon, Lady

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Hoban, Mark

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Holmes, Paul

      Burnett, John

      Horam, John

      Burns, Simon

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Burnside, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Burstow, Paul

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Butterfill, John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Keetch, Paul

      Cameron, David

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      (NE Fife)

      Key, Robert

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Cash, William

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Chope, Christopher

      Lamb, Norman

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Lansley, Andrew

      (Rushcliffe)

      Laws, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Leigh, Edward

      Collins, Tim

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Cotter, Brian

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Cran, James

      Lidington, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Loughton, Tim

      Dodds, Nigel

      Luff, Peter

      Doughty, Sue

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Fabricant, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Flight, Howard

      Maples, John

      Flook, Adrian

      Mates, Michael

      1053

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Spring, Richard

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Steen, Anthony

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Streeter, Gary

      Mercer, Patrick

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Moore, Michael

      Swire, Hugo

      Moss, Malcolm

      Syms, Robert

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Oaten, Mark

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thurso, John

      Page, Richard

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Paice, James

      Tredinnick, David

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Trend, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Price, Adam

      Viggers, Peter

      Prisk, Mark

      Walter, Robert

      Pugh, Dr John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Rendel, David

      Webb, Steve

      Robathan, Andrew

      Weir, Michael

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Whittingdale, John

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Willetts, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Ruffley, David

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Willis, Phil

      Salmond, Alex

      Wilshire, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Selous, Andrew

      Wishart, Pete

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Yeo, Tim

      Shepherd, Richard

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Simmonds, Mark

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

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

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Mr. Laurence Robertson

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      and

      Spink, Bob

      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ainger, Nick

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Allen, Graham

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      (Swansea E)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Browne, Desmond

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bryant, Chris

      Austin, John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Bailey, Adrian

      Burden, Richard

      Baird, Vera

      Burnham, Andy

      Banks, Tony

      Cairns, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Battle, John

      Caplin, Ivor

      Bayley, Hugh

      Casale, Roger

      Beard, Nigel

      Caton, Martin

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Cawsey, Ian

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Challen, Colin

      Bell, Stuart

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Benn, Hilary

      Chaytor, David

      Benton, Joe

      Clapham, Michael

      Berry, Roger

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Best, Harold

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Betts, Clive

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Blackman, Liz

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Clelland, David

      Borrow, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      1054

      Coleman, Iain

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Colman, Tony

      Hope, Phil

      Connarty, Michael

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Corston, Jean

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cranston, Ross

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Crausby, David

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cummings, John

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hurst, Alan

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      David, Wayne

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Joyce, Eric

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Doran, Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dowd, Jim

      Kelly, Ruth

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kidney, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Efford, Clive

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Ennis, Jeff

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Etherington, Bill

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Fisher, Mark

      Lammy, David

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Laxton, Bob

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Flint, Caroline

      Lepper, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Levitt, Tom

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Linton, Martin

      Foulkes, George

      Lloyd, Tony

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Love, Andrew

      Galloway, George

      Lucas, Ian

      Gapes, Mike

      Luke, Iain

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lyons, John

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gerrard, Neil

      McCabe, Stephen

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McCafferty, Chris

      Gilroy, Linda

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Goggins, Paul

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McDonnell, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Grogan, John

      McKechin, Ann

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hanson, David

      McWalter, Tony

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McWilliam, John

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Havard, Dai

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Healey, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mann, John

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marris, Rob

      Heppell, John

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heyes, David

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hill, Keith

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hinchliffe, David

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hodge, Margaret

      Meale, Alan

      Hoey, Kate

      Merron, Gillian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Miliband, David

      1055

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Mole, Chris

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Moran, Margaret

      Soley, Clive

      Morgan, Julie

      Southworth, Helen

      Morley, Elliot

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Squire, Rachel

      Mountford, Kali

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mullin, Chris

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stevenson, George

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      O'Hara, Edward

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Olner, Bill

      Stringer, Graham

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Owen, Albert

      Tami, Mark

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Perham, Linda

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Picking, Anne

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Timms, Stephen

      Pike, Peter

      Tipping, Paddy

      Plaskitt, James

      Touhig, Don

      Pollard, Kerry

      Trickett, Jon

      Pond, Chris

      Truswell, Paul

      Pope, Greg

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Twigg Stephen(Enfield)

      Purchase, Ken

      Tynan, bill

      Vaz Keith

      Purnell, James

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rapson, Syd

      Watts, David

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      White, Brian

      Robertson, John

      Wicks, Malcolm

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Rooney, Terry

      (Swansea W)

      Ross, Ernie

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Roy, Frank

      Wills, Michael

      Ruddock, Joan

      Winnick, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wood, Mike

      Ryan, Joan

      Woodward, Shaun

      Salter, Martin

      Worthington, Tony

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wray, James

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wyatt, Derek

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Simon, Siôn

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 5

      OFFICIALS: BIOSECURITY
      `In the 1981 Act, the following section is inserted after section 16—
      "16B Officials: biosecurity
      (1) The Ministers or any person acting on his behalf, shall take all reasonable precautions to ensure that he does nothing which causes an animal to be infected with a disease specified in Schedule 2A.
      1056
      (2) Any person who fails to take such reasonable precautions is guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.".'.—[Mrs. Ann Winterton.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I hope that we shall be able to make progress, as there are many other new clauses and amendments that we would like to debate. The new clause, which deals with biosecurity in relation to officials, is extremely important and I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to it. The Bill as a whole introduces the concept of conditional payment in relation to compensation for slaughtered animals. In the first instance, it provides for 75 per cent. compensation, subject to the judgment that the biosecurity arrangements on the farm in question are suitable.
      I believe that the judgment that is made in the Bill is contrary to natural justice. The Government seem to have tried to smear farmers by saying that they were responsible for the spread of the disease and that they breached biosecurity to such an extent that a penalty must be introduced in respect of compensation or compulsory purchase of slaughtered animals. In Committee, the Minister conceded that that charge could be levelled at only a very few people in the farming community. One must, therefore, ask rhetorically why the Bill does not specify 100 per cent. compensation for the majority of farmers, and 75 per cent. compensation for those whose biosecurity arrangements are found not to be satisfactory by the Minister or officials sent by him.
      I recognise that compensation is the subject of several amendments that will be considered later, so I shall not mention the aspects with which they deal, but I must tell the Minister that the outbreak was under way for some considerable time before any biosecurity measures were introduced. Such measures were introduced very late in the day during the recent epidemic. Certainly, no specific advice was available at the outset to farmers or those in the rural community about how best they could stop the spread of disease. That may have been due to the lack of a workable contingency plan. The Minister said in Committee that such a plan was available—
      Mr. Morley: Absolutely.
      Mrs. Winterton: If that is the case, I would be grateful to see it. If such a plan was available, it is obvious that it was not in the least suitable for the sort of outbreak that occurred in this country. The disease obviously spread considerably faster than the Minister and his officials expected, perhaps because of delays in clamping down on animal movements in the first few days of the outbreak.
      While farmers are being accused by implication in the compensation measures in the Bill, many cases have been brought to my attention in which breaches of biosecurity occurred in respect of DEFRA officials and people who were subcontracted to undertake duties on behalf of the Department, whether they were the so-called dirty vets, slaughtermen or other officials. In case the Minister accuses me of promoting myths, let me say that I do not believe that these stories are myths. There were many biosecurity lapses among officials.

      1057
      4 pm
      Farmers are keen to have good biosecurity. However, the Bill almost characterises them as initially having no biosecurity arrangements. We should treat farmers and officials equally. The Minister has agreed biosecurity arrangements, and I understand that Department officials who call on the farmers will go through the check list. If it is right for farmers to put those arrangements in place, those who work for the Department should also be liable for breaches of them. The new clause would redress the balance by ensuring that officials who act on the Minister's behalf are charged with the need to operate under strict biosecurity arrangements. If they are found to have failed and are convicted, an appropriate fine should be levied. New clause 5 provides for that.
      There is little more to say about the provision, which simply introduces equity as between the farming community and Department officials. I hope that the Minister will consider it sympathetically.
      Mr. Breed: The term "biosecurity" became common this year. When it was first used, few people understood it precisely. I forget the actual date in February when the outbreak began; it was imprinted on my mind once—I am sure that it remains imprinted on the Minister's. However, it is instructive to consider what was happening then. In my part of the world, we ran out of disinfectant in days. The strategic stores of disinfectant to facilitate biosecurity were not available. Yet we have been told that robust contingency plans were in place. They did not extend to disinfectant for extensive use.
      Biosecurity became important, and the practices developed and the protocols were drawn up as we went along. Towards the end of the outbreak, biosecurity measures were considerably better than at the beginning. That betrays the lack of robustness in the contingency planning exercise. We had to make up the biosecurity as the epidemic took hold.
      I cannot go on without referring to the Department's refusal to support Cornwall county council in establishing biosecurity on the Tamar bridge. It may have been a small measure, but it would have been effective in making people realise what biosecurity was about. It might not have prevented much infection, but it would have raised awareness and made people more conscious of the need for biosecurity. Nevertheless, it did not happen. I expect that we now have a new definition of biosecurity and I hope that agriculture will continue to improve on it. We will need to ensure that biosecurity is maintained.
      I disagree violently with confusing penalties with fines. The idea of reducing compensation until farmers proved that they had taken the right biosecurity measures is wrong. The tiny minority who do not ensure that their biosecurity measures are appropriate should be fined. That should apply to anyone who is not making the required efforts to ensure that we get on top of any future disease outbreaks. After all, we fine those who walk dogs on paths and beaches from which they are banned. There is therefore no reason why farmers who have been convicted should not be subjected to fines. However, they should not be subjected to a summary reduction in compensation.
      Instead of
      "summary conviction to a fine",
      officials who deliberately—that is unlikely—or through lack of forethought are found guilty of breaching biosecurity should be properly fined. If the Government
      1058
      do not like that idea, they could ensure that the officials receive only 75 per cent. of their salary and make them apply for the other 25 per cent. once they prove that they have not contravened biosecurity measures.
      The point has been well made that everyone, including DEFRA and other Government officials, members of the public and farmers should ensure that they participate in the biosecurity plan. The measures should be properly enforced.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that, in Committee, the Minister said:
      "I understand the arguments about whether compensation should be 100 per cent. or 75 per cent., but what we want is an incentive for good standards of biosecurity"?—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 November 2001; c. 134.]
      Does not that apply to officials? Should they not have an incentive for good biosecurity? Does not the new clause provide for that?
      Mr. Breed: It would achieve that. If officials come before a court because they have contravened the regulations that they are there to enforce, they should suffer a penalty. Farmers should suffer a similar fate; their compensation should not be reduced arbitrarily. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If farmers are expected to ensure that they fulfil biosecurity regulations on pain of reduction in compensation, officials should recognise that they do not have special immunity and should be subjected to the same sort of penalties. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that.
      Mr. Morley: I do not have much sympathy with the new clause—apart from the point, which I have repeatedly made, that biosecurity covers everyone who has contact with livestock farms. I accept that that applies to DEFRA staff. It also applies to people who do business with livestock farms, for example, by delivering feed or collecting milk, and to farmers. The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) was right to repeat the point that I made in Committee: we are not obliged to pay the 100 per cent. market rate for diseased animals.
      We are considering infected premises and we are trying to give people an incentive to focus on biosecurity. We were surprised that the disease was not being spread by wind-borne infection, as we thought originally. It was spread in that way in 1967 and during the outbreak between then and now. The epidemiology showed that in 80 per cent. of cases the infection was locally spread through animal-to-animal contact, movement of people, machines and vehicles. That is serious.
      Again, I put it on record that the majority of farmers were considerate and careful and took biosecurity seriously. Early in the outbreak, we wrote to farmers about biosecurity. Later, we sent a video to every livestock farmer. We applied the blue-box control scheme towards the end of the outbreak, when we had the resources to do that. We could not have done that at its height because the resources did not exist. Those biosecurity measures had a real impact on bringing the epidemic under control.
      That is one of the issues that we are going to have to examine in relation to the lessons learned, but it appears that biosecurity as a disease-control measure was one of

      1059
      the key factors in bringing it under control. That is why we must take it seriously. It is certainly true that only a minority of farmers apply poor biosecurity, but every farmer can give examples of people they know in their area who do so. It does not take many people to spread the disease and to keep it going. That is why biosecurity is such a serious issue.
      Mr. Breed: It is well known that we are talking about only a tiny minority of people here. I call them passive delinquents, in that they often do not breach biosecurity regulations deliberately. Things just happen to them. Perhaps they do not take as much care as they should, but they do not do it deliberately, and I do not think that they should be so harshly dealt with.
      In the light of the lessons that we have learned, are there now strategic stocks of disinfectant carefully stored throughout the country? That is the very material that will be required should any terrible occurrence need to be acted on quickly. One of the major lessons that we should have learned is that sufficient stocks should be strategically placed throughout the country.
      Mr. Morley: My understanding is that there were always sufficient stocks. The issue was where they were located. When there was high demand in certain parts of the country, the commercial stocks were exhausted quite quickly. There was always plenty of disinfectant; it was just a question of getting it to the right places and meeting that demand. Of course, there is no problem anywhere at the moment, but we need to give some thought to the matter for the future in the light of lessons learned.
      I cannot support the new clause, because it singles out DEFRA staff. I repeat that biosecurity requirements apply to everybody. We are not suggesting that we prosecute farmers who are in breach of biosecurity. We are saying that there will be an incentive in relation to compensation payments. Given that the majority of farmers will comply, and that we intend to go out to consultation about the procedures for the assessment, which I believe can be done very quickly, the vast majority of farmers are not going to be inconvenienced.
      I agree with the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) that many of the breaches of biosecurity were passive, in that people just did not think about what they were doing. The Bill is an incentive for them to think about that a bit more. So far as our staff are concerned, there were many myths about foot and mouth and some people were always trying to find a scapegoat. It is similar to the question of animal imports; people said that all the problems were to do with imports, that if we could sort them out there would not be a problem, and that no one else was involved.
      The theory was that all the problems were to do with DEFRA staff, and if it were not for them, there would not have been a problem, so people felt that they did not have to do anything about it. That was a minority view, of course, but one that is held in some quarters, and I reject it. We have made it clear to our staff that they have to follow good biosecurity. We do not need this new clause because our staff are given those instructions, and we expect them to abide by them.
      When complaints were received, every one was investigated. Most of them were found to be untrue, and in many cases there was no evidence. When there was
      1060
      evidence, we did not hesitate to take action against the people responsible, and in the case of contractors, that included dismissing them.
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth: There appears to be a majority view outside, in the countryside and among members of the fanning community, not so much that the Government are to blame for everything that went wrong but that the Government are putting them on trial. That is what is causing so much outrage and concern. That lies at the heart of our opposition to the Bill. The new clause is an attempt to shift the balance back a little in favour of the farming community, and to place some burdens of responsibility on DEFRA officials.
      Mr. Morley: But it does not; it seeks to criminalise DEFRA officials uniquely, which is one reason why I reject it.
      The view that we are trying to blame farmers is a completely false perception, and it comes from some people who think that farmers played no role whatever in disease spread. We know that that is not so, although in many cases, they spread the disease inadvertently. The Government recognise that we have issues to examine. I, as a Minister, have never ducked responsibility or ducked criticism where it was due. We have to learn lessons from a range of issues over the course of the outbreak, but that applies to everybody, not just to DEFRA officials.
      Mr. Drew: Would the Minister care to comment on an answer to a written question that I tabled a week ago, which shows a significant increase in the number of people keeping one farm animal, or one to five farm animals? Contrary to the myth that we have seen the death of the small farmer, there has been a significant increase in their numbers. All those problems need to be factored into how we control disease.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Morley: That is absolutely right. Ironically, there seems to be a growth in small farms. Those figures include lifestyle farmers and part-time farmers. That raises a number of issues, including registration—do we know where all these animals are?—that we are going to have to address. I am sure that the independent inquiries are also going to have to address those issues.
      It is not fair to single out DEFRA staff in this way. Most complaints against them were completely groundless. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) raised the famous issue of the overalls in the deep freeze. We have checked that out, and the fanner concerned is now saying that the overalls have nothing to do with DEFRA. As a matter of fact, he has some rather interesting theories about them. We have asked him if he will let us have the overalls, so that we can test them, but he has refused, saying that they are not in his deep freeze but in someone else's. So we have not quite got to the bottom of that.
      I do not want to go into too much detail because the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton is not here, so I shall write her a letter with all the details. There was another example of a vet who was said to be a "dirty vet". We checked that out and it was also untrue. A lot of claims are being made, but when we look into the details, they do not stand up to examination.

      1061
      I want to make it clear that if there are breaches by our own staff—I accept that our staff have responsibilities, too—we shall not hesitate to take action. That being the case, the new clause is completely unnecessary.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: The Minister has given a full response to the points raised during this short debate on biosecurity and officials. We would agree that biosecurity is a very important issue for everyone, and our objective in tabling the new clause was to point out that it was not just the farming community that had a responsibility in these matters. The Minister said that the officials and subcontractors who work for the Department are—or will be—under strict instructions as to what biosecurity arrangements should be in place. That assurance goes some way to addressing our concerns on this matter, and I am grateful to the Minister for that.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 7

      DUTY OF MINISTERS TO DISPOSAL OF CARCASSES
      `In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 35.
      "35A Duty of Ministers to dispose of carcasses
      The Minister shall have a duty to dispose of the carcass of any animal slaughtered under the provisions of this Act within forty-eight hours of its slaughter.".'.—[Mr. Keith Simpson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      On Second Reading, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who is not in his place at the moment, said that it might be more appropriate to refer to this Bill as the animal slaughter and disposal of carcases Bill, rather than the Animal Health Bill. That sounds, uncharacteristically, a rather crude and vulgar interpretation of the Bill. I have some sympathies with the hon. Gentleman, however, in that we often dress up in euphemisms of parliamentary language rather brutal and unsavoury facts.
      New clause 7 comes to the heart of the matter of public health and of beating foot and mouth. Following Second Reading, the Standing Committee, and through the deliberations of the Select Committee and proposals put forward by various outside parties including the farming community and non-governmental organisations, there is no doubt that a common theme has been that the Bill has been pushed through with insufficient lessons learned from the current and previous foot and mouth outbreaks. There is a sense—not only on the Opposition, but on the Government Benches—that the Government have failed to established a public independent inquiry. Only through that would we learn real lessons.
      Owing to the way in which the Bill is framed, we had to table amendments either to mitigate against the Minister acquiring unnecessary and, in some examples, inapplicable powers or to propose measures based on what happened on the ground during the foot and mouth outbreak. Given its nature, the Government's initial
      1062
      dithering, the failure of early measures and the subsequent spread of the disease, Ministers and officials were overwhelmed by events.
      I have some sympathy with Ministers and officials in that the speed and extent of the outbreak and spread of the disease meant that the old MAFF organisation was overwhelmed. This is neither the time nor the place to go into that, but I hope that we shall learn lessons from it. A serious consequence was the unedifying spectacle in many areas of large numbers of slaughtered animals lying in fields, farm yards, close to human habitation and by roads and tracks over many, many days.
      That was emotionally stressful for farmers and their families, and it was probably emotionally stressful for the vets and MAFF officials involved in the slaughter and the administration. Of course, it was also stressful for local people who had to move around what were, in effect, killing fields. Ultimately, it had a major impact on public opinion, and the Minister will be only too well aware of the great outrage and revulsion in Parliament.
      The Minister knows that the failure to keep up with carcase disposals became a logistical nightmare and, as foot and mouth spread, the carcase backlog became even greater. Apart from the emotional upset caused by widespread scenes of unburied dead animals, increasingly they posed a health risk. We know from those recent experiences, which were graphically illustrated by accounts from hon. Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading and in Committee, that there was order, counter-order and disorder from MAFF and then DEFRA, overwhelmed by events.
      Undoubtedly, there was serious confusion over the disposal of carcases: whether to bury or burn and whether they were to be buried or burned near to or far from the culling site. Thousands of carcases were transported many miles, and they appeared to be moved at random before being buried or disposed of with little consideration of the environmental impact. All those examples posed a major health problem and I would argue that they effectively lost the public relations war for MAFF.
      The Minister made this clear in Committee:
      "Slaughter is the most effective way of stopping virus production, for the reasons that I gave. As soon as the animal is dead, it stops producing the virus."
      We still have no definitive proof that vaccination would have alleviated the spread or that it might be the answer for the future. From what the Minister has put on record, I understand that, in the event of another foot and mouth outbreak, slaughter will be the main method of preventing the disease from spreading.
      Mr. Morley: I have not put that on record. I said that I would not want culling on the scale witnessed in this outbreak, and we must consider measures to prevent that. On vaccination, one outcome of the conference I attended yesterday is realistic proposals for greater use of vaccination, but that would take place alongside some culling. That would be reduced culling, but we still come back to this issue: if we are to cull, we must do so quickly and efficiently.
      Mr. Simpson: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, which probably reinforces what I am about to say. There are few lawyers in the Chamber, but, as we are aware, it is always best to know the answer to any

      1063
      question we are about to ask. Given our experiences, it is incumbent on the Minister and DEFRA to ensure that carcases are disposed of within 48 hours of slaughter. As the hon. Gentleman said in Committee:
      "Ideally, we want to remove carcases as quickly as possible".
      However, he added that despite being desirable, the proposed 48-hour period was impractical.
      The Minister's objections were based on the scale of the epidemic and the logistical problems, including manpower, equipment and vehicular movement:
      "Such practical problems mean that an absolute commitment to a 48-hour target cannot be given. I do not dispute that that target is desirable."
      Having said that, however, he used a get-out clause:
      "I am not saying that some of those practical problems cannot be overcome. They will be dealt with in inquiries and in future contingency plans."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 22 November 2001; c. 62–3.]
      So, disposal of carcases within 48 hours is desirable on every criterion, including disease spread prevention, public health and public sentiment.
      Mr. John Gummer: My hon. Friend mentions a series of matters, including inquiries. Would it not help support the Minister's point of view if all those matters, instead of being kept behind closed doors, were subject to an inquiry in public, so that we would all know precisely what happened? If only we all knew what happened, that would help the Minister enormously in putting his case.
      Mr. Simpson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That point has been made from these Benches and, indeed, from the Government Benches on numerous occasions. In a sense, we are groping in the dark as we consider the Bill, but my line of argument in support of the new clause uses the evidence as provided by the Minister himself.
      The problem is organisational and logistical, which is where MAFF-DEFRA so demonstrably failed during the recent outbreak. That is not only the conclusion of the Devon county council report, but what the public observed over several months, and farming communities in such areas had direct experience of it.
      The organisational and logistical failure of MAFF-DEFRA was highlighted when the Prime Minister ordered the use of Army personnel, under the command of a solid but inspirational brigadier, to get a grip on the slaughter and disposal of carcases in Cumbria. The Minister will forgive me for saying that my party had recommended that to Ministers over previous weeks, but it was dismissed as largely irrelevant.
      The Army provided leadership, organisation and planning, although it went in cold, and worked closely with local vets and MAFF officials, getting the problem under control, dealing with the carcase backlog and, as those events came to an end, disposing of slaughtered animals almost within the 48-hour time frame.
      My colleagues and I have tabled the new clause because we believe that, for reasons of science, health and public sentiment, it is right and proper that the Minister should have a duty to ensure that the carcase of any animal slaughtered under the provisions of the Bill be disposed of within 48 hours of slaughter. He agrees that that is
      1064
      desirable, but says it is impractical. We contend that the Prime Minister's decision to use the Army shows that, with leadership, organisational skills and the necessary resources, the desirable becomes the achievable.
      The Minister can square the circle only by lobbying the Treasury and the Prime Minister to point out that, as the Minister said today, it is likely that there will be further outbreaks of foot and mouth or some other animal disease in the near future, possibly on the scale of the recent foot and mouth outbreak. Unfortunately we did not learn the lessons of the swine fever outbreak, which affected my constituency. If we do not learn the lessons of this outbreak—if, again, we do not allocate the necessary resources, establish the necessary organisation and set targets—we will, I am afraid, witness a repeat performance.
      I urge the Minister to accept that our proposal is not just desirable, but achievable in practice.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Gummer: I commend the new clause to the Minister for, dare I say, his own good.
      I know exactly what the conversation will have been in the Department when the Minister was preparing to defend his side. His officials will have said "This is a difficult point, Minister, and of course you will be sympathetic, but we should advise you that, all things being taken together and in the round, there may be trouble. It would be much better if you said no. Of course we will try our best. We will do all that we can, and perhaps we will even achieve what we want to achieve—but it would be much better if you gave us the necessary elbow room. You can trust us. It will be absolutely OK." I know that the Minister does not want to rest on that; I am sure that he wants to move a stage further.
      The point of placing a duty on the Minister is that it enables him to galvanise all at his command into achieving the desired end. It gives him a strength without which he clearly has serious difficulties, as we have seen during the past few years.
      Mr. Breed: Would it also give the Minister a lever in respect of the Treasury, and the costs that might be involved in achieving that aim?
      Mr. Gummer: I will come to the Treasury in a moment. I think it needs a paragraph or two to itself.
      Mr. Jack: Is not my right hon. Friend's argument entirely compatible with the Government's approach in introducing performance indicators into every area of their activity—health, education and many other areas—and measuring objectively what they hope will be done?
      Mr. Gummer: Absolutely—but my right hon. Friend will have noted that the Government are less keen on such indicators when they would indicate the performance of Ministers.
      I always want to help this Minister, as he knows. The proposed measure would help him to deal with the difficulty he has encountered with the Government machine in securing the full, fair public inquiry that I know he wants. The Minister has nothing to hide, and I am sure he has no intention of hiding anything; but it is extremely difficult for Conservative Members, or indeed

      1065
      members of any party in the House, to do anything if we do not have a report—not a report that would identify scapegoats, but a report simply detailing what has happened and what lessons should be learned. After all, we have had a number of reports of that kind, and in general they have been able to help future Ministers to conduct their affairs.
      If the Minister accepted the new clause, he would be able to say to his colleagues, "If we had been more open about the whole affair, I would have been able to convince the House of the need for a different time limit and a different procedure, because Members would have had all the information they needed at their fingertips. Indeed, if we had not completed the inquiry, I could have promised that they would have the information."
      I cannot speak for my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but I think that the new clause might have been withdrawn on the basis that further and better particulars might well lead them to take a different view; but they cannot do that in circumstances in which those further and better particulars will not emerge, because there is no mechanism whereby they should emerge. That means that we are bound to take only the evidence that we have ourselves, and seek to act on it. As I have said, giving way would grant the Minister greater power in his continuing argument with the rest of the Government, and a few notable colleagues, in favour of a comprehensive inquiry.
      Another reason for my view that accepting the new clause would help the Minister was foreshadowed by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed). I am thinking of the Treasury. The Treasury has a job to do: it is not a nice job or an easy job, but it must be done. The difficulty with the Treasury and DEFRA, as with the Treasury and MAFF, is that the area of choice is very limited.
      Quite properly, we are part of the European Union; quite properly, we have a common agricultural policy. The common agricultural policy could be greatly improved, and as part of the arrangements we will be able to improve it. The fact is, however, that the decisions—again, quite properly—are made jointly with us around a table. There is only a bit left for the Treasury to get its fingers on. Thank God there is only a bit left; otherwise, the farmers would have lost a lot more.
      I think that some of my friends who are not as happy about the CAP as I am should explain to the farmers whether they would get anything at all if it were all decided by the British. That is one of the facts of life. Happily, however, most of the decisions are made by people around a table. We are part of that, but many of the others are more concerned with the interests of farmers.
      Anyway, the bit left over is constantly under the eagle eye of the Treasury. The Treasury loves to look at that bit. That is why it has cut back on our flood defences. That is why the poor Minister had to admit to me the other day that less was being spent. He said that spending went up and down, but we were in the "down" phase at the moment, so things were rather difficult. Why did he have to explain that to me, at a time when my constituency—which contains 74 miles of coastline—is experiencing its worst-ever circumstances? Because the Treasury can only get its fingers on to the bit that is there—and those fingers creep out to grab whatever is around.
      1066
      I want to help the Minister in this regard. If the House of Commons decides that there is a performance target—a duty or a requirement—the Treasury can huff and puff as much as it likes, but it must provide the means. I am keen for the House to get its fingers around the throat of the Treasury, because if it does not we have no hope of controlling the Executive.
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I suppose my right hon. Friend would think that it meant nothing to the Treasury, but may I draw him a little nearer to the new clause? Its purpose is to avoid the horrific scenes of carcases lying rotting in fields, the terrible scenes of carnage that caused enormous problems to our image around the world and had a devastating effect on our tourism industry, which cost us many millions of pounds. My right hon. Friend may like to consider that, even though perhaps it is optimistic to think that the Treasury is capable of taking such issues into consideration.
      Mr. Gummer: There is a problem with my hon. Friend's analysis. In looking at the consequences of such a new clause, the Treasury will think only of the narrow immediate expenditure. It will find it difficult to recognise that the new clause is intended to help the Treasury to defend the greater sum of resources available to it. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the huge cost that was paid because of the insufficient funding of the culling operation. The cost is one which we pay today. I happened to be in the United States when the televisions were filled with pictures of fires and the whole situation, but much worse were the photographs of the animals lying dead in piles. That did huge harm.
      I remind the House of an experience that I had. It will help the Minister to deal not with large carcases, but with the smaller carcases of hens. I remember being faced with the problem of a number of nuns who were keeping hens and who had a salmonella difficulty. Of course, hon. Members can see immediately the public relations disaster of a whole lot of nuns seeking to protect their hens from the arrival of those who were going to kill them. That did not seem to me to be good news. In the end, we went early, even before they had begun to see the crime. We destroyed the hens before either nuns or journalists were up. I am not suggesting that it would be possible for the Minister to deal with a great mound as quickly as that, but in public relations terms, the quicker, the better. If it has to be done, it has to be done quickly. The hon. Gentleman admits that.
      I hope that the Minister will understand that we press the new clause not out of antagonism to him or indeed to what was MAFF and is now, at least in part, DEFRA, but to give him the power that is necessary if he is to win battles within his Administration. Although I was a member of an Administration who by nature, support and backing were closer perhaps to rural areas than his, it was not always easy to win what I needed to win. Often I needed support. From time to time, the hon. Gentleman and his friends gave me that support by making it very difficult for people not to ante up the money. That is all we are doing today.
      I hope that the Minister will take seriously the proposition that, by setting him a target, we enable him to set a target for the rest of the Government, achieve the resources necessary and deliver the necessary result. I hope that he or any future Minister will never face such an outbreak again, but the position needs to be put right.

      1067
      Otherwise, the cost to our national exchequer will be enormous and the damage to our farming community huge.
      Mr. Roger Williams: The Bill is ill advised and ill timed. A touch of optimism is returning to the farming community. I hope that foot and mouth has been defeated, but the Bill again drives a wedge between the industry and the Government. Any co-operation that we would like to engender and encourage between the two seems to be ill fated.
      MAFF set targets on slaughter and disposal. Those targets were not met because the disease completely overwhelmed the organisation that was in place. The Minister has told us that there was a national contingency plan but whatever it was, it was clearly not sufficient to deal with the disposal of the number of carcases that were on farms and in fields around farms.
      4.45 pm
      There were three ways of disposing of those carcases—burial, burning or rendering. Clearly, rendering was the preferred method, because it took place in well controlled environments. Sometimes, however, carcases had to be transported through clean areas that had not had the disease. Rendering capacity was limited, so burning and burying had to be contemplated.
      Lessons from the previous outbreak did not seem to have been learned, because the report on that outbreak said that on-farm burial was the favoured method of disposal. That had been accepted by the farming community.
      Tony Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that one of the problems with on-farm burial—I am a Cumbrian MP so I know what I am talking about—was that often the water table was too high and it was impossible to bury the animals on the farm where the disease had broken out?
      Mr. Williams: I accept that concern for the environment has increased since the 1967 outbreak, but instead of on-farm burial, it was decided to have mass burial and burning pits. The experience in my constituency was that concern for the environment was fairly minimal. One area on the Eppynt, an army range in my constituency, was designated and, until prompted by local farmers and villagers, no environmental assessment was even performed. However, one of the reasons given for not using on-farm burial was that an environmental assessment of each site would have to be carried out, which would be time-consuming and difficult to achieve given the resources available.
      If the mass burial and burning sites were included in the national contingency plan or the local contingency plan, that was not thought through very well. The new clause would encourage the Minister to ensure that any contingency plan, and any lessons learned from the inquiries that are taking place, would put more emphasis on deciding how to deal with the number of carcases that are generated.
      It was an upsetting time for the farming community. It was the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) who mentioned killing fields, but it was often killing yards. The animals were brought in close to the farms to
      1068
      be slaughtered and the carcases remained there for many days. Families, including children, were trapped on the farms and had to live with the carcases close by, which was an horrific experience for all.
      It is important that carcases are disposed of to prevent the spread of the disease. Although the animals produce no more virus when they are dead, the carcases can be torn apart by vermin, and the disease transported to other farms. The tourism industry also suffered because the animals were seen to be left unburied and when they were disposed of it was done in a way that deterred people from visiting areas that depend on tourism as well as agriculture for their livelihoods. I supported an amendment in Committee that was not framed as tightly and simply as the new clause, but the present proposal would help the Minister and it should be supported.
      Mr. Wiggin: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who made tremendous and well informed speeches. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) also made a passionate speech.
      When the decision to cull was taken, the Minister will have thought, "I must cull, otherwise our export market will be lost." That is a proper commercial decision. It was not done for humane reasons. There are not 5 million fewer farm animals because the Minister had humane reasons for his decision. We know, however, that the Minister will not slaughter on that scale ever again, thanks to the developments in vaccination.
      If the new clause has one purpose, it is to act as a brake on the Minister's decision-making process. Never again must carcases lie for nine days, as they did in Winforton in my constituency. Herefordshire relies heavily on its huge agricultural sector, and on tourism. Never again must we allow one market to be sacrificed so completely, and then watch with horror as another is taken down with it, leaving people in the countryside with virtually nothing.
      The new clause would encourage the Minister to vaccinate first. The Bill closes the stable door long after the horse has bolted, and any efforts that we can add to ensure that the Minister vaccinates first will improve life in the countryside.
      The new clause would mean that any future Minister facing a similar crisis would almost certainly be obliged to call in the Army at the earliest possible stage. That would naturally be part of any contingency plan, and would mean that some of the horrendous abuses of animal and human rights would be avoided. It would also prevent the horrendous mental damage suffered by people whose livestock were slaughtered.
      The new clause would also prevent the terrible smell from pyres, which did so much damage to the tourism and agriculture industries, and to connecting businesses across the country. I therefore urge the Minister to change his mind and support the new clause.
      Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) speaks with great authority from his experience of dealing at constituency level with the tragic consequences of foot and mouth disease. I rise merely to emphasise to the Minister the importance of this new

      1069
      clause. The part of the Bill that it seeks to amend gives legal comfort to the Minister that he has the power, at his discretion and decision, to slaughter in the first place.
      However, if the Minister is unable to agree to the provisions of the new clause, he must explain to the House why, given the lessons that have been learned and the findings of the two inquiries that are being held, he would not be able to dispose of carcases within the time scale that has been laid down. If he cannot explain that, it will be tantamount to an admission that, in another foot and mouth outbreak, he could not sustain the performance of disposal that was eventually achieved at the end of this outbreak as a result of the lessons that had been learned.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), in his elegant speech, mentioned the Army's logistical input. Subsequent new clauses deal with the matter of a national strategy, which should incorporate the type of performance indicator and requirement contained in this new clause. In the interests of sending a powerful message to farmers that the Government have learned their lessons and that if—God forbid—there were to be another outbreak, it could be dealt with effectively, the Minister should agree to new clause 7. However, if he is fearful of accepting it, he must explain why he will not.
      Mr. Morley: I am happy to explain why there are problems with the new clause. I am not against the principle behind it, as I said in Committee. It is desirable to have targets for disposal, as the new clause suggests, but the question is whether circumstances could arise in which those targets could be met, and what the implications of that might be.
      I shall explain that in a moment, but first I want to correct some of the statements that have been made. The first has to do with calling in the Army. I think that the independent inquiries will show that the Army was put on alert at the very beginning of the outbreak.
      I have been in my post for some time, so I was around at the beginning of the outbreak—and perhaps that is an indication of my own performance. I remember that the Conservatives were calling for the Army to dispose of and remove carcases. That was never really an issue—there was no shortage of civil contractors to do that. The Army played an important role in the logistics and organisation, in making sure that the right thing was in the right place at the right time. As the epidemic spread, it was important to have that support, which was brought in when it was needed.
      On the new clause, it is a case of not being able to win either way. During the epidemic, the Government were under pressure to kill animals as quickly as possible. That pressure came from farmers desperate to see the disease being stopped from spreading and those who did not have the disease but wanted to make sure that it was stopped from coming down the valley or moving down the county. Once an animal is killed, it stops producing the virus. The changes in the pH in the animal's body quickly neutralise the virus, and when the animals were killed they were also sprayed with disinfectant.
      There was also enormous pressure to take the bodies away as quickly as possible. That is an understandable and reasonable reaction from people facing the epidemic. However, there were logistical problems, given that this
      1070
      was the biggest outbreak of its type that the world had ever seen, such as obtaining leakproof lorries and disposing of the animals.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) is right that people keep mentioning the Northumberland report, which recommended burial. It did, but things have moved on since then. Issues relating to the water table in Devon, in particular, meant that on-farm burial was often not an option, as was also the case in Cumbria. In addition, the BSE outbreak in the cattle herd since the Northumberland report was published led to a restriction on burying cattle over 30 months and they had to be burned or, preferably, rendered. However, we did not have the rendering capacity to deal with the number of animals affected.
      The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) gave me some helpful support. I always appreciate a bit of encouragement. The right hon. Gentleman knows all about the procedures, given his long experience in Government. I suspect that some of the people who advise me advised him. They are probably giving me the same advice, on occasion. However, the reason I cannot accept the new clause is not that I disagree with the principles behind it. It is desirable to set a target. There are valid arguments for setting such indicators, and we may be able to look at that in the future.
      The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) mentioned vaccination as an alternative. I have always been keen on vaccination and on a range of other options, which is why I strongly support the Bill. It will give us as wide a range of options as we need in dealing with all circumstances. We should not forget that the Bill also deals with vaccination, sampling and blood testing—all the criteria that should be applied to any type of disease control.
      I am keen on getting these measures in place as quickly as possible. It can be argued that we are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, but this was an outbreak like no other. We have to learn from that. I believe that we can learn lessons from the inquiries. I also genuinely believe that the structure of the inquiries is the right one. I am fairly relaxed about structure. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal mentioned a public inquiry; he had experience of the Phillips inquiry, which was a useful investigation which provided some useful information, but it took nearly three years.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: You set it up.
      Mr. Morley: I accept that. It cost between £30 million and £40 million—about £10 million was spent on lawyers' fees. I am not altogether keen on that approach. I am much keener on an open process that is in the public domain and deals with the issues. I believe that our approach is the right one.
      5 pm
      Mr. Wiggin: Does the Minister agree that, given the speed of policy changes—including EU policy—and the fact that none of the three inquiries has reported, he should not legislate until at least one of those inquiries has reported?
      Mr. Morley: No, because time is of the essence. I repeatthat the Bill contains nothing that pre-empts any recommendation from the inquiries. Indeed, nothing in the Bill should be taken as the Government's definitive future policy for dealing with any disease outbreak.
      The hon. Member for Leominster is a strong advocate of vaccination, but some of the points that he made about new tests are not yet fully validated. The information is not yet available to us. I must correct him on one point: the culling programme was designed not to deal with trade issues, but to stop the spread of disease.
      Mr. Breed: Does the Minister agree that the Phillips report was lengthy and costly because it related to BSE—a disease that was new to us—but that we know all about foot and mouth? There is not much more that we need to know about the disease; we need to concentrate on how it was effectively controlled and eradicated. That would take far less time and would cost much less.
      Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman makes my case for inquiries that are short and to the point—exactly like those that have been set up. A full-blown judicial inquiry will go on for several years, so I much prefer the approach that we are taking. Nothing in the format of the inquiries is different from the Northumberland inquiry—there is no difference at all. People sometimes get hung up on definitions when they are talking about inquiries. I think we have chosen the right way: it will put all the information in the public domain, and will show us the lessons learned from the management of the epidemic, in the Anderson report, and the scientific questions—not only those relating to foot and mouth—that will be addressed by the Royal Society.
      Mr. Gummer: The Minister is trying to help the House, but the matter is not new, and the inquiry need not be as complicated as the Phillips inquiry, so surely it would be possible to set up a single, more public inquiry with a clear date line and the resources to produce a report within that period. It would have been quite possible to do that. The reason why the Government failed to set up such an inquiry continues to escape me. Everyone would have been much happier because its workings and results would have been open—as the proceedings of the Government's inquiries do not seem to be, at least to the public.
      Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman should wait and see how the inquiries are set up. I understand that Dr. Anderson will shortly announce how he intends to proceed. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the process is more open and transparent than he thinks and that people will have the opportunity both to make their case and to see the outcome—it will all be in the public domain. Of course, we can argue over these points, but I believe that our approach is the right way to obtain the answers that we need as quickly as possible.
      The reason why I cannot accept the new clause is that if we set up such a target, with all the unknowns and variables that I have described, it could have the perverse effect—certainly not intended by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson)—of discouraging rapid slaughter in some cases. If there is a target of 48 hours and
      1072
      it is difficult to meet that target—for whatever logistical reason—there would be a disincentive to slaughter as quickly as possible. If we are to use culling as part of disease control—we can argue about the alternatives to culling—the key is to carry it out as quickly as possible. The new clause would undermine that principle.
      Mr. Keith Simpson: We have held an interesting, short debate. My hon. Friends and I and Liberal Democrat Members are not especially convinced by the Minister's argument. In fact, I am not even sure that many Members on either side of the House are convinced of the general arguments in favour of the Bill. The Minister is a fair man, who is frequently left by his ministerial colleagues to bat alone, and he is only too aware that there is silence about the measure—at best—and some criticism. It is always difficult for Government supporters to criticise their own Government.
      The debate has shown, first, that the Minister accepts that, in principle, he believes there should be a 48-hour target and, secondly, despite what the Minister has said, that most hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it would have been possible to have had a short, open and public debate on the lessons learned. Rather than looking for scapegoats, we are looking for practical lessons to learn.
      Tony Cunningham: It has been announced that one of the three inquiries will take place shortly, but that will take six months. The great fear among farmers in Cumbria and all the tourism-related industries is that, if there were an outbreak of foot and mouth next February or March, it would decimate agriculture in Cumbria and destroy many of the tourism industries in that county. I support a broad range of measures that can be used to ensure that we do not get ourselves into the position that we faced with the original outbreak of the disease.
      Mr. Simpson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but this is pure Corporal Jones—people cry, "Don't panic," but that is exactly what the Government are doing. I have long experience of defence matters, and however appalling the Ministry of Defence has been at times, the one thing that it has learned from experience is that lessons have to be learned very quickly. In fact, the Minister wants a shotgun version of legislation to cover all kinds of contingencies because, frankly, neither first MAFF, nor now DEFRA knows what went on and has got the answers.
      The majority opinion on both sides of the Chamber is that a short, sharp inquiry could have been held and that the organisational and logistical lessons could have been learned very much in accordance with the standard operating procedures that the MOD applied in Cumbria.
      I hope that we have established that the Minister accepts the 48-hour target in principle. He is less sure in his rejection of the fact that we would like that target to be included in the Bill. My hon. Friends and I will not press the new clause to a Division, but I suspect that the issue may be taken up in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 9
      TRANSPORT OF ANIMALS DESTINED FOR SLAUGHTER
      `In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 8—
      TRANSPORT OF ANIMALS DESTINED FOR SLAUGHTER

        8A Transport of animals destined for slaughter
        A person commits an offence if without lawful authority or excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) he transports, or knowingly causes or permits to be transported, any animal destined for slaughter for more than 8 hours".'.—[David Taylor.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        David Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Bringing of animals to markets—
        'In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 8—

        8A Bringing of animals to markets
        A person commits an offence if without lawful authority or excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) he brings, or knowingly causes or permits to be brought, to market any animal which has been brought to a market in the previous 20 days.".'.
        David Taylor: Parts of the Bill deal with the control of foot and mouth disease when an outbreak is under way, and other parts deal with minimising the risk of such outbreaks occurring in future. We are not certain how foot and mouth disease got into Britain, but it is widely accepted that its rapid and extensive spread was due to at least two factors.
        The first factor was multiple movements, especially of sheep. Animals were transported in and out of markets and other premises several times in quick succession by dealers who tried to turn a quick profit by, for example, buying animals at one market and selling them at another a few days later.
        The second aspect was the fact that animals travelled long distances to slaughter, which has become more common in the past few years. Long journeys to slaughter and multiple journeys in and out of markets risk spreading infectious animal diseases, and lead to poor welfare—the two are clearly connected. Long journeys are more stressful than short ones, and multiple journeys involve repeated loadings and unloadings, with animals frequently being mixed with unfamiliar animals. Both those consequences are regularly identified as major stresses for animals.
        New clause 9 aims to tackle one of those problems by imposing a maximum limit of eight hours on the time it takes to transport animals to slaughter. The tendency for animals to be taken on much longer journeys to slaughter is greater than it was a few years ago, and it has arisen for a number of reasons. The first is the closure of many local abattoirs. In England, almost two thirds have closed in recent years, leaving us with about 300. Secondly, farmers and dealers drive animals past nearby abattoirs and take them to much more distant ones.
        Mr. Michael Weir: I seek clarification on what the eight-hour limit involves. Is the hon. Gentleman
        1074
        suggesting that eight hours in total is all that would be allowed, or is he saying that, if there were a break after eight hours, a further journey could be permitted? That is an important matter for those in the north of Scotland. Although the Bill does not at present apply to Scotland, if by some unfortunate chance subsequent amendments are passed, it may do so. The cumulative effect of those amendments and the hon. Gentleman's new clauses would lock out many people in the highlands and islands of Scotland from valuable markets.
        David Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman could contain his curiosity, I shall come to that point. I have a specific example that relates to the western isles.
        A further point about abattoirs is that supermarkets too frequently insist on sourcing all their meat from just a few large industrial-scale abattoirs and often refuse to use local ones.
        A maximum time limit of eight hours, as envisaged in new clause 9, would halt the worst of the long journeys. Indeed, I believe that the journeys should be much shorter than eight hours; animals should be slaughtered as near as possible to the farm on which they were reared. Eight hours, however, is the shortest limit that the European Union allows member states to impose on slaughter journeys. The relevant EU provision authorises member states
        "to provide for a maximum non-extendable journey time of eight hours for the transport of animals destined for slaughter, where the transport is carried out exclusively within their own territory".
        We have spent some time in the debate looking back at the lessons, if there were any, of the foot and mouth outbreak in 1967. The world has moved on in many ways. For example, 34 years ago, there was an established network of local abattoirs, which we think might be connected to the fact that the disease was located substantially in just one region of the country. Hon. Members should bear that point in mind when considering whether to support the new clause.
        The maximum eight-hour limit is in line with the EU directive and it would have more effect in preventing the causes of an epidemic and would not allow the previous culture to continue of getting the cheapest price for slaughter no matter the distance involved in getting the cattle, pigs, sheep or whatever to slaughter.
        I draw a specific example to the attention of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir). In September this year, several consignments of sheep were transported by sea from the Scottish islands to the west coast port of Oban. From there, they were taken by road all the way to Birmingham, not far from where I live, for slaughter. In the interests of animal welfare and health, those animals could and should have been slaughtered at an abattoir on the Scottish mainland. They should not have been brought on a very long journey to the midlands of England. Surely, such journeys cannot be allowed to continue for very much longer.
        In the long term, the eight-hour limit that the new clause would introduce should be reduced further still. Of course, there is commercial anxiety in the farming community, which has endured one of its worst periods in decades, and the imposition of any new limit should not be economically damaging. Central Government could provide encouragement by giving short-term financial support, beginning, perhaps, with small, local abattoirs.

        1075
        5.15 pm
        The EU directive, which is incorporated in UK law, is weak in several respects, and the new clause aims to strengthen it. For example, the directive allows calves in so-called higher standard vehicles to travel for a total of 18 hours with a one-hour stop mid-journey to give them water and, if necessary, feed. In its 1992 report on the transport of farm animals and pets, the European Commission's Scientific Veterinary Committee recommended that calves should travel for no more than eight hours before a break, which should last for at least three hours to allow them to drink to repletion.
        Similarly, the RSPCA is very concerned about the provisions of the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, which implements the EU directive, because it fails adequately to safeguard the welfare of transported animals. With poor welfare come stress, a predisposition towards infection and all the animal health problems that the Bill will tackle. The EU directive and the 1997 order need strengthening if animal welfare problems are to be avoided, and we need to press for a review of them. Many organisations have pressed for a review and highlighted the points that particularly need to be addressed.
        There are unsatisfactory and inadequate practices in existing abattoirs that receive animals that have been transported on long journeys. Indeed, their practices generate those long journeys because they will only take animals of a certain age and species, and therefore of a certain market value. That unnecessarily increases pressure on the UK's shrinking network of abattoirs, to which I have referred, and can only serve to push up average journey times to slaughter even further.
        We need licensing. We want to maximise journey times, but if we cannot monitor those journeys, the provision will be a dead letter on the statute book. We need to license all individuals involved in the transportation of live animals, and that should be a legal requirement. Transportation is an intrinsically stressful experience for farmed livestock. They are exposed to unfamiliar experiences, environments and animals, and can suffer physical discomfort and/or injury, as well as mental distress. The duration of the journey, the conditions on board, the handling during loading and unloading, the frequency of travel and the provision of water and feed can all have a stressful impact on animals, and the licensing of individuals involved in transportation will help us to monitor the implementation of the new clause.
        Perhaps we can encourage improvement by fiscal means. Perhaps the subsidy received under the common agricultural policy should be dependent on observance at particular farms of agreed animal welfare standards, including limits on journey-to-slaughter times. Linked to that would be more detailed recording of individual farm animals, which would assist in tracing their journey to slaughter in the event of another outbreak of a farm animal disease such as foot and mouth. Farm animal welfare concerns such as a limit on journey-to-slaughter times should in any case be included in the so-called non-trade concerns of the World Trade Organisation. That would lead to negotiations on a global platform to raise the profile and legitimacy of these concerns.
        Of course, the impact on farmers and consumers has to be considered whenever we in this place legislate to improve animal health and welfare. The new clause would
        1076
        have a very limited impact on consumers. I hope that DEFRA Ministers and representatives can enter into discussions with the five mega-supermarket chains to ensure that their corporate appetites do not distort the animal and public health-based reasoning that motivates the clause. Supermarket distribution networks should not be allowed to continue to dictate journey-to-slaughter times.
        New clause 10 provides that, once an animal has been brought to market, it cannot be brought back to that market or taken to another one for 20 days. That would make an important contribution to stopping animals being taken in and out of markets in quick succession and would prevent the mass exposure of vulnerable animals. At the outset of the foot and mouth crisis, it became clear that many sheep were moved in quick succession in and out of markets and other premises as dealers tried to make small, rapid profits on them. For example, a dealer might buy animals at one market then, a few days later, sell them at another market hoping to make a small mark-up. Dealers make no contribution to farming in my estimation; they do not involve the animals in a genuine farming operation and simply trade them as commodities.
        Multiple journeys played a major role in the rapid spread of foot and mouth and led to poor welfare, as animals were subject to frequent loading and unloading, mixed with unfamiliar animals and encountered other highly stressful circumstances. Such journeys have to be stopped as they can lead to serious problems and are not a necessary part of farming. New clause 10 would end the practice of animals being moved in and out of markets in quick succession and would not allow them to be brought to the original market or any other market in a 20-day period.
        The provision would tackle a problem recognised on both sides of the House, and by all parts of the farming community, veterinary practitioners and others. It would prevent a current practice in British farming that accelerated the rapid spread of the disease earlier this year. In many cases, multiple journeys prevented the successful tracing of the origins of the disease. The number of times that animals were transported between markets, often in a single day, resulted in mass exposure to other fatigued and traumatised animals. The 20-day moratorium on market-to-market journeys provides sufficient time for a disease such as foot and mouth to show up in infected animals. Not only would it allow infected flocks and herds to be isolated, but it would allow local conditions to be assessed for compatibility with the spread of the disease, thus reducing the possibility of an indiscriminate cull, frequently referred to not only by Opposition Members but by Government Members, in a designated area.
        Animal licences should be reviewed and revised to include the number of journeys that animals have undertaken in their life. Vulnerability and possible exposure to disease can then be assessed in the event of the outbreak of a farm animal disease such as foot and mouth. A reduction in the number of journeys between markets would result in long-term savings for farmers and a reintroduction of the abattoir in the local economy. Multiple journeys were born out of the drive to maximise profit per animal with such intensity and frequency that the inherent short-termism of that behaviour inevitably led to problems—and what a massive problem it eventually led to.

        1077
        Reducing the frequency of journeys would make farm animals healthier, and indeed create a more viable acceptable and higher-value product. Members in the Chamber today and members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee who have come into contact with farmers and others agree that farm animal welfare is high on their list of priorities. The provision would allow them to make more concessions to farm animal welfare, such as space for animals when being transported, regular watering stops and standardised qualifications for those loading and unloading animals.
        I regularly meet farmers in my constituency—I had a delegation from the National Farmers Union at my last advice session on Saturday. Although, fortunately, we in the midlands were largely unaffected by the disease, the farmers note that the Government did not introduce an immediate ban on all animal movements once the first case had been discovered in the abattoir in Essex. Had a 20-day moratorium on market-to-market journeys been in place, that infected animal would have been identified before it got to the abattoir, which would have reduced the exposure of other animals to foot and mouth disease.
        We Labour Members are keen to ensure that in our policies and practices we deliver what we promised to the British people. Our manifesto commitment was to
        "create a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sector within a thriving rural economy which advances environmental, health and animal welfare goals."
        Those elements are not mutually exclusive, as local abattoirs have found to their cost.
        A 20-day moratorium would restore some sanity and community considerations to a market that has been voracious in its consumption of animals for profit. It would also be vital insurance against another epidemic, and would buy the Government of the day—we hope that that would be decades away and that Labour would still be in power—some diagnostic breathing space, which was unavailable earlier this year. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister an encouraging response to both new clauses.
        Mr. Morley: New clauses 9 and 10 are important. My hon. Friend is right. If the aim is to stop disease spreading and to control and manage disease, the movement of animals is key. During the outbreak, a 20-day stop was put in place. My hon. Friend is also right about the long-distance movement of animals and the growth of livestock dealers. In the period between the introduction of the disease into this country and its identification, there were probably 1.3 million sheep movements, which spread the disease through the markets all the way down the west coast and into the west country.
        Those are serious issues, which we must address. My hon. Friend is right to raise them, and he might take some encouragement from what I am about to say. On the transport of animals, there is currently an eight-hour limit within the UK. Under EU rules, longer journeys are permitted in a higher standard of vehicle. The long-distance movement of animals is not just a UK issue. The conditions for the movement of animals over long distances throughout the EU and across boundaries is an EU issue.
        1078
        I was pleased to hear yesterday that Commissioner Byrne identified animal movements as one of the matters that the EU will have to address through the Council of Ministers as part of disease control. The place to consider time restrictions on the long-distance movement of animals is in the EU, because the limits must apply to all farmers, not just those in the UK. They must apply to the long-distance transport of live exports for slaughter from this country all the way down to Italy and Greece, which I find very hard to justify.
        Tony Cunningham: Given that by 2004 an enlarged European Union may include 25 countries, and given that there are probably more farmers in Poland and Romania than in all the current 15 EU countries combined, will not the problem be even bigger in the future?
        Mr. Morley: That is absolutely right, which is all the more reason why we must address the problem now in terms of European directives. I assure my hon. Friend that that is what we will do and that we will press the matter in the Council of Ministers.
        5.30 pm
        On the 20-day stop, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) was again absolutely right. I not only accept his argument in relation to markets, but believe that we need to go further. Animals are moved around for a range of reasons. We need a package of measures dealing with a series of scenarios in which animals need to be stopped for disease-control purposes, which go beyond the issue of markets. There are also issues in relation to the practicalities of the livestock industry. In that respect, we must take into account some of the legitimate concerns of livestock farmers about quarantine stops, and we intend to do so. So, the other assurance that I can give him is that we take absolutely seriously the point that he made, but will deal with it in a package of measures that includes that point but also goes a bit further.
        Ms Candy Atherton: That is very welcome news. Can my hon. Friend give a timetable that tells us when the package of measures might be introduced? The package will be well received in my constituency and more widely.
        Mr. Morley: Yes, I can. The 21-day stop is currently in place as a disease-control measure. We sympathise with livestock farmers in terms of some of the practicalities of the livestock trade. We want to address those issues, but we also want to put in place a package of measures in relation to stops, including markets and other scenarios, as part of a disease-control measure. We will start discussions with the agriculture and livestock sector immediately with a view to securing agreement on the matter some time in the new year.
        David Taylor: My purpose in tabling new clauses 9 and 10 was rooted in my belief that animal welfare and therefore animal health are seriously compromised both by the length of journey times and the number of journeys that individual animals make. The review this year of the European directive on transportation is indeed a good opportunity to reduce the maximum journey time to eight hours and I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend said

        1079
        in that regard. The system of multiple journeys in the United Kingdom, which is often related to the involvement of dealers, must be reviewed without delay.
        Animal welfare and animal health are twin themes and have been interwoven throughout this whole debate. They are part of the same issue. We need to reflect on that issue and tackle it as a Government. I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend said about the standstill proposals that he hopes to bring to the House at some future date. For that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New Clause 11

        NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN
        In the 1981 Act, the following section is inserted after section 36—
        "36A National Contingency Plan
        The Government shall prepare and regularly maintain in consultation with interested public and private bodies a national contingency plan for foot—and—mouth disease, which shall be laid before Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.—]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        The purpose of the new clause is to require the Government to draw up, maintain and publish a national contingency plan for dealing with future outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. There is widespread evidence that the Government and their agencies were wholly unprepared for the emergency that broke earlier this year. I have looked at the Government's published contingency plan, which is available on the internet. To say that it is rudimentary would be an understatement. It turns out to be very much what the Minister himself described as an outline strategy. It is our contention that an outline strategy is insufficient to deal with an outbreak of foot and mouth, as we found in the course of this year. That might explain why the strategy was so hopelessly inadequate and had no identifiable bearing on the way the Government carried out their duties in the event of this year's outbreak. An outline strategy was a recipe for chaos and confusion, and I am afraid that that is precisely what we got.
        The evidence of the public inquiry in Devon, which was chaired by Professor Mercer and was mentioned earlier, is especially revealing about the state of preparations in the Department. It reported:
        "It was not obvious to us from the evidence received that MAFF was working to any form of coherent contingency plan. This, in spite of actual evidence that the Government had submitted such a plan to the European Union in 1993 and that some low level MAFF planning was proceeding in 1999. Lessons, which should have been learned from the outbreak in 1967, did not appear to have been implemented, and recommendations of the official report into that outbreak were ignored."
        That point was supported by Mr. Alan Richardson, a retired vet who was involved with the 1967 outbreak and offered his services in Cumbria on the outbreak of the disease this year. He said that the lessons learned from the 1967 epidemic were set out in the report of the Northumberland committee, and that
        "the public had every reason to suppose that its conclusions formed the basis of the contingency plan in place in January 2001."
        1080
        It is curious that Ministers are at pains to point out that the circumstances have changed greatly since 1967. The Minister did so in an earlier debate. The Government have published a document called "Comparisons with 1967: How the 2001 outbreak of Foot and Mouth differs from the 1967 outbreak". The aim of the paper is not only to let them off the hook but to boast about how well they did in controlling the latest outbreak. That is incredible. It is one of the most unjustified pieces of self-congratulatory humbug that I have come across for a long time.
        The Government have gone to enormous lengths to point out the differences between 1967 and today. One would therefore expect them to disagree with Mr. Alan Richardson' s comments that the public had every reason to suppose that the conclusion of the Northumberland report formed the basis of the 2001 contingency plan. However, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on 13 July, the Minister stated:
        "The recommendations in 'The Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Foot-and-Mouth Disease', parts 1 and 2, published 7 March 1969 and 3 November 1969 (the Northumberland report) formed the basis of the Government's policy for keeping the disease out of the country, and of our contingency plans for fighting an outbreak of foot and mouth."—[Official Report, 13 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 686W.]
        On the one hand, we are told that there are enormous differences between 1967 and now, and on the other, that the 1967 experience formed the basis for the contingency plan that was in place in 2001. We have a mess that is riddled with contradictions. That may help explain the subsequent problems. Alan Richardson reported for duty at the Carlisle office on 1 March. If a proper contingency plan had been in place, would he have said:
        "At the Carlisle Office … there was inadequate office space and very few supplies of any kind … There was not a spare thermometer in the office … The organisation was completely overwhelmed and the bemused confusion among the staff of all ranks proclaimed that there had been no contingency planning at all. This situation persisted for some weeks"?
        The evidence from Devon and Cumbria, from one end of the country to the other, clearly established that there was no effective contingency plan in place. We therefore entirely endorse the recommendation in the preliminary findings of the Mercer inquiry. It states that
        "a National Contingency Plan … needs to be developed. It should identify the organisations that will be involved in response to Foot and Mouth in a County or Unitary authority area, and explain their responsibilities and the ways they will work together. It should be part of an emergency planning process that involves all the main players in its construction, testing and regular rehearsal."
        For geographical equilibrium, I should say that we also support the first recommendation of the Shropshire county council inquiry. The Minister said that he had not seen it. That recommendation states:

        "It is essential that a high level Foot and Mouth Contingency Plan is prepared by DEFRA to link in with Local Authority emergency plans in general and animal health and welfare contingency plans in particular."
        Like the Mercer inquiry in Devon, the Shropshire inquiry found evidence of serious and avoidable flaws in the way the outbreak was handled. The inquiry heard about the
        "lack of a consistent policy from MAFF on the culling of animals … a lack of communication"
        from the local office,
        "problems in having to deal with different veterinary regions",

        1081
        and the
        "frustration caused by the lack of communication from DEFRA on issues relating to the licensing and movement of animals".
        I could go on, but time is pressing. The Minister really should have looked at the Shropshire county council report, and I recommend that he does so as soon as possible. He might learn some useful information from it.
        From Devon to Cumbria to Shropshire we find that the problems on the ground were the same. They were avoidable problems that affected every area of the country in which foot and mouth broke out. If there had been a proper contingency plan, action would have been swifter, the damage could have been dramatically limited and the cost—in every sense—could have been dramatically reduced. If there had been a proper contingency plan, all animal movements would have stopped as soon as the outbreak was officially reported, the Army would have been brought into play sooner, and we would not have had the dithering and confusion over the benefits or otherwise of vaccination which characterised much of the debate earlier in the year.
        In the light of the terrible experience suffered by rural communities, businesses and families, the massive cost to our economy which will be counted for months if not years to come, and the tragedy for animal welfare, I have to ask the House whether an outline strategy is really enough. The Minister has asserted that, despite all the differences between 1967 and now, the Northumberland report forms the basis of the Government's policy for foot and mouth disease.
        Recommendation 5 of the report states:
        "A comprehensive plan should be in readiness for the mobilisation of resources within and outside the Ministry … in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease."
        In other words, it recommends a contingency plan. That is what the new clause would achieve, and I commend it to the House.
        Sir Teddy Taylor: I do not want to hold the House up, but may I ask one small question of the Minister? I hope that, with all this review of national contingency plans, some thought will be given to whether there was merit in having a slaughter at all. The Minister will be aware that foot and mouth is rather like flu, in that it lasts a short period of time, and does no long-term damage to animals or to those who consume them.
        The real problem is one of export and of massive over-production in the European Union. Instead of thinking of new slaughter policies, it would be infinitely better if the Government and their colleagues in the European Union could find a way of dealing with the massive problem of over-production, which is getting worse and will become infinitely worse with the extension of the European Union. As an Opposition Back Bencher, it seems to me that neither the Government nor anyone else are willing to look at the issue of over-production. It is a nightmare, not a matter to be laughed at or scorned. It is eating up massive amounts of money, and we should at least consider it in the long term.
        Mr. Morley: I shall deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East
        1082
        (Sir T. Taylor), who I know has a long-standing interest in animal welfare. I do not disagree with his point about production numbers, and about the drivers associated with the common agricultural policy, which in some cases can add to the over-production. Those issues must be addressed.
        The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that we need to consider all alternative methods in relation to disease control, which means looking into alternatives to large-scale culling of the kind that we witnessed. I expect that the inquiries that will take place will find that the strategy that was applied was probably the only strategy that would have brought the disease under control in this outbreak. But that does not mean that we should not think of alternatives, which would also be part of a contingency approach.
        5.45 pm
        I do not dispute that we should have contingency plans, but I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the suggestion that foot and mouth disease is like flu to the animals affected. That is just not true. It has severe welfare consequences, particularly for pigs and cattle, and it is a horrible disease that may cause genuine suffering for those animals. Even in sheep, which do not show the symptoms as much as cattle and pigs, it can lead to severe mortality rates in young animals, and to spontaneous abortion. It can also leave the animals sickly and weakened. Foot and mouth is a farm animal welfare issue; it is a disease. We must take its control seriously for farm animal welfare reasons, let alone all the others.
        On the new clause, of course it is important that we have contingency plans, but it is no surprise that the existing one is based on the Northumberland plan. That involved the most thorough review, although issues have changed and time has moved on.
        It is wrong to suggest that the contingency plan was not exercised, because regular exercises did take place. Indeed, a regional office that was involved in an exercise rang round to check the availability of supplies needed to deal with a foot and mouth outbreak, which was a cause of the myth that the disease arrived in the country before it did. The exercise was part of keeping the contingency plan up to date and ensuring that people were familiar with it.
        It is fair to say that the scale of the outbreak went beyond that for which the contingency plan was set up. There was no experience of such an outbreak in our country or, for that matter, in any other country, so there are serious issues to address. That forms part of the inquiries and there are lessons to be learned: we must introduce an amended and updated contingency plan, which brings me back to the point that the Bill gives us more flexibility and a wider range of options to include in a contingency proposal.
        I accept that, these days, it is important for contingency plans to be put in the public domain and people should have the chance to comment on them. The existing contingency plan, which has been made public, as the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said, was designed to deal with operational issues. It did not deal with disease control policies, which are a different issue. That is a difference in respect of the contingency plan to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

        1083
        I have no objection to pulling together the lessons that will emerge from the inquiries, making them public, having a public consultation, producing an updated and revised contingency plan and ensuring that there is public involvement, but we do not need to include all that in the Bill. The Phillips report charged the Government with ensuring that contingency plans are in place to meet a range of issues, and that is what we have done.
        For example, a later contingency plan dealing with the risk of BSE in sheep has been published. I put it in the public domain and ensured that it was available for public comment, although it is unfortunate that the press jumped on the bits that they found most interesting and appeared not to have read the rest. Contingency plans need to be updated and reviewed regularly and it is reasonable that they are put in the public domain for comment, but I give the assurance that there is no need for the new clause.
        Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The Minister makes helpful remarks. Throughout, he disagrees with nothing, but he agrees with nothing as well. We are always tempted to believe him, but we do not trust the Government, so we shall press the new clause to a vote.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 332.

        Division No. 112]

        [5.49 pm

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Chope, Christopher

        Allan, Richard

        Clappison, James

        Amess, David

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Collins, Tim

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        Cotter, Brian

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Cran, James

        Bacon, Richard

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Baker, Norman

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

        Baldry, Tony

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

        Barker, Gregory

        Djanogly, Jonathan

        Baron, John

        Dodds, Nigel

        Barrett, John

        Doughty, Sue

        Beggs, Roy

        Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

        Beith, Rt Hon A J

        Fabricant, Michael

        Bellingham, Henry

        Field, Mark (Cities of London)

        Bercow, John

        Flook, Adrian

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Blunt, Crispin

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Boswell, Tim

        Fox, Dr Liam

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Francois, Mark

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        Gale, Roger

        Brady, Graham

        Garnier, Edward

        Brake, Tom

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Brazier, Julian

        Gidley, Sandra

        Breed, Colin

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Brooke, Mrs Annette L

        Goodman, Paul

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Gray, James

        Bruce, Malcolm

        Grayling, Chris

        Burnett, John

        Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

        Burns, Simon

        Greenway, John

        Burnside, David

        Grieve, Dominic

        Burstow, Paul

        Gummer, Rt Hon John

        Burt, Alistair

        Hammond, Philip

        Butterfill, John

        Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

        Cable, Dr Vincent

        Harvey, Nick

        Calton, Mrs Patsy

        Hawkins, Nick

        Cameron, David

        Hayes, John

        Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

        Heald, Oliver

        (NE Fife)

        Heath, David

        Cash, William

        Hendry, Charles

        Chapman, Sir Sydney

        Hermon, Lady

        (Chipping Barnet)

        Hoban, Mark

        1084

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

        Holmes, Paul

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Hunter, Andrew

        Rosindell, Andrew

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Ruffley, David

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Sanders, Adrian

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Keetch, Paul

        Selous, Andrew

        Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

        Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

        (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

        Shepherd, Richard

        Key, Robert

        Simmonds, Mark

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Kirkwood, Archy

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

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        Lamb, Norman

        Spink, Bob

        Lansley, Andrew

        Spring, Richard

        Laws, David

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Leigh, Edward

        Steen, Anthony

        Letwin, Oliver

        Streeter, Gary

        Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

        Stunell, Andrew

        Liddell-Grainger, Ian

        Swayne, Desmond

        Lidington, David

        Swire, Hugo

        LJwyd, Elfyn

        Syms, Robert

        Loughton, Tim

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Luff, Peter

        Taylor John (Solihull)

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Thurso, John

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Malins, Humfrey

        Tredinnick, David

        Maples, John

        Trend, Michael

        Mates, Michael

        Turner Andrew (Isle of Wight)

        Maude, Rt Hon Francis

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Viggers, Peter

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Walter, Robert

        Mercer, Patrick

        Waterson, Nigel

        Moore, Michael

        Watkinson, Angela

        Murrison, Dr Andrew

        Webb, Steve

        Norman, Archie

        Whittingdale, John

        Oaten, Mark

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Öpik, Lembit

        Wiggin, Bill

        Osbome, George (Tatton)

        Willetts, David

        Ottaway, Richard

        Williams, Roger (Brecon)

        Page, Richard

        Willis, Phil

        Paice, James

        Wilshire, David

        Paisley, Rev Ian

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Pickles, Eric

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

        Yeo, Tim

        Price, Adam

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Prisk, Mark

        Younger-Ross, Richard

        Pugh, Dr John

        Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Rendel, David

        Mr. Laurence Robertson

        Robathan, Andrew

        and

        Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

        Mr. Stephen O'Brien.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Bayley, Hugh

        Adams Mrs Irene(Paisley N)

        Beard, Nigel

        Ainger, Nick

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Allen, Graham

        Bell, Stuart

        Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

        Benn, Hilary

        (Swansea E)]

        Benton, Joe

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Berry, Roger

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Best, Harold

        Austin, John

        Betts, clive

        Bailey, Adrian

        Blackman, Liz

        Baird, Vera

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Banks Tony

        Bizzard, Bob

        Barnes, Harry

        Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

        Barron, Kevin

        Borrow, David

        Battle, John

        Bradley, Rt Hon keith(withington)

        1085

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Fisher, Mark

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Brennan, Kevin

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Flint, Caroline

        (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

        Follett, Barbara

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Browne, Desmond

        Foster, Michael (Worcester)

        Bryant, Chris

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Foulkes, George

        Burden, Richard

        Francis, Dr Hywel

        Burnham, Andy

        Galloway, George

        Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

        Gapes, Mike

        Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

        Gardiner, Barry

        Cairns, David

        Gerrard, Neil

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Gilroy, Linda

        Caplin, Ivor

        Goggins, Paul

        Casale, Roger

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Caton, Martin

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Cawsey, Ian

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Challen, Colin

        Grogan, John

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Chaytor, David

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Clapham, Michael

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

        Hanson, David

        Clark, Dr Lynda

        Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

        (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Havard, Dai

        Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

        Healey, John

        (Norwich S)

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Hendrick, Mark

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Clelland, David

        Heppell, John

        Clwyd, Ann

        Heyes, David

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Hill, Keith

        Coleman, Iain

        Hinchliffe, David

        Colman, Tony

        Hodge, Margaret

        Connarty, Michael

        Hoey, Kate

        Corston, Jean

        Hood, Jimmy

        Cousins, Jim

        Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

        Cranston, Ross

        Hope, Phil

        Crausby, David

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Cruddas, Jon

        Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Cummings, John

        Howells, Dr Kim

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Dalyell, Tarn

        Hurst, Alan

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Hutlon, Rt Hon John

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        David, Wayne

        Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Davis, Rt Hon Terry

        Jenkins, Brian

        (B'ham Hodge H)

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Dawson, Hilton

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

        Denham, Rt Hon John

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

        Dismore, Andrew

        Joyce, Eric

        Dobbin, Jim

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Kelly, Ruth

        Doran, Frank

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Dowd, Jim

        Khabra, Piara S

        Drown, Ms Julia

        Kidney, David

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Edwards, Huw

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Efford, Clive

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

        Ennis, Jeff

        Kumar, DrAshok

        Etherington, Bill

        Lammy, David

        Ewing, Annabelle

        Laxton, Bob

        Farrelly, Paul

        Lazarowicz, Mark

        Reid, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

        Lepper, David

        1086

        Leslie, Christopher

        Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

        Levitt, Tom

        Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Robertson, Angus (Moray)

        Linton, Martin

        Robertson, John

        Lloyd, Tony

        (Glasgow Anniesland)

        Love, Andrew

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Lucas, Ian

        Rooney, Terry

        Luke, Iain

        Ross, Ernie

        Lyons, John

        Roy, Frank

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Ruddock, Joan

        McCabe, Stephen

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

        Ryan, Joan

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Salmond, Alex

        McDonnell, John

        Salter, Martin

        MacDougall, John

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        McFall, John

        Savidge, Malcolm

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Sawford, Phil

        McIsaac, Shona

        Sedgemore, Brian

        McKechin, Ann

        Shaw, Jonathan

        McKenna, Rosemary

        Sheridan, Jim

        McNulty, Tony

        Shipley, Ms Debra

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Short, Rt Hon Clare

        McWalter, Tony

        Simon, Siôn

        McWilliam, John

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Mahmood, Khalid

        Skinner, Dennis

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Mallaber, Judy

        Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Mann, John

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Marris, Rob

        Southworth, Helen

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Squire, Rachel

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Meale, Alan

        Stevenson, George

        Merron, Gillian

        Stewart, David (Inverness E)

        Miliband, David

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Miller, Andrew

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Moffatt, Laura

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Mole, Chris

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Stringer, Graham

        Moran, Margaret

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Morgan, Julie

        Tami, Mark

        Morley, Elliot

        Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

        Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Mountford, Kali

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Mullin, Chris

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Timms, Stephen

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Tipping, Paddy

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Touhig, Don

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

        Trickett, Jon

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Truswell, Paul

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        O'Hara, Edward

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Olner, Bill

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Organ, Diana

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Owen, Albert

        Tynan, Bill

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Pearson, Ian

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Perham, Linda

        Wareing, Robert N

        Picking, Anne

        Watts, David

        Pickthall, Colin

        Weir, Michael

        Pike, Peter

        White, Brian

        Plaskitt, James

        Whitehead, DrAlan

        Pollard, Kerry

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Pond, Chris

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Pope, Greg

        (Swansea W)

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Wills, Michael

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Winnick, David

        Purchase, Ken

        Wishart, Pete

        Pumell, James

        Wood, Mike

        Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

        Woodward, Shaun

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Worthington, Tony

        Rammell, Bill

        Wray, James

        Rapson, Syd

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        1087

        Wright, David (Telford)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

        Wyatt, Derek

        Mr. Fraser Kemp.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        6.3 pm
        Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you are aware, there is a well established convention of the House called the Sewel procedure, which has been exercised some 28 times in the two and a half years since the passage of the Scotland Act 1998. If the House intends to legislate on areas that were devolved under that Act, the Scottish Parliament has to have a debate on a so-called Sewel motion to transfer those areas to this place. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 would have the effect of amending the Scotland Act 1998 and taking back to this place subjects that were devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Sewel procedure was introduced as a protection against anti-Scottish elements in this place reversing devolution.
        The Tory party may say one thing in Scotland and something entirely different here. Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, say whether the Scottish Parliament has exercised the Sewel motion? Has there been any communication or consultation with the Scottish Parliament, or are amendments Nos. 21 and 22 a back-stairs attempt to take away powers devolved under the Scotland Act?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): We are not going to reach the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but will now move on to Third Reading.
        Order for Third Reading read.
        6.5 pm
        Mr. Morley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        We have had a detailed debate in Committee and on Report. I sometimes felt that it was not altogether focused and earlier thought that we had spent two hours on some other Bill, but all the principal issues have been covered nevertheless. Hon. Members have made some sensible, reasonable and constructive suggestions and comments.
        Concerns have been raised about the timing of the Bill, but I repeat that the epidemic is not over yet. The Government are not complacent: we still think that the risks are comparatively high and, although they will diminish proportionately as time passes, we will not drop our guard. It is important that the Bill contain measures to increase the range of options available to fight disease, and to ensure that any option that is used is applied efficiently and without the undue delay that can allow disease to spread and jeopardise a great many people.
        I recognise that there is a need for consultation on all aspects of the Bill, but it is not true that the consultation has been insufficient and rushed. For example, there has been extensive consultation about the part of the Bill dealing with scrapie. It was made clear in that consultation that the Government would bring forward compulsory measures at some stage, and that is what we are doing.
        Also, we are engaging with the industry to sort out details of the time scale of the national scrapie plan. We very much welcome those negotiations, in which industry representatives have been very helpful and constructive, as they have all along.
        1088
        In addition, I discussed the Bill with the foot and mouth disease stakeholders group set up by the Department, which used to meet every week at one stage of the outbreak. It includes representatives from every species organisation in this country, and everyone involved in the livestock sector is represented in the group. I was able to have a long discussion with the group about the Bill and its details, and I also had further discussions with industry organisations. Therefore, there has been a lot of consultation and discussion about the Bill.
        The House might be interested to know that the stakeholder group has been so successful that the Government propose to retain it and to form it into an animal health group. That will mean that the livestock industry will be permanently involved in consultation with the Department on all issues of animal disease. The proposal has been very much welcomed by members of that group.
        The Government also propose to be open and transparent in our implementation of the measures. In Committee, I gave a detailed commitment to bring forward wide-ranging consultation on key provisions in the Bill in the new year. My officials are working on that at present. That consultation will include the criteria governing the use of new slaughter powers and the implementation of the scrapie provisions that I mentioned earlier.
        It has been suggested that we should wait for the results of the independent inquiries before introducing disease-control measures. However, I think that the matter is too important. I repeat that the Bill contains nothing that precludes the findings of the independent inquiries, or to suggest that the Government prefer one disease control measure over another.
        I am anxious that we have as wide a range of options as possible. No one wants there to be culling on the scale evident in this epidemic, given all the associated problems that went with it. I repeat that I suspect that the inquiries will probably conclude that there was no other option but to deal with outbreak as we did—that is, by implementing the culling programme. However, new technology is on the horizon, and changes in the role of vaccination will give us a wider range of options.
        I remind the House that the international conference will have to consider matters such as trade rules, as they place a restraint on vaccination. Again, the aim is to achieve as wide a range of options as possible.
        I welcome the scrutiny that the Bill has had. It also received detailed pre-scrutiny by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which was a useful experience.
        I agreed in Committee to consider a number of useful suggestions arising from amendments such as the time scale of the appeal period in which farmers can make representations about the disease risk assessment and the level of the adjusted compensation award. I intend to take those issues forward, along with points raised by my hon. Friends today. We might include those as part of our consultation on the implementation of the powers in the Bill. If appropriate, I am prepared to ensure that amendments are brought forward when the Bill reaches another place.
        Mr. Simon Thomas: The Minister mentioned the Select Committee's scrutiny of the Bill. However, I think

        1089
        that he will accept that the Bill was put together and has gone through at a fair lick. The one legislative body that has not had the chance to scrutinise the Bill so far is the National Assembly for Wales. If it brings forward any amendments or suggestions between the Bill leaving this House and being debated in another place, will the Minister confirm that he will consider them and that he will involve the assembly in the consultation?
        Mr. Morley: I will ensure that the National Assembly is involved in the consultation because it will be as wide as possible. We have been in close touch with our colleagues in the National Assembly in relation to putting the Bill together. However, I refute the point that the Bill has been rushed. We are still in a serious situation—the epidemic is not yet over. We need to consider that, and the sooner these measures are in place, I believe, the better it will be. We will arrange consultation on the aspects that I have mentioned as quickly as possible.
        Much of the focus has been on slaughter, which is understandable. People are concerned about their animals being slaughtered. There are also the issues of pet farm animals and sanctuaries, which we want to address. If we are to use slaughter, whether as part of a wider strategy or on its own—the options are open—it must be done quickly and effectively. The quicker we do it, the fewer animals will be culled. Part of the reasoning is that if we are to use a culling policy, we should minimise it to minimise the number of animals affected.
        I emphasise that the Bill is not just about powers to slaughter animals. We should get away from that idea. It also provides powers to enter premises for the purposes of testing, sampling or conducting a vaccination programme, should those options be appropriate. Some Members who have spoken are in favour of vaccination as an option; measures in the Bill strengthen the position on vaccination, so I hope that we will have their support.
        We want to ensure that in the appeal process, sensitive issues such as pet farm animals are taken into account. However, the Bill does not take away the right of appeal on slaughter. People will still have the right to appeal to the divisional veterinary manager. It is my intention to publish the criteria on which that will be based. I intend to clarify the process with fanning representatives and other interested groups during the consultation process in the new year.
        I am surprised to see some reports suggesting that the Bill will give us powers to kill horses, dogs, cats, goldfish and hamsters. It will not. I made it very clear in Committee that the criteria in the Bill apply to susceptible animals.[Interruption.] We cannot kill anything we like. The position is defined in the Animal Health Act 1981 and it can only be changed by order. I cannot imagine circumstances in which it would be changed.
        We are also taking a new approach to compensation on affected premises. I make no apologies for that. We have had a very good debate on it. I accept that only a minority of people are concerned, but I do not see why the rights of the majority should be put at risk because of the actions of a minority. The proposed measures are proportionate and balanced. We intend to take them forward.
        The scrapie proposals have been generally welcomed. The vast majority of people in the sheep industry believe that scrapie eradication is a sensible and desirable
        1090
        objective. We want to bring that forward. We are obtaining good co-operation, and I have made it clear to the industry that the powers are enabling and that it is unlikely that the compulsory element in the national scrapie programme would be needed until some years down the line, as part of the agreed discussion on that plan.
        I welcome the debate: in general, it was sensible and constructive—although perhaps rather long at times. We might have moved faster, although I certainly do not criticise the involvement of Opposition Members. However, I have a serious point to make. If they are still thinking of opposing the Bill, they should consider what they are opposing: the opportunity to bring in a range of options—including strengthening the vaccination option, and taking blood tests and samples. They will be undermining the rights of the majority who are put at risk by the actions of a minority. They will be undermining the Government's speed of action in response to such outbreaks. That response would reduce the number of culled animals—surely that is everyone's objective.
        Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Morley: In a moment.
        Hon. Members who oppose the Bill would also be opposing measures to impose sanctions against people who bring about deliberate infection. Opposition to the measure would mean opposing the introduction of the national scrapie plan. That eradication programme is good for consumers and for the sheep industry, and has been generally welcomed.
        I cannot believe that the Opposition want to oppose all those objectives; nor can I believe that they have failed to realise that, during the Bill's proceedings, I have given a series of undertakings to address the reasonable concerns expressed by organisations outside the House. That will form part of a public consultation in the new year.
        When the Bill is finalised, the current provisions of the Animal Health Act 1981 will be better, more transparent and flexible, and will take into account a wider range of circumstances.
        6.17 pm
        Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not present for the Third Reading to support her hard-working Minister.
        I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to today's debates and to the Standing Committee: they deserve particular congratulations. I mention my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and our esteemed colleague, the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). For my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) and for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), it was their first experience as members of a Standing Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "It did not show."] Indeed. They acquitted themselves with great distinction. Sadly, they have also learned that it is one thing to win the arguments, but another to win the vote.
        Particular praise is due to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on whom much of the responsibility for opposing the Bill has fallen. She led her team with her customary vigour and thoughtfulness.

        1091
        When the Bill began, it was bad. We can welcome some of it, but all in all it was a bad Bill and it remains a bad Bill. It is greatly to be regretted that, despite all our debates, nothing substantial has happened to alter that.
        Anxieties about the Bill have brought together some strange bedfellows. Throughout, although the Minister sounded conciliatory, he was in fact unyielding. For the most part, he brushed aside the objections of animal welfare groups, environmental bodies, veterinary surgeons, farmers' representatives and other outside bodies. In doing so he has reinforced the growing feeling that this is an arrogant Government who are intolerant of criticism, closed to other people's views and careless of civil liberties.
        Throughout these proceedings we have tried to stand up for the rights of individuals and for fair treatment. We have sought to persuade the Government that many of the new powers that they seek in the Bill are unreasonable, unfair and illiberal. On every occasion, the Government have rejected our arguments. It is wrong in principle for the state to assume new powers without seeking to balance them with adequate rights of representation for ordinary citizens. That is the way of totalitarianism.
        I have said before that written into the heart of the Bill is an assumption that farmers were to blame for the foot and mouth outbreak. That is the basic premise on which the Bill rests, and it is untrue. From that starting point, Ministers have proceeded to seek to justify overturning the normal burden of proof in the compensation arrangements, assuming powers to enter property and slaughter livestock as they see fit, denying adequate rights of appeal, and suborning to their will, under threat of imprisonment, anyone who happens to be around at the time, regardless of any moral, ethical, religious or physical objection. They have refused to acknowledge the inadequacy of their own scientific advice, the risk that their actions may have caused to biosecurity or the bungling incompetence of their own procedures.
        Something is clearly very wrong when a Government decide to push through legislation under the heading, "animal health" and then ride roughshod over the concerns of vets. Any legislation demands for its effectiveness the compliance of the people on whom it has an impact; the Bill certainly demands the compliance of the veterinary profession. It might be thought that the Government would pause when a senior vet can publicly say:
        "If this Bill is passed I will do everything in my power to stop the veterinary profession taking any part in its implementation."
        When the president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons writes to a national newspaper to express the
        "increasing level of serious concern"
        among its members on the grounds of ethics and the use of "unsupported scientific judgments", it might be thought that the Government would stop.
        Mr. Morley: Of course, I saw that letter, but I should inform the hon. Gentleman that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has had no contact with DEFRA and has raised no objections to the Bill.
        Mr. Ainsworth: If the Government had carried out a proper consultation exercise, they would have had plenty of contact with the college and the Minister would be better informed, so the Government carry on. Laws only
        1092
        work by consent. Laws that do not command consent rely on coercion, and coercion, as well as being objectionable, does not work.
        Mrs. Browning: Will my hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. Ainsworth: I am aware of the shortage of time, but I shall give way.
        Mrs. Browning: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in Committee, when I raised the moral dilemma of vets being asked to do something against their better judgment, the Minister replied:
        "If they do not want to work for the Ministry, they do not have to. We are not dragooning vets against their principles."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 4 December 2001; c. 218.]
        In other words, the veterinary principles did not matter.
        Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes a very disturbing point, but it merely confirms what I have said—Ministers are riding roughshod over the opinions of professional people whose good will is needed if the Bill is to be in any way a success.
        If the Government had taken the trouble to consult before rushing to legislate, many of the problems might have been avoided, but they are seeking to push through the Bill having consulted no one but their own advisers on large parts of it. If the Government had waited to hear the outcome of their own inquiries into the foot and mouth outbreak, they might have been able to produce more proportionate legislation. If the Government had decided to hold a full, independent public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak and waited to legislate on the basis of its findings, they would have done the right thing.
        The Prime Minister is shortly due to receive a petition signed by well over 100,000 people, demanding a public inquiry.
        Mr. Wiggin: Two hundred thousand.
        Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend says that there are 200,000 signatures. Organisations as diverse as the Countryside Alliance and Friends of the Earth have demanded such an inquiry. Conservatives have called for a full public inquiry into the origins and handling of the disease since March this year, but it is important to recognise that not only Conservatives have done so.
        Diana Organ: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Ainsworth: No, I do not have the time.
        The public, national and regional newspapers and magazines, animal rights and environmental groups and farmers are all demanding a public inquiry. Even the Liberal Democrats are demanding a public inquiry and yet the Government have consistently set their face against such an inquiry. Why?
        We are told that this is a listening Government. Why are the listening Government deaf to the demands for an independent public inquiry into the terrible impact of foot and mouth disease, which has cost the country billions of pounds, caused misery to families and businesses across the country, caused millions of healthy animals to be slaughtered and left a legacy of economic hardship that will take years to overcome?

        1093
        What have the Government got to hide? Is the truth so very shameful? Just who is calling the shots? We know that, when asked about an independent inquiry on 3 April, the Minister for the Environment, said:
        "Unquestionably there will be one this time, to ascertain the cause and how it happened, and the way we can prevent it happening again. We will want to know how the disease got such a hold."
        That perfectly decent and reasonable commitment was immediately repudiated by Downing street. Not for the first time, the Minister for the Environment was left hanging out to dry. What has the Prime Minister got to hide from a full public inquiry?
        Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. Ainsworth: I am sorry, but I am not giving way.
        The Government's refusal to hold an independent inquiry kicks away the last strut of respectability from the Bill. It is not only foolish, hasty, badly drafted, misdirected, excessive and offensive, but it lacks moral justification. If it becomes law, I have every reason to expect that it will quickly become the subject of at least one legal challenge.
        We in this House can only hope that the Bill will be substantially amended in the upper House.
        Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. Ainsworth: I am sorry, but I will not give way to my hon. Friend.
        Better still, the Government should withdraw the Bill altogether and come back with proposals that are proportionate, reasonable and based on considered opinion and recognise the meaning of justice.
        6.27 pm
        Mr. Huw Edwards: It has been a pleasure and an honour to serve on the Standing Committee and to listen to the arguments. I have no doubt that all the Committee's members have experience of representing constituencies where foot and mouth was a serious problem. It certainly was in my constituency of Monmouth, which can be said to be contiguous with the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who were also on the Committee. In fact, some farmers in my constituency believe that foot and mouth came from the hon. Gentleman's constituency and that of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch).
        The Bill is an important emergency measure. There are times of crisis, such as BSE and foot and mouth, when the Government have to introduce emergency measures. It would have been wrong to wait for one or two years for inquiries to report and to make recommendations before the Government acted. We all hope and pray that there will not be another outbreak of foot and mouth in next few months but, if there were to be one, can one imagine the criticism that would be levelled if the Government had introduced no measures whatever following the outbreak of 2001 and if they did not have the opportunity to vaccinate and to pay compensation for vaccination?
        1094
        There has been a strong debate in my constituency, but the local farmers who were most directly affected by foot and mouth believe that the culling policy, though distressing, was necessary. It was necessary to get ahead of the disease. They were frustrated at the delays that took place in other parts of the country. For example, farmers in my area criticised the delays that occurred nearby such as in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean.
        Diana Organ: Does my hon. Friend accept that, given the greater good of defeating the disease, the one or two objectors behaved in rather selfish manner in that they probably exacerbated the situation by allowing the disease to spread? We ended up with more animals being culled as a result of their selfishness.
        Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend has represented her constituency very well on this matter. Concern was expressed in my constituency that the culling process was halted for one reason or another, including the delays caused by ministerial officials. Nobody can deny that. It was a catastrophic event that overwhelmed the whole country.
        It is absolutely necessary to fill the legal loopholes in the Animal Health Act 1981. It is important that we will now have greater incentives to ensure that biosecurity measures are taken. It is to the great credit of the farming community that there has been no further outbreak for some time now. We were absolutely delighted when Wales was declared free of the disease last week. The meat export trade is resuming, and I hope that it will resume in my part of Wales as soon as possible.
        We do not want to be overwhelmed by such an event again, but many lessons have to be learned. We must ensure that livestock travels shorter distances. I listened with interest to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) about the long distances over which much livestock is transported. In south-east Wales we have no major abattoir facility, and much of the livestock in the area is transported unnecessarily long distances. I wish that the farming infrastructure in my area had received greater investment. We need to reopen and modernise our livestock markets and invest in abattoir capacity.
        David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend recall that the running down of this country's abattoirs mostly occurred in the 10 years before the 1997 election? Closures have continued, but at a much slower rate.
        Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. There has, however, been a further rundown in recent years, and we need to arrest that trend. We need to use bodies such as the Welsh Development Agency to invest in those areas. I wish that we could have objective 1 funding in Monmouthshire to ensure the provision of more abattoir capacity, but we are outside the objective 1 area, so we are unable to invest in the economic development of an industry that has suffered most in recent years. I would be the first to admit that my constituency is relatively affluent, but its farming community has suffered badly in recent years.

        1095
        We need greater investment in meat processing facilities, and we need new livestock markets. There is great controversy in my constituency because Monmouth livestock market is fairly run down and does not have as much trade as it should have. Abergavenny market is in need of investment and there is a debate about the creation of a new, modern livestock market that will serve not only Monmouthshire but south-east Wales and beyond, over the border into England.
        The Minister has conducted proceedings on the Bill in his usual expert way. Not every farmer in Monmouthshire will agree with his policies, any more than they agree with my approach on every aspect of agriculture, but there is no doubt that he is dedicated to farming. His tremendous expertise is acknowledged on both sides of the House.
        May I put one point to my hon. Friend? Recently, I attended a meeting of farmers in my constituency in the Cross Ash area, which was very badly affected by foot and mouth. I thought that they might be a little hostile because of the events of the past few months, but they were quite welcoming and hoped that I would take up a particular cause about which they are concerned—the payment of slaughter premiums. Many were not paid the premium although they believe that they are entitled to it. I shall write to my hon. Friend on behalf of Mr. Probert, Mr. Williams, Mr. Sevenoaks and a number of other farmers in my constituency. I sincerely hope that he will be able to consider their case, which I believe to be very strong. I assure him that I will be very happy to talk about the matter in the Lobby tonight.
        6.34 pm
        Malcolm Bruce: We are 26 minutes from the end of the proceedings on the Bill in this House. It is interesting that the Minister has consistently said that plenty of time and thoughtful discussion have been devoted to it, but the Committee debated only six of its clauses in six sittings and returned the Bill to the House completely unamended. It does not look like a Bill that has gone through effective consultation. That is particularly disappointing when one considers that, according to the reports that I have read and the accounts of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), the atmosphere in the Committee was constructive and engaging. The Under-Secretary is a constructive and engaging Minister, but the fact remains that he has not accepted a single amendment or undertaken fully to introduce any amendments before the Bill completes its final stages.
        Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman may have missed what I said about that. A number of issues came up in Committee, and I gave undertakings that I would consider the best way forward which, of course, involves taking advice and looking at legal aspects. I said that, if appropriate, certain provisions that we discussed in Committee which, I conceded, I was willing to look at, could be added to the Bill in another place. There is work to be done on that. We have consulted widely with a range of bodies. To be fair to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, although it has not approached me directly, it went to the Department to discuss the issues with the chief veterinary officer. It has not raised objections to the Bill.
        Malcolm Bruce: I appreciate the Minister's intervention, which was characteristic of his style and,
        1096
        I am sure, is backed by many good intentions. However, at the end of the day, one can only judge the Bill on what it says when it completes its passage through the House. In January, we may be back here with a Bill that has been altered; the Minister will then be able to say, "I have been vindicated." However, until he has said that, he can hardly be surprised if we consistently take the view that the Bill is not acceptable in its present form and should be opposed. If our roles were reversed, I do not think that he would expect any opposition party to behave any differently at this stage and in these circumstances.
        The Minister made specific mention of the scrapie provisions and we should be clear that, in fact, the Bill was supposed to deal with scrapie. There was agreement that the voluntary scrapie plan was not working fast enough and that legislation was needed. All parties in the House and all those trying to eliminate scrapie support that. Obviously, there are concerns about rare breeds and questions need to be asked, but that could have been dealt with amicably and constructively in Committee. In reality, reference to scrapie in the Bill consists of one line in the main body of the Bill and one schedule. The rest of the contents have been plucked from the air and that has given rise to contention. The fundamental problem is not the scrapie provisions, but all the other provisions.
        The Minister said that he would consult. Here we are on Third Reading, and he is going to consult. We hoped that the consultation would have taken place first and helped to inform the shape and structure of the Bill. That is what consultation ought to do; it should not take place after the event. Although there has been constitutional adjustment in recent years so that Ministers' words in Hansard can be used in the legal interpretation of an Act, as the Minister well knows, the first thing that any court will look at is what the Act itself says; it is difficult to add the qualifications of Ministers unless the court interprets them as effectively part of the legislation. The Minister is reasonable and is behaving in a reasonable way, but his reasons for not accepting amendments may not be persuasive in the courts at the end of the day.
        The Minister has not succeeded in persuading me or my colleagues of the emergency nature of the Bill. He kept saying—and it is obviously true—that we are not yet at the end of the foot and mouth outbreak. I would like to think that we are close to that. In Scotland and in Wales, technically, we are; in England we soon will be, we hope. Most of us believe that the possibility of a flare-up at this late stage is the Minister's only justification for forcing through the Bill in the time scale. However, there is not an overwhelmingly convincing argument for doing so. After all, southern Scotland was affected by foot and mouth, yet the Scottish Executive did not take DEFRA's view that emergency legislation was needed. I understand that the Scottish Executive will introduce legislation but, unlike DEFRA, will do so after they have consulted the farmers, not before. They will endeavour to take account of their experience and the views of farmers' organisations in Scotland before they introduce legislation in the Scottish Parliament. That approach is commendable and would have been much more acceptable to the House if it had been adopted by DEFRA.
        With the end of the outbreak, we are looking for the re-establishment of export markets. I asked the Minister about that at Question Time today. Farmers in my part of Scotland and sheep farmers in other parts of the United Kingdom would like to think that getting those export

        1097
        markets back in the face of obstructive behaviour by France, which is a vital export market, was more important to Ministers than steamrollering the Bill through Parliament. Ministers should devote all their time and energy to a constructive commitment to farmers.
        The Government have not amended the Bill at all, in spite of strong arguments well supported from various quarters. Those arguments were not party politically motivated, but motivated by a genuine concern to end confrontation between Government and farmers and to secure co-operation, so that together we can stop diseases occurring and spreading. To do that, the Government need everybody on side, not the threat of powerful criminal legislation and powers which, if executed, most people would find offensive and contrary to civil liberties. I am not convinced by the Government's claim that the Bill does not contravene the European convention on human rights.
        On that basis, my colleagues and I will support other hon. Members who find the Bill unacceptable. We will vote against it, and we will not support it until it has been properly amended in another place.
        6.41 pm
        Diana Organ: Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We can all say how things should have been, but we would all be severely criticised by the farming community and the general public if, as a result of the horrendous outbreak during the spring and summer, we had taken no action to deal more effectively and speedily with another potential outbreak in the future. We still face a risk. If the disease flared up again into a major outbreak, heaven forfend, and we had taken no action, we would look extremely stupid—
        David Taylor: And have been irresponsible.
        Diana Organ: Indeed. We recognised in the summer that speed and efficiency were essential in dealing with the outbreak. It is important that we have the ability to fight the disease. We had the worst-ever outbreak of foot and mouth and we need effective weapons to fight it. The Bill strengthens our options. Many felt that vaccination was an option that could have been deployed last time, but for various reasons it was not.
        Widespread concern has been expressed about the Bill and its timing. As the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) mentioned, many people have called for a public inquiry. I, too, have expressed my view that there should have been one. However, other public inquiries have taken years to report, in which case we might not have been able to enact the Bill for another five or six years, until the results of the inquiry had been published, whereas the Anderson inquiry will report within six months.
        David Taylor: At the time of the last Conservative Government, when an even greater disaster on a grander scale in every sense occurred, does my hon. Friend recall whether there were calls from the Conservative party for a public inquiry?
        Mrs. Ann Winterton: Double standards!
        Diana Organ: The silence was a little deafening, and it was a case of double standards, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said.
        1098
        Concern has also been expressed about the scope of the Bill. Much of that concern is based on misinformation. My hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that the Bill does not apply to all animals, such as goldfish, guinea pigs, pot-bellied pigs, which I called pot-bellied sheep in Committee, cats, dogs or horses. It is clear that the Bill relates only to animals that are susceptible to foot and mouth and other animal diseases. There has been much misinformation about the scope of the Bill. In the same way, misinformation has been propagated about the appeals procedure and the right to judicial review.
        Mr. Bacon: Will the hon. Lady give way?
        Diana Organ: I am afraid not. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) had little time to speak, and neither have I.
        There has been a lot of misinformation about the Bill, which has caused concern that might not have been engendered if hon. Members on both sides of the House had been a little more honest.
        The Government have taken the opportunity to listen during the scrutiny process. Many issues have been raised and my hon. Friend the Minister has responded very positively. I emphasise the key provisions on consultation, new protocols and new guidelines for vets, as well as new criteria on rights of appeal and on the slaughter power. I have two questions in that context. First, my hon. Friend said that the consultation would occur in the new year. Will he give us a tighter time scale on how long the consultation will last? Secondly, how do people other than stakeholders feed into that consultation? For instance, how do farmers in the Forest of Dean and others there who wanted to object fit in?
        Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is worth saying for the record that it was she and other hon. Members who convinced me to introduce the protocol on which we will be consulting. Of course, we will put the information on the DEFRA website, contact hon. Members who have expressed an interest and make the consultation public to the local press.
        Diana Organ: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments.
        My hon. Friend and the Government have been listening to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) about the transportation of animals and the maximum time of eight hours. We recognise that the issue of resubmission to market within 20 days, which also arose earlier, is not only an animal welfare matter, but one of the measures that we can put in place to fight disease. I think that we have made progress. The Government have been listening to concerns and looking at the way forward on making the Bill better, perhaps with the insertion of provisions in another place to strengthen it.
        Admittedly, the Bill was considered for a short time in Committee, although I understand that no objection was made about having three days of sittings and that nobody called for further days. We gained from the pre-legislative scrutiny that was undertaken. This is a useful model that helps hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider the effects of legislation before it goes into Second Reading and Committee. I commend the process as a model that we can use in respect of other measures.

        1099
        Obviously, all of us are looking forward to the reports of the three inquiries—especially that of Professor Anderson. The lessons to be learned from the devastating outbreak that occurred will be most important for all of us. I hope that the measures in the Bill, which may be amended in another place, are a means of answering the lessons that will identified and will help us to fight this terrible disease in future, so that we do not have to suffer again the misery, destruction and distress that we went through this summer.
        6.48 pm
        Mrs. Browning: I shall be brief, as I realise that other hon. Members want to contribute.
        The Bill is disproportionate and will almost certainly be challenged under the European convention on human rights. I look forward to seeing it challenged in such a way. The Minister has taken unto himself in the Bill powers that he already has under the 1981 Act regarding the slaughter of diseased animals. He is putting on to the statute book additional powers for slaughter and powers that allow Department officials to come on to people's premises in respect of contiguous culls. I am not talking about animals that are clearly showing clinical signs of disease. I have no opposition at all to such animals being slaughtered out immediately and disposed of as quickly as possible, but the question of how a contiguous cull is identified and expedited is one of the big problems in terms of our experience during the past few months. It was in relation to the contiguous cull that the Government fouled up—and they did so in a big way.
        People's rights—they had them until the Minister produced the Bill—should be respected. The measure is not about controlling animal disease. The Department uses computer modelling to identify the farms, but cannot even find them on an Ordnance Survey map. The Government need to sort out the mess before introducing measures that give the Minister additional powers.
        Hon. Members from all parties have pointed out that the Minister is prepared to take the Bill through without accepting any amendments, even Labour amendments. In Committee, Labour Members tabled reasonable amendments and voted against them under duress. That is astonishing and nonsensical. The measure is not about animal health, but Government power. I hope that it will be challenged in the courts as soon as possible.
        6.50 pm
        Tony Cunningham: I shall be brief. We all agree that we cannot deal with a future outbreak of foot and mouth in the same way as we have tackled the current outbreak, especially in my constituency, which is in Cumbria and has suffered enormously. I feel tremendous sadness for farmers whose animals have been slaughtered and for those whose animals have not been culled but who have suffered all the associated pressures and stress, such as not being to able to move from their farms.
        I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ), but I want to enlarge on her points. Prevention is a key element in the fight against foot and mouth. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we need continued vigilance and the tightest biosecurity. However, as I said earlier, we also need to ensure that security at our ports and airports is as tight as possible.
        1100
        I support the Bill because it allows us to deal with the epidemic through a different approach, which may include vaccination. Several farmers in my constituency would view that favourably.
        As the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) said, scrapie formed the basis of the Bill. That was discussed and debated at length in Committee, but not on Report. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider traceability and identification for sheep? Will he propose a scheme for that? If so, will he consider the superb model in my constituency? The successful British Cattle Movement Service deals with the traceability of cattle. I hope that my hon. Friend will examine it and use it as a model for the future.
        6.53 pm
        Mr. Wiggin: I shall be brief. Farmers' incomes have fallen by 72 per cent. since 1975 and 40 per cent. of farmers are on family credit and working families tax credit. We have experienced the worst period in the history of agriculture and 5 million animals have been slaughtered. Yet the Government introduce a Bill that will force people not only to lose 25 per cent. of their compensation but to pay to appeal. The Bill will penalise farmers who practise proper biosecurity but will not punish those who deliberately infect. They will be allowed to keep 75 per cent. of their compensation.
        This is a Bill of shame. The part relating to scrapie is based on extremely difficult science. Codon 136—which is involved in the testing for the valene codon—is extremely difficult to identify, and in 80 per cent. of the tests carried out on sheep in my constituency, the tests were incorrect. We have evidence for that. I hope that, when the Minister considers the time frame for the scrapie plan, he will consider the testing methods to be used. It is difficult to find anything good to say about such a punishing Bill. If there is one word that sums up my feelings, it is rage.
        6.55 pm
        Mr. Peter Luff: The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) spoke of the dangers of hindsight. This is a remarkable Bill in that it is the first example of perfect foresight. It is perfect because not one amendment was deemed necessary during the passage of the Bill—because of the inadequate time that it has had in Committee and now on the Floor of the House. It demonstrates foresight because it comes before the Government's inquiries have produced what they think is necessary to control foot and mouth disease.
        This is a first: 19 pages of legislative perfection. But it is just not true. The Bill is not needed; it contains nothing on the important issues about improving liaison with the Environment Agency and the Department of Health concerning disposal techniques. All that the Bill will do is make the contiguous cull easier. The contiguous cull is still a matter of deep controversy in the farming community in my constituency. I am thinking of Nicola and Andrew Morris, who have produced compelling evidence that 85 per cent. of the animals slaughtered in this epidemic had no symptoms of foot and mouth disease. We are making a controversial policy easier.
        The Minister is introducing a Bill that is premature, draconian and unwanted. Yet again, this House is going to have to look to another place to do the real business of a democracy and improve a piece of legislation.
        6.56 pm
        Mr. Simon Thomas: This was a poor Bill when it was first introduced. It remains a poor Bill as it is unamended, and it does not deserve support. The Minister has been emollient tonight on many issues, but it is not good enough to suggest that amendments may be tabled, or that undertakings may be given, in another place. This House is the representative body for England—and Wales, still. I may not agree with that, but it is. It is important that those amendments should come before this body so that we can discuss them here and with our constituents, whom we are here to represent.
        The Government have taken a soft option with this Bill. They had difficulties with the contiguous cull, and with dealing with other aspects of foot and mouth. They have sought to legislate their way out of the situation—as is always their first instinct when they have difficulties—rather than discussing the way forward with the farming communities. The Department that could not get the difference between sheep's and cows' brains right, and could not map out Wales correctly in relation to the contiguous cull, does not deserve to hold these draconian powers.
        Finally, it is a travesty that the Bill was introduced without discussion with the National Assembly for Wales. That flies in the face of the undertakings and the protocol that exist between the Government and the National Assembly. It is not right that the National Assembly did not know about the Bill until First Reading. I am talking about the Assembly rather than the Minister's friends in the Administration. It is important to underline the difference between the two. The Bill does not deserve the support of the House, and I hope that it will be voted down.
        6.58 pm
        Mr. Bacon: The powers in the Bill have been discussed a great deal. Every time the Minister hears something reasonable from the Opposition, he shakes his head. All we have to do is look at what section 32 of the Animal Health Act 1981 says about the animals that can be killed, and what section 87 says about the ways in which those animals can be defined and those powers can be extended. The Minister talks about the fact that that would require an order—big deal! That requires a rubber stamp and takes 90 minutes. The combination of sections 32 and 87 of the 1981 Act and this Bill will mean that the Minister can kill whatever he wants, whenever he wants, without giving any reason for doing so.
        Mr. Wiggin: Without paying for it.
        Mr. Bacon: The second problem with the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) says, is the question of compensation. The people in the farming community in this country are burning, and they are bleeding. Total income from farming has gone down from £5 billion five years ago to less than £2 billion. The income of the average farmer is £5,000 or less, and it is a disgrace that the Government are making farmers pay penalties, in many cases for the mistakes of the Department.
        The third problem is human rights. The front page of the Bill says that the
        "provisions of the Animal Health Bill are compatible with the Convention"
        1102
        on human rights. What a ludicrous statement! The Bill is plainly incompatible with article 6, which provides for the right to a fair trial, and with article 8, which provides for the right to respect for private and family life.
        The fourth problem is illegal imports. The Minister said that he was minded to listen to us, but he would not accept our reasonable new clause, which required no more of him than simply to return to the House once a year to report what has been going on. He took absolutely no notice.
        The problem is that the Bill's real agenda is to make legal what was done that was illegal, namely killing 5 million animals of which 4 million were healthy—
        It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [4 November].
        The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 189.

        Division No. 113]

        7 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Chaytor, David

        Ainger, Nick

        Clapham, Michael

        Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

        Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

        Allen, Graham

        Clark, Dr Lynda

        Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

        (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        (Swansea E)

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        (Norwich S)

        Austin, John

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Bailey, Adrian

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Baird, Vera

        Clelland, David

        Banks, Tony

        Clwyd, Ann

        Barnes, Harry

        Coaker, Vernon

        Barron, Kevin

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Bayley, Hugh

        Coleman, Iain

        Beard, Nigel

        Colman, Tony

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Connarty, Michael

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Bell, Stuart

        Corston, Jean

        Benn, Hilary

        Cousins, Jim

        Benton, Joe

        Cranston, Ross

        Berry, Roger

        Crausby, David

        Best, Harold

        Cruddas, Jon

        Betts, Clive

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Blackman, Liz

        Cummings, John

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov"try S)

        Blizzard, Bob

        Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

        Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Borrow, David

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        David, Wayne

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Brennan, Kevin

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Davis, Rt Hon Terry

        (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

        (B'ham Hodge H)

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Dawson, Hilton

        Browne, Desmond

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Bryant, Chris

        Denham, Rt Hon John

        Burden, Richard

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        Bumham, Andy

        Dismore, Andrew

        Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

        Dobbin, Jim

        Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

        Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

        Cairns, David

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Doran, Frank

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Dowd, Jim

        Caplin, Ivor

        Drown, Ms Julia

        Casale, Roger

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Caton, Martin

        Edwards, Huw

        Cawsey, Ian

        Efford, Clive

        Challen, Colin

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        1103

        Ennis, Jeff

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Etherington, Bill

        Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

        Farrelly, Paul

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

        Lammy, David

        Fisher, Mark

        Laxton, Bob

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Lazarowicz, Mark

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        Lepper, David

        Flint, Caroline

        Leslie, Christopher

        Follett, Barbara

        Levitt, Tom

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Foster, Michael (Worcester)

        LJnton, Martin

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Uoyd, Tony

        Foulkes, George

        Love, Andrew

        Francis, Dr Hywel

        Lucas, Ian

        Galloway, George

        Luke, lain

        Gapes, Mike

        Lyons, John

        Gardiner, Barry

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Gerrard, Neil

        McCabe, Stephen

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

        Gilroy, Linda

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Goggins, Paul

        McDonnell, John

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        MacDougall, John

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        McFall, John

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Grogan, John

        Mclsaac, Shona

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        McKechin, Ann

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        McKenna, Rosemary

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Hanson, David

        McNulty, Tony

        Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

        MacShane, Denis

        Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Havard, Dai

        McWalter, Tony

        Healey, John

        McWilliam, John

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Mahmood, Khalid

        Hendrick, Mark

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Mallaber, Judy

        Heppell, John

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

        Mann, John

        Heyes, David

        Marris, Rob

        Hill, Keith

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Hinchliffe, David

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Hodge, Margaret

        Meale, Alan

        Hoey, Kate

        Merron, Gillian

        Hood, Jimmy

        Miliband, David

        Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

        Miller, Andrew

        Hope, Phil

        Moffatt, Laura

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Mole, Chris

        Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Moran, Margaret

        Howells, Dr Kim

        Morgan, Julie

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Mortey, Elliot

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Mullin, Chris

        Hurst, Alan

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Hutton, Rt Hon John

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Totfaen)

        Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Jamieson, David

        O'Hara, Edward

        Jenkins, Brian

        Olner, Bill

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

        Organ, Diana

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Osbome, Sandra (Ayr)

        Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

        Owen, Albert

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

        Perham, Linda

        Joyce, Eric

        Picking, Anne

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Pickthall, Colin

        Keen, Alan (Fettham & Heston)

        Pike, Peter

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Plaskitt, James

        Kelly, Ruth

        Pollard, Kerry

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Pope, Greg

        Khabra, Piara S

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Kidney, David

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Prescott, Rt Hon John

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        1104

        Purchase, Ken

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Purnell, James

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

        Stringer, Graham

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Rammell, Bill

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Rapson, Syd

        Tami, Mark

        Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

        Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

        Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Robertson, John

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        (Glasgow Anniesland)

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

        Timms, Stephen

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Tipping, Paddy

        Rooney, Terry

        Touhig, Don

        Ross, Ernie

        Trickett, Jon

        Roy, Frank

        Truswell, Paul

        Ruddock, Joan

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Ryan, Joan

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Salter, Martin

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Tynan, Bill

        Sawford, Phil

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Wareing, Robert N

        Sheridan, Jim

        Watts, David

        Shipley, Ms Debra

        White, Brian

        Simon, Siôon

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Skinner, Dennis

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        (Swansea W)

        Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

        Wills, Michael

        Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

        Winnick, David

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Wood, Mike

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Woodward, Shaun

        Soley, Clive

        Worthington, Tony

        Southworth, Helen

        Wray, James

        Spellar, Rt Hon John

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Squire, Rachel

        Wright, David (Telford)

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Wyatt, Derek

        Stevenson, George

        Stewart, David (Inverness E)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Mr. Fraser Kemp and

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Mr. Ian Pearson.

        NOES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Burstow, Paul

        Allan, Richard

        Burt, Alistair

        Amess, David

        Butterfill, John

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Cable, Dr Vincent

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        Calton, Mrs Patsy

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Cameron, David

        Bacon, Richard

        Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

        Baker, Norman

        (NE Fife)

        Baldry, Tony

        Carmichael, Alistair

        Barker, Gregory

        Cash, William

        Baron, John

        Chapman, Sir Sydney

        Barrett, John

        (Chipping Bamet)

        Beith, Rt Hon A J

        Chidgey, David

        Bellingham, Henry

        Chope, Christopher

        Bercow, John

        Clappison, James

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

        Blunt, Crispin

        (Rushcliffe)

        Boswell, Tim

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Collins, Tim

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        Cotter, Brian

        Brady, Graham

        Cran, James

        Brake, Tom

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Brazier, Julian

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

        Breed, Colin

        Djanogly, Jonathan

        Brooke, Mrs Annette L

        Dodds, Nigel

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Doughty, Sue

        Bruce, Malcolm

        Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

        Burnett, John

        Fabricant, Michael

        Burns, Simon

        Flook, Adrian

        Burnside, David

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        1105

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Ottaway, Richard

        Fox, Dr Liam

        Page, Richard

        Francois, Mark

        Paice, James

        Gale, Roger

        Paisley, Rev Ian

        Gamier, Edward

        Pickles, Eric

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

        Gidley, Sandra

        Price, Adam

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Prisk, Mark

        Goodman, Paul

        Pugh, Dr John

        Gray, James

        Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

        Grayling, Chris

        Rendel, David

        Green, Matthew (Ludbw)

        Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

        Greenway, John

        Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

        Grieve, Dominic

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Gummer, Rt Hon John

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Hammond, Philip

        Rosindell, Andrew

        Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

        Ruffley, David

        Harvey, Nick

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Hawkins, Nick

        Sanders, Adrian

        Hayes, John

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Heald, Oliver

        Selous, Andrew

        Heath, David

        Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

        Hendry, Charles

        Shepherd, Richard

        Hermon, Lady

        Simmonds, Mark

        Hoban, Mark

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

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

        Holmes, Paul

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        Horam, John

        Spink, Bob

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Spring, Richard

        Hunter, Andrew

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Steen, Anthony

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Streeter, Gary

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Stunell, Andrew

        Keetch, Paul

        Swayne, Desmond

        Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

        Swire, Hugo

        (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

        Syms, Robert

        Key, Robert

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        Lamb, Norman

        Thurso, John

        Lansley, Andrew

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Laws, David

        Trend, Michael

        Leigh, Edward

        Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

        Letwin, Oliver

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

        Viggers, Peter

        Liddell-Grainger, Ian

        Walter, Robert

        Lidington, David

        Waterson, Nigel

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Watkinson, Angela

        Loughton, Tim

        Webb, Steve

        Luff, Peter

        Whittingdale, John

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

        Wiggin, Bill

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Willetts, David

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

        Malins, Humfrey

        Williams, Roger (Brecon)

        Mates, Michael

        Willis, Phil

        Maude, Rt Hon Francis

        Wilshire, David

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Mercer, Patrick

        Yeo, Tim

        Moore, Michael

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Moss, Malcolm

        Younger-Ross, Richard

        Murrison, Dr Andrew

        Norman, Archie

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Oaten, Mark

        Mr. Laurence Robertson

        ÖÖpik, Lembit

        and Mr. Stephen O'Brien.

        Osbome, George (Tatton)

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Bill read Third time,and passed

        Points of Order
        7.15 pm
        Mr. Andrew Dismore: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received a request for a statement in the House on the consequences of today's judgment in the other place that convicted Dame Shirley Porter, former Conservative leader of Westminster city council, of political corruption arising out of her role in the Westminster homes for votes—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I have heard enough already to tell the hon. Gentleman that that is not a matter for the Chair.
        Tim Loughton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that the Adoption and Children Bill is in Committee and that next Tuesday the Committee will discuss the most contentious provisions of the Bill on access to information. It transpires that after the Committee rose this afternoon a copy of a letter to the Chairman saying that the Government had done a complete U-turn on those clauses was released to members. However, I gather that Labour members of the Committee had access to the letter earlier during the Committee sitting this afternoon.
        Is it not a gross discourtesy that the information was not made available to all members of the Committee, given that today is the last date for tabling further amendments, and that those who have tabled amendments, including my hon. Friends and me, were not personally told about the radical changes to the Bill that will be discussed on Tuesday? Would you care to investigate that, because a discourtesy has been done to Conservative and other Opposition Members who sit on that Committee?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no knowledge of the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. He has made his point and put his thoughts on the record. No doubt the people responsible for those matters will read it and take note.
        Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of your earlier ruling and in view of the fact that the so-called party of law and order, as the Conservatives used to call themselves, has not raised the matter, if we have a situation in which somebody owes £27 million, this House should do something about it—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter for the courts, not for this House.
        Mr. Skinner rose—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already dealt with that point of order and I do not intend to return to it.
        Mr. Skinner: It is about free speech.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point of order and I do not intend to return to it.
        Peter Bradley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does it relate to the same of point of order?
        Peter Bradley: Well—[Interruption.]
        Hon. Members: Yes, it does.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman two things. First, when I am on my feet, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat, and secondly, I have no intention of returning to that point of order.
        7.18 pm
        Sitting suspended, pursuant to Order [5 December].

        Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
        Lords amendments in lieu of amendments to which the Commons have disagreed; Lords reasons for insisting on certain of their amendments; and Lords amendments to Commons amendments.
        9.30 pm
        On resuming—

      Clause 17

        EXTENSION OF EXISTING DISCLOSURE POWERS
        Lords amendment 5B, in lieu of Lords amendment 5: in page 7, line 23, at end insert—
        "0 No disclosure of information shall be made by virtue of this section unless the public authority by which the disclosure is made is satisfied that the making of the disclosure is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it."
        The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): A paper setting out the details of the Lords message is now available in the Vote Office. A second paper setting out the Government's proposals for a response to the Lords is also available.
        The first Government motion relates to Lords amendment No. 5. I understand that it is the wish of the Government that all their other motions should be debated at the same time, and they are so grouped. At the end of the debate, I shall put the Question on each Government motion in succession.
        Mr. Blunkett: First, I apologise for the fact that it has taken us so very long to receive the Lords message and that we have delayed Members of the House so late tonight. I want to explain the areas on which the Lords have deliberated in detail: part 5 on incitement to religious hatred, part 10 relating to police powers, part 11 on data retention and part 14, which, for want of better a phraseology, we might describe as sunset clauses.
        Before we deliberate on the Lords message, it is very important to note that agreement has been reached on about 98 per cent. of the Bill. Given the speed, complexity and vigour of the debate over recent weeks here and in the Lords, that is a tremendous achievement. All people of good will should take pride in having been able to secure it. In that spirit, I shall address the four remaining clauses that we are dealing with tonight.
        My political instinct is that people would never forgive us if we engaged in party political wrangles at this stage. I do not believe that anyone outside the House with any maturity expects us to behave in anything but a mature and responsible fashion in dealing with the remaining disagreements. That is why I want to try to secure agreement between the two Houses on the outstanding issues.
        One issue and one alone has overridden everything we have debated—that is, providing greater security and reassurance to the people we serve. We have sought to do

        1109
        so by providing proportionate and responsible powers and trying to reach agreement where there is disagreement over how far the legislation should go.
        Mr. A. J. Beith: In the spirit of what the Home Secretary says, we recognise that the disagreement has not been party political, because it brought people of all parties together when they felt that the legislation, in some respects, went beyond the requirements of dealing with terrorism and security. The agreements that have been reached have helped to redress that balance.
        Mr. Blunkett: I certainly agree that Members of all parties have genuinely sought a way forward, but I hope that tonight we will show that we can achieve that in even greater degree. That is the point that I seek to make. Having established that we have already reached agreement on 98 per cent. of the Bill, I want to reach an agreement that allows the House of Lords to agree to the Bill tonight and to ensure that people are aware not only that we have been able to achieve that goal, but that Parliament has been able to handle a difficult and complex issue in such a fashion. As I said last night, the credibility of the process—not just of Parliament—is important to all of us, certainly those of us who care deeply about politics.
        Let me work backwards. Part 14, relating to sunset clauses, has exercised Members in all parts of the House in regard to which elements of legislation should be returned to, not just in terms of deliberation—that applies to part 5, on an annual basis and or part 11, which already involves a sunset clause of two years—but in terms of broader issues. We agreed with the Home Affairs Committee on a sunset clause of five years on part 4, and we agreed that it would be appropriate to return that to primary legislation.
        It has been suggested, particularly by the Liberal Democrats, that every part of the Bill should have to be revisited and rerun through Parliament. That, of course, would be at the expense of other measures proposed by, among others, the Liberal Democrats. We believe that, after sensitive deliberation on the matters that are of most concern and after agreement had been reached, it would be right to seek a return only if it was considered that remaining parts not given sunset clauses had prompted concern. We therefore proposed a review by a Privy Council committee, which would report to the two Houses within two years, and recommended that the terms of its report should be debated by the House of Commons.
        There appears to have been doubt about whether the commitments given by the Government would result in full deliberation in relation to any concerns expressed by the committee. Our amendment, while declining to provide sunset clauses in regard to every part of the Bill and therefore to rerun those parts, does ensure that the review can highlight areas in which the committee believes there is cause for concern in terms of implementation, and therefore that we would guarantee a sunset clause of six months on any such items should the two Houses not have an opportunity to deliberate fully.
        1110
        We consider this a sensible amendment, which should reassure everyone that the Government will have to provide a debate and will have to reach conclusions on the issues highlighted by the review committee.
        Simon Hughes: Of course a review—particularly one conducted by those with authority—is welcome. The constitutional issue that divides us is this: it should be for Parliament, rather than seven or more people appointed by the Secretary of State—however important they may be—to decide whether legislation such as this should continue. This is a fundamental change in the principle that Parliament, and only Parliament, can apply the necessary wisdom and make the appropriate decision on whether emergency legislation that has not been considered properly should remain on the statute book indefinitely.
        Mr. Blunkett: We will return those concerns to the House specifically, but we will also bring the report on the Bill to the House, thereby offering it an opportunity not simply to debate clauses relating to extension of the Terrorism Act 2000 and part 4—we have already made a commitment to consider that annually and to conclude it after five years, if it has not already been concluded by a vote in the House—but to debate the whole of the working of the Bill. That is a unique opportunity. It has never been offered before by Government, and I think it helps us in these circumstances.
        Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. Blunkett: I will in a moment.
        I think that that helps us; given that people have been prepared to give and take, listen, respond and make sensible suggestions, we have now reached consensus on the vast majority of clauses. For unique reasons, we appear to have had consensus on bribery and corruption across the House. One measure was demonstrably put in at the last moment on the insistence of a Front-Bench spokesman for the Opposition party. On that alone appears to rest the full consent of the Liberal Democrats. It is a very strange world we live in, but there we are. Given that it is such a strange world, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn).
        Jeremy Corbyn: The Home Secretary said that the Privy Council committee will have a chance to examine all the workings of the proposed legislation and then issue a report. Will he confirm that in its examination of all the workings of the Bill, the committee will have access to the information under which anyone is imprisoned as a supposed international terrorist, and will be able to examine what it believes to be the justice of those cases before it issues its report on the general workings of the Bill?
        Mr. Blunkett: The reason why it is a Privy Council-established committee is to give it access to the security and intelligence services. Of course it will not have access to the detailed cases of the individuals who have gone through the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the evidence that has been heard in private. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am not even going

        1111
        to try that answer because we have spent hour after hour, including last night, deliberating on that matter. I do not intend to hold the House up unnecessarily.
        On part 11, we had a suggestion from those who have been extremely busy on the Liberal Democrat Benches that we should separate out, because it is about not access but retention, those parts of data that someone could second-guess as being relevant to terrorists as opposed to organised criminals and others. They have considered it necessary to press that.
        Should I resist the House of Lords on that matter, the Bill is in danger of falling. We have some quaint rules as between the two Houses. If something is resisted twice, the whole Bill falls—not the clause, but the whole Bill. It is a learning curve even for those of us who did politics as a degree. No doubt the Leader of the House will get around to looking at modernising the way in which we operate.[Interruption.]That was not a threat; it was a little quip. I am so keen to get the Bill through before Christmas that I would not dare threaten anyone, not even on my own Back Benches.
        The amendment, in relation to part 11 therefore suggests that we should try to separate out those parts of data. As I tried to explain on a number of occasions, including last night, it is not possible to do that, but paradoxically, because it is not possible to do it, it is not reasonable to suggest that we should not do it. I am therefore prepared to accept the amendments that have been tabled. In order to be able to implement what they want, we will have to retain the data, so that it can be accessed to test out whether the intelligence services are right in believing that it is relevant in tackling terrorists. That is how stupid the Liberal Democrats are.
        Mr. Richard Allan: I hesitate to intervene on that introduction, but I congratulate the Home Secretary on accepting the amendment. It is important not in terms of the practical implications, which are as he spelled out, but in terms of the message it gives to one of the UK's important industrial sectors, from which he will require full co-operation if we are to implement anything in the Bill—or indeed in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
        9.45 pm
        Mr. Blunkett: We have been fortunate in that the industry has given its co-operation voluntarily for the past three and a half months. I remember in my statement on 15 October thanking the industry and congratulating it on doing so. We established the concept of a code of practice with a sunset clause in recognition of the fact that the best wanted to get on board the rest, as per the famous Winston Churchill phrase of 1909, to ensure that those who were prepared to co-operate were not undercut by those who were not. However, we have agreement, so let us move to part 10, on police powers.
        We have another little paradox on part 10. It transpired that the Liberal Democrats had managed to contrive a situation in which their amendments reduced the powers already available to the police and the jurisdiction of the British Transport and MOD police. I pointed that out last night, and the Liberal Democrats went back to the House
        1112
        of Lords and persuaded their Lordships that they should accept an amendment that provides as follows:
        "Any powers conferred by this Part, except in so far as they confer powers replacing police powers which existed immediately before the coming into force of this Part, shall only be enforceable in relation to any suspicion, or investigation, or acts, of terrorism or any matters of national security."
        In other words, having accepted that they had made a complete backside of it, the Liberal Democrats have decided to put the matter right. We are now back where we started. In the spirit of co-operation, I shall ask the House of Lords if it would be kind enough not to resist putting the original wording back in, so that we can move forward on the basis that we thought we were on in the first place.
        The issue is serious because, should the House of Lords resist that request and send the issue back to the Commons, and if we were unprepared to put up with that nonsense, the Bill would fall. We have a clear message for the House of Lords: to ask it to accept that we have gone as far as we can in relation to those powers and to agree with this House.
        I come to part 5. Coming from Sheffield, I am familiar with the old nursery rhyme about the grand old Duke of York. So I have marched myself up to the top of the hill and I am about to march myself down again. Before anyone can quip about giving way gracefully or otherwise, I shall ask the House to give way to the House of Lords, which has voted twice to remove the incitement to religious hatred from the Bill. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] There we have it.
        There will be consequences. Every decision that we take—be it this House, the House of Lords or people in their individual lives—has consequences. Some people's attitude is, "We really agree with this proposal and we think that in the long term it would be a good thing to do, but this is not the time or the Bill and we did not agree with every word so we will reject it." [Interruption.] Those people will need to reflect in a year's time on where the new Bill is, not least those Liberal Democrats who are heckling me. After all, they have suggested that we should re-examine every aspect of this Bill, to the point where no time or space would be available to table a separate small Bill on incitement to religious hatred.
        That is the consequence of the enthusiasm demonstrated by hon. Members—on the Opposition Benches and on my own side as well—at the fact that the provision has been removed from the Bill. We all understand that the House should concern itself with construction, constructive change, improvement and building on proposals. What I have never understood is the great joy and cheer at the destructiveness of removal. I want to explain what I mean—
        Mr. Paul Goodman: You just messed it up.
        Mr. Blunkett: I do not think that I have messed it up. I think that the votes in the House of Lords have messed up this provision.
        Many hon. Members were not in the Chamber when there was sensible and rational disagreement on these clauses. Genuine concerns were expressed, which were heard and responded to. Discussions took place behind the scenes, and the Attorney-General did his best to ensure that we found a way forward.

        1113
        I have no disagreement with that. People genuinely felt that there could be improvements and safeguards. That is fine. What I was referring to was the tremendous cheer that getting rid of the provision altogether aroused. There was no quiet pleasure at having won—[Interruption.]
        Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Home Secretary give way?
        Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way to the former leader of the Scottish National party in a moment, but I merely want to make the point that the House should not shout and jeer at such moments. We had a rational debate on the matter, and the Government have conceded that we have lost on it. The House of Lords has voted against it twice, both times substantially. However, that is not a matter about which anyone should rejoice. It may be late, and people may be frustrated, but that is the single point that I want to make.
        I give way to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
        Mr. Salmond: The Home Secretary will not have to wait a few years to see such legislation in operation. My understanding is that the Scottish Parliament intends to proceed with similar legislation. However, in the Scottish Parliament, it will not be proceeded with as emergency, rushed legislation. Is not that the lesson that the Home Secretary should take on board?
        Mr. Blunkett: I have learned a number of lessons over the past few weeks, which I hope that I will carry with me. However, one lesson that I have learned from interventions from Scottish National Party Members over the past week or two has been how different the two Parliaments are. I do not mean in terms of their processes, but in terms of the volume of legislation and the enormity of pressure that exists in them. Obviously, the modernisation process proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will assist us, but in this Parliament we have the most enormous backlog and jam of legislation. Everyone, from every side, wants their preferred Bill to come forward.
        I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons).
        Mrs. Fitzsimons: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that we in this House are sometimes in danger of operating as though we are not seen by the outside world? Does he share, as I do, the disappointment felt by the 27 per cent. of my constituents of Muslim origin, who feel that, tonight, the House has not listened to their concerns or protected them? Does he agree that we bring ourselves into disrepute when we do so in a crowing manner?
        Mr. Blunkett: When a number of faith groups, including the Muslim Council of Britain, asked me if I would consider bringing forward a clause on religious hatred, similar to the provisions regarding race hatred, we
        1114
        considered that it was a worthwhile proposition and attempted to do it in good faith. We did it to try and meet genuine concerns at a time when reassurance and increased security and surveillance were judged to be necessary. Our attempt to do this has undoubtedly sent a signal across the world. We did it in good faith.
        I have made a point that has aggravated Opposition and some Labour Members, but I think that it is important that, when we deliberate on these matters, we take joy in success.
        Sir Brian Mawhinney: I was one with whom the Home Secretary engaged constructively and graciously. Although we had a difference of opinion that was not resolved, we behaved as Members of this House ought to behave, so I am slightly disappointed at his tone. I ask him to think back to those discussions. The shadow Home Secretary and the Liberal Democrat spokesman both made an offer to the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that, were this measure to be dropped, they would co-operate with the Government on a new Bill that would address these serious issues in the round. Is the Home Secretary now telling us that that is not a prospect in the foreseeable future?
        Mr. Blunkett: As for the right hon. Gentleman's sadness about my tone, I merely observe that if someone blows a raspberry in my ear, I am inclined to blow my mouth organ slightly louder. A raspberry was blown by Members when I announced that the clause was to be dropped.
        On the substantive issue, I have heard that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members indicated that they would like to co-operate on a measure that they have just defeated. I am very keen that they should indicate that through the usual channels, as well as how they wish to co-operate over such a Bill, how they believe that it should be designed; what substantive measure, if any, they think that it should be attached to; and which measure would have to give way in order for us to find a slot for it. It was because of the need to get through these measures in time to ensure that we did not leave people at risk or completely disrupt the rest of the legislative programme that we sought to achieve what we are doing tonight.
        Simon Hughes: I hope that the Home Secretary will return to his introductory tone and accept that there are honourable views held on this issue on both sides of this House and the other place, just as there are outside in all communities, of faith and without faith. It just so happens that the House of Lords has twice, by the largest majority since it has been reformed, not shared the view of the Government.
        I hope that the Home Secretary will not repeat the words of his colleague who suggested that the defeat on this issue—we think that it is the wrong place and the wrong time—should preclude collaboration on any Bill that deals with the blasphemy law, incitement and religious discrimination in the early future. The Government can make that time available if they want to.
        Mr. Blunkett: There is every reason to continue encouraging those who are prepared to co-operate to do so. I repeat that my remarks were based not on concern

        1115
        about people's disagreement but on the triumphalism surrounding that disagreement. I intend to conclude, because I want people to have the chance—[Interruption.] It is no good the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats immediately offering their co-operation, if that is what they are doing, and then criticising me for being taken aback at their tone. That is all.
        10 pm
        If we want co-operation, let us seek it. I shall conclude on that point—[Interruption]. I am not bitter at all; we have achieved a lot. We have achieved consensus on a range of measures—including the aggravated offence in relation to religion associated with race hate. That will be extremely important in its own right in achieving security and safety, as well as sending a message to people. I do not want people of any faith to believe that tonight Parliament turned down their protection. That is important—whether or not we disagree.
        Although it is late, I want to finish on a positive note. During recent days, we have received substantial co-operation from the Conservative home affairs team. I am grateful to them for that. A responsible attitude has been shown today by Conservative Front-Bench Members, and I am grateful to them. As I said yesterday evening at about 11.30, I hope that that will be emulated by the Liberal Democrats when these provisions return to the House of Lords—for it is not words that we seek, but genuine co-operation in establishing that Parliament can secure a safer and better future for the British people.
        Mr. Oliver Letwin: This is an important moment for Parliament. The Home Secretary set out to achieve a Bill, with good intentions. Throughout, we have paid tribute to that. Throughout, we have recognised the necessity of the Bill and of having it quickly, because we face, as a nation, a real threat and, as I mentioned yesterday, all but seven of the 126 clauses properly address that threat.
        I also pay tribute to the fact that the Home Secretary has made significant shifts in order to enable us to have what we set out to have in the first place—a Bill about terrorism. There was never a place in such a Bill for a clause on incitement to religious hatred. I will not rehearse the arguments. We are grateful that the Home Secretary has given way to the overwhelming objections from the Lords. I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's view of the performance of the Liberal Democrats, who have worked with us conscientiously and openly to achieve that important result.
        I am also grateful that the Home Secretary has made way for a sunset clause that I believe will work. It is not perfect, but I suspect that we could never have hoped to achieve perfection in 10 days or so of parliamentary debate of a Bill of immense length. The provision will, I think, serve the purpose.
        I am further grateful that the Home Secretary has allowed the Lords to do their work of noticing that there was something wrong in having about 81 Government agencies and quangos disclose almost everything to almost any law enforcement officer, who was trying to investigate almost any crime, anywhere in the world. That was not proper drafting, although I do not think that the Home Secretary intended that provision from the beginning. The proportionality rule that he has now
        1116
        explicitly applied will probably serve to remedy the problem. Again, it is not perfect. As the years go by, we shall have to see whether it works, but it is certainly much better than where we started.
        Most of all, I am grateful to the Home Secretary for removing from the Bill an item that should never have been in any Bill: an attempt—if, indeed, it was intentional—to enable the Government of the day to push through, in a 90-minute debate in a Committee upstairs, any decision reached by EU Justice Ministers on any matter of criminal law. The Home Secretary has, in effect, removed that part of the Bill. He has so constrained the provision that it is innocuous, and for that not only we but the nation as a whole will be grateful, not just this year but for years to come.
        What has been proved during the rather arduous progress of the Bill is the value of parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary check. The Home Secretary has ended up with a better Bill—not only from our point of view but from his point of view. What has been shown is that when Parliament asserts itself constructively, effectively and in a dignified way against the Executive, Parliament can win and can make the actions of the Executive better than they would otherwise be. That is a triumph for our democracy and I am grateful to the Home Secretary for co-operating in achieving it.
        Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and his colleagues for their collaboration. We have often been able to reach a common view in both Houses, and that view has prevailed in considerable parts of the Bill. I am sorry that the Home Secretary's frequent courtesy and friendliness when we have seen him and his ministerial colleagues to discuss the Bill and to put our point of view has not always been reflected in the tone that he has adopted publicly.
        I hold no grudge about the fact that the Home Secretary may have a different view. I understand his national political responsibility, and he is perfectly right to introduce in Parliament a Bill to deal with terrorism. The Liberal Democrats have unequivocally said that we accepted that there should be such a Bill and that we would support it, and we accepted that it should be emergency legislation. We have never veered from that view, but we have had some disagreements about the Bill's content.
        The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Absolutely.
        Simon Hughes: We have disagreed about the content because we have also kept to two other very straightforward positions. First, the provisions of a Bill that proceeds through an emergency process, without proper scrutiny and in double-quick time, should return for scrutiny at a later date—a perfectly normal constitutional principle. Secondly, we believe that a Bill that was intended to deal with terrorism and related activities should be limited to terrorism and related activities, and many of our amendments have been intended to deal with that issue specifically.
        Of course, there have been, and still are, disagreements. I am grateful to all my parliamentary colleagues for the fact that we have reached a common view about how to

        1117
        proceed and that they have unitedly supported the leader of my party, myself and our colleagues as we have sought to amend the Bill. However, the Home Secretary must not misrepresent the fact that when we have disagreed on extending the powers of data retention and transfer and those of the police beyond what is needed to deal with the current emergency, we have done so because we believe that it is not right to deal with those matters in this process and in this Bill and that, if the Government want to do that, they should do so elsewhere.
        I want to make a point about the deliberations of the past day or so. Although the Government have no majority in the country, they clearly have a majority in the House.[Interruption.] No, they have no majority in the country. Indeed, no party has a majority in the country, and the Government achieved a considerably lower vote than most Governments since the war, so we should have no arrogance from the Government.[Interruption.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be as well for the progress of business if any Member who has the Floor is heard in reasonable silence.
        Simon Hughes: The Government also have no numerical majority in the House of Lords, but this Government of all Governments cannot complain if they are defeated in the House of Lords because that is the House that Tony, Jack, David and Derry built. This is their House of Lords and their creation. If they wanted a different one, they could have created it.
        Liberal Democrats regret the fact that the Government did not accept our argument about judicial review. We do not believe that it was necessary to derogate from the European convention on human rights and we were sad that there was a proposal to allow for European third-pillar issues to be debated on the basis of secondary legislation. However, we clearly acknowledge that the Government have made considerable concessions, and for each and every one of those we are grateful and are clear in our minds that they were wise moves that were taken on the basis of evidence and argument.
        Three issues remain. The first relates to the incitement to religious hatred provision. The proposition that I put to the Government yesterday and before remains absolutely clear. Liberal Democrats believe, like the Scottish Parliament believes, that there should be legislation on religious discrimination. We believe that, if the Government want to legislate, they can find the time to do so. We shall, indeed, collaborate with other parties and faith groups to seek to persuade the Government to find the time to legislate properly.
        Secondly, we believe that there should be a sunset clause for the Bill. What the Government have offered—[Interruption.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is still too much noise for such a serious occasion.
        Simon Hughes: What the Government have offered is an improvement, but we have not changed our view that such a Bill should return for proper review.
        1118
        Finally, we believe that we were right to press the argument that the powers of the police and the authorities that were so widely drafted in the original Government proposals were much wider than was necessary to deal with the current emergency.
        We are consoled in our view by the fact that people from both the other major parties often supported us. We assure the Government that, like them, we are willing to co-operate and we assure the House and the country that we accept that this Bill, improved and amended, should pass into law tonight. However, we shall keep up our arguments when we believe that the law needs to be changed hereafter.
        Disagreement must not be misrepresented. It is the place for Parliament to express disagreements and Liberal Democrats are proud of the position that we have taken. We shall continue to argue our case.
        Mr. Frank Dobson: I have no religious beliefs, but it is shameful that people in our country are subject to abuse and assault because of their religious beliefs and are subject to discrimination in jobs, housing and education because of their religious beliefs. I have long believed that we should outlaw such discrimination. I strongly supported the Government's proposal to do that, even though it was included in a Bill that relates to terrorism.
        I am sorry that the House of Lords voted that proposal down, but the problems remain. Tomorrow morning and tomorrow evening, as they take children to and from school, Muslim women will be abused and assaulted because they cover their heads because of their religious beliefs.
        I have listened to the arguments against the inclusion of such a proposal in a clause in the Bill. I have noticed that many of the provision's opponents have said that they want such legislation, but not in this form or at this time. The problems that it was supposed to address remain. I hope that the Home Secretary and the rest of the Cabinet will recognise that and shortly introduce a Bill that includes proposals to outlaw incitement to religious hatred and religious discrimination, because we owe it to the people who are suffering those outrages at the moment.
        10.15 pm
        Mr. Tony McWalter: I rather disagree with the general tone of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, but I congratulate the Home Secretary on agreeing with the Lords in amendment No. 23, on incitement to religious hatred.
        We are all fanatically and fiercely opposed to hatred in all its forms. Indeed, if there were no such thing as hatred, we might not need a House of Commons at all. It is the resistance to expressions of hatred and violence that gives us our very role as Members of Parliament. Hatred is a hydra-headed monster: one can chop off one of its heads and two might grow in its place.
        The issue facing us has been properly expressed in the House of Lords. The Lords said that part 5 has an unobvious but deep and devastating implication for freedom of speech. I do not believe that this House has had a proper chance to analyse that proposition, but if it is true, and we are the custodians of freedom of speech, it is right that we pay the appropriate amount of attention

        1119
        to that argument. We have not been able during our three sittings to give it that attention. The House of Lords, in its eight sittings, has had more opportunity so to do.
        If it is true that the Bill has implications for freedom of speech, of course it may be that we still need to embrace curtailments because of terrorism, but the argument in this place has consisted of some people saying that anybody who says that there is anything at all wrong with the Bill is forgetting about 11 September. The beautiful 35-yearold daughter of my friend Padraig McHugh lost her life on 11 September, so if I say that the Bill is manky in parts, let no one tell me that I am forgetting about 11 September—no way.
        Some people have said that those of us who are opposed to some parts of the Bill have set civil liberties too high and the threats too low. Every item in the Bill needs to be considered by reference to whether it lowers the probability of events such as those on 11 September. Unlike many of my colleagues who have opposed the Bill and said that they are also opposed to the military action taken by the Government, I have been strongly in support of the military action.
        It is right, however, that this Bill—drafted too hastily, thought of too quickly and imposed without sufficient debate, particularly in this place—be simplified, and I am pleased that the Lords have done a job that should have been done here. I hope that in future, the timetable for any legislation of this sort will allow proper scrutiny to be conducted in this Chamber, instead of expecting it to go up the road where the Lords have the luxury of detailed debate, which we have been denied. I hope that we get legislation through to curtail hatred and make sure that we do so in a way that maximises the opportunity for freedom of speech.
        Jeremy Corbyn: Like other Members, I shall be brief. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] I am grateful to my hon. Friends. The Home Secretary made the point that he will appoint a review committee to look at the workings of the Bill and told the House that it will not have access to evidence on the basis of which he will have the power as Home Secretary to name someone as an international terrorist, imprison them, deny them access both to the evidence against them and legal representation, then review their case every six months. Will the House reflect for a moment that no other country in Europe has introduced such legislation?
        We are rushing through legislation that means that people will be imprisoned without any access to the evidence against them or to an open court. Because the security services are apparently not prepared to trust the civilian courts, the Home Secretary is not prepared to change the Bill. The House should reflect for a moment on the fact that, unaccountably, we are giving incredibly serious and draconian powers to the Home Secretary and future Home Secretaries. We should not be doing that. To defend itself, a democracy must be open and democratic and give people the right both to knowledge of the evidence against them and to be defended.
        The Bill has been rushed through; it is extremely dangerous because it is a denial of civil liberties. If we parade ourselves as a democratic society, in times of difficulty it is important to show the rest of the world that we are prepared to stand up for the civil liberties and rights which we enjoy. If the Bill is used against supposed
        1120
        international terrorists and foreign passport holders, there is always the danger that it could be extended later to United Kingdom citizens. My hon. Friends and I are not prepared to support it because it is a dangerous departure from the norm of a Labour party and a labour movement that defends the right to civil liberties in our society.
        Glenda Jackson: I support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and place on the record the fact that many of my constituents believe that there should be a criminal offence based on incitement to racial hatred [HoN. MEMBERS: "Religious hatred"] Thank you. I should also like to place on the record my perception that that part of the Bill is not meant essentially or exclusively to protect people of the Muslim faith. There are many faiths that at present and, doubtless, in future, can be used as a target for hatred, as they have been in the past.
        I wish to assure my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he has no need to apologise for his response to what he rightly called the triumphalist response to his announcement. I can assure him that the majority of Members who bayed their triumphalism were not in the Chamber last night when the issue was debated. The whole reason for the House's existence is to examine forensically the Executive's legislation, so why do certain Members always hide behind the excuse that they would be able to do so if only they had more time? This piece of legislation was introduced because of an emergency. If the emergency services that work on our streets and in our hospitals throughout the year argued that they could not fulfil the requirements of their job because they had not had sufficient notice, what would the House and the people of this country say?
        I take issue particularly with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) who averred that he discounted the other place. He said that it was a Chamber that had been created by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other members of the Government. When the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues signally fail to win an argument in this House, they invariably refuse to push their amendments to a vote because, as they say, the matter will be raised in the other place. A Chamber which the hon. Gentleman claimed this evening to discount is always his fail-safe.
        The essential point, which the House should examine without delay, is that an unaccountable and unelected Chamber can overturn the decisions of this Chamber. Members of the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—I do not know what one calls the Liberal Democrats; one can hardly depute them to be the unofficial Opposition—argue that the Government are eroding the powers of this Chamber for various reasons, yet they are perfectly prepared to allow the noble Lords in the other place to overturn this Chamber's decisions. The sooner we ensure that the other place—
        Hon. Members: Elect them.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
        Glenda Jackson: Too impatient, and as always, illogical and illiterate. I intended to end by saying that the sooner the other place is elected and becomes accountable, the better.
        Mr. Blunkett: I thank right hon. and hon. Members of all persuasions who have contributed to making it possible

        1121
        to get the Bill through. I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions. I shall be spending more time north of King's Cross, given the support that I received this evening from my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson).
        I thank my fellow Ministers, who have worked incredibly hard, and our Whip, who has worked particularly hard on the Bill. I thank officials and the lawyers, not just my own, who have worked extremely hard, but many others who have worked outside, briefing hon. Members and political parties and making sure that the Bill is a better one than when it entered the House.
        I have got over my momentary pique—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That's better. I feel a lot better for that. I genuinely think that the British people will say, "Well done. Parliament has shown itself in a good light and we are proud of what you have done."
        Lords amendments Nos. 5, 8 and 23 agreed to.
        Lords amendments No. 380 disagreed to.
        Lords amendments Nos. 40, 44 and 48 agreed to.
        Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Order [5 December], That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in amendment No. 66:—
        The House divided: Ayes 330, Noes 64.

        division No 114]

        [10.28 pm

        AYES

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Browne, Desmond

        Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

        Bryant, Chris

        Allen, Graham

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

        Burden, Richard

        (Swansea E)

        Burnham, Andy

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

        Austin, John

        Cairns, David

        Bailey, Adrian

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Baird, Vera

        Caplin, Ivor

        Banks, Tony

        Casale, Roger

        Barnes, Harry

        Caton, Martin

        Barron, Kevin

        Cawsey, Ian

        Battle, John

        Challen, Colin

        Bayley, Hugh

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Beard, Nigel

        Chaytor, David

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Clark, Mrs Helen (Peteiborough)

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Clark, Dr Lynda

        Beggs, Roy

        (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Bell, Stuart

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Benn, Hilary

        Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

        Benton, Joe

        (Norwich S)

        Berry, Roger

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Best, Harold

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Betts, Clive

        Clelland, David

        Blackman, Liz

        Clwyd, Ann

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Coaker, Vernon

        Blizzard, Bob

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Blunkett, Rt Hon David

        Coleman, lain

        Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

        Colman, Tony

        Borrow, David

        Connarty, Michael

        Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

        Corston, Jean

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Cousins, Jim

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Cranston, Ross

        Brennan, Kevin

        Crausby, David

        Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Cruddas, Jon

        (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

        Cryer, John (Homchunch)

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Cummings, John

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Hutton, Rt Hon John

        Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Illsley, Eric

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Jackson Glenda (Hamnstead)

        David, Wayne

        Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelli)

        Jamieson David

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Davis, Rt Hon Terry

        Jenkins, Brian

        (B'ham Hodge H)

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

        Dawson, Hilton

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

        Denham, Rt Hon John

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

        Dismore, Andrew

        Joyce, Eric

        Dobbin, Jim

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Dodds, Nigel

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Doran, Frank

        Kelly,Ruth

        Dowd, Jim

        Kemp, Fraser

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Gaiston)

        Khabra, Piara S

        Edwards, Huw

        Kidney, David

        Efford, Clive

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Ennis, Jeff

        Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

        Etherington, Bill

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Farrelly, Paul

        Lammy, David

        Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

        Laxton, Bob

        Fisher, Mark

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Lazarowicz, Mark

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        Lepper, David

        Flint, Caroline

        Leslie, Christopher

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Levitt, Tom

        Foster, Michael (Worcester)

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Linton, Martin

        Foulkes, George

        LJoyd, Tony

        Francis, Dr Hywel

        Love, Andrew

        Gapes, Mike

        Lucas, lan

        Gardiner, Barry

        Luke, lain

        Gerard, Neil

        Lyons, John

        Gibson, Dr lan

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Gilroy, Linda

        Goggins, Paul

        McCabe, Stephen

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        McCartney, Rt Hon lan

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        MacDonald, Calum

        Grogan, John

        MacDougall, John

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        McFall, John

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Mclsaac, Shona

        Hanson, David

        McKechin, Ann

        Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

        McKenna, Rosemary

        Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Havard, Dai

        McNulty,Tony

        Healey, John

        Macshane, Denis

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Hendrick, Mark

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Heppell, John

        McWalter, Tony

        Hermon, Lady

        McWilliam, John

        Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

        Mahmood, Khalid

        Heyes, David

        Mallaber, Judy

        Hill, Keith

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Hodge, Margaret

        Mann, John

        Hoey, Kate

        Marris, Rob

        Hood, Jimmy

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

        Meacher Rt Hon Michael

        Hope, Phil

        Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

        Meale, Alan

        Howells, Dr Kim

        Merron, Gillian

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Michael, Rt Hon Alun

        Hughes, Beveriey (Stretford)

        Miliband, David

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Miller, Andrew

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Moffatt, Laura

        Hurst, Alan

        Mole, Chris

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Skinner, Dennis

        Motan, Margaret

        Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

        Morgan, Julie

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Moriey, Elliot

        Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

        Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

        Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

        Mullin, Chris

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Soley, Clive

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Southworth, Helen

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

        Spellar, Rt Hon John

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Squire, Rachel

        O'Brien, Bill (Nornvanton)

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        O'Hara, Edward

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Olner, Bill

        Stevenson, George

        Organ, Diana

        Stewart, David (Inverness E)

        Osbome, Sandra (Ayr)

        Stewart, Ian (Ecdes)

        Owen, Albert

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Paisley, Rev Ian

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        Pearson, Ian

        Stringer, Graham

        Perham, Linda

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Picking, Anne

        Tami, Mark

        Pickthall, Colin

        Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

        Pike, Peter

        Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

        Plaskitt, James

        Taylor, David (NWLeks)

        Pollard, Kerry

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Pond, Chris

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Pope, Greg

        Timms, Stephen

        Pound, Stephen

        Tipping, Paddy

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Touhig, Don

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Trickett, Jon

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Turner,Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Turner, Dr Desmond(Kemptown)

        Purchase, Ken

        Turner Neil (Wigan)

        Purnell, James

        Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

        Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

        Tynan,Bill

        Rammell, Bill

        Walley,Ms Joan

        Rapson, Syd

        Ward,Ms Claire

        Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

        Wareing,Robert N

        Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

        Watts, David

        Robertson, John

        White, Brian

        (Glasgow Anniesland)

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        (Swansea W)

        Rooney, Terry

        Wills, Michael

        Ross, Ernie

        Wilson, Brian

        Roy, Frank

        Winnick, David

        Ruddock, Joan

        Wood, Mike

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        Woodward, Shaun

        Ryan, Joan

        Woolas, Phil

        Salter, Martin

        Worthington, Tony

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Wright David (Telford)

        Sawford, Phil

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Wyatt, Derek

        Sheridan, Jim

        Shipley, Ms Debra

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Short, Rt Hon Clare

        Mr. Nick Ainger and Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

        Simon, Sion

        NOES

        Allan,Richard

        Barrett,John

        Baker,Norman

        Beith,Rt Hon A J

        Brake, Tom

        Laws, David

        Breed, Colin

        Uwyd, Elfyn

        Bruce, Malcolm

        McDonnell, John

        Burnett, John

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Burstow, Paul

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Cable, Dr Vincent

        Moore, Michael

        Calton, Mrs Patsy

        Oaten, Mark

        Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

        Öpik, Lembit

        (NE Fife)

        Price, Adam

        Carmichael, Alistair:

        Pugh, Dr John

        Chidgey, David

        Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Rendel, David

        Cotter, Brian

        Robertson, Angus (Moray)

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Doughty, Sue

        Salmond, Alex

        Ewing, Annabelle

        Sanders, Adrian

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Galloway, George

        Smith, Sir Robert (Wab'd'ns)

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Stunell, Andrew

        Gidley, Sandra

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Harvey, Nick

        Webb, Steve

        Heath, David

        Weir, Michael

        Holmes, Paul

        Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Williams, Roger (Brecon)

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Willis, Phil

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Wishart, Pete

        Keetch, Paul

        Younger-Ross, Richard

        Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

        (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Kirkwood, Archy

        John Thurso and

        Lamb, Norman

        Mrs. Annette L. Brooke.

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        It being more than one hour after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Questions necessary to dispose of those proceedings, pursuant to Order [12 December].
        Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 66 agreed to.
        Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to amendment No. 38C: Paul Goggins, Mr. Dominic Grieve, Beverley Hughes, Simon Hughes and Mrs. Anne McGuire; Beverley Hughes to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. McNulty.]
        To withdraw immediately.
        Reasons for disagreeing to a Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.
        On resuming:—

        ROYAL ASSENT
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
        Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

        Women (Afghanistan)
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
        12.31 am
        Joan Ruddock: Even at this late hour, I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of women's involvement in a post-Taliban Government in Afghanistan. I want to talk about politics and reconstruction, but I recognise that for most women and children the first and absolute priority is food aid.
        I also acknowledge that I have no claim to be an expert on Afghanistan, but as a Member of Parliament I have a responsibility for what is done in my name, both by the Government and by the United Nations. As a woman MP, I also share the universal experience of women in a man's world.
        Prior to 11 September, Afghanistan was the poorest country in Asia. It was the second most heavily mined country in the world, and almost a quarter of the population were dependent on food aid. We are all aware and appreciative of the determined commitment to humanitarian aid of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), and of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and for International Development.
        I heard what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday about the increase in the overall tonnage of food getting into Afghanistan, but I understand that of the $662 million dollars identified as necessary for the UN inter-agency humanitarian plan, almost a half is outstanding. I should be grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on that shortfall.
        Since 11 September, the plight of Afghan women has received almost universal coverage, but the cruel repression of the Taliban was well documented for years by the UN and was a focus of activity by women's organisations around the world—including our own Women's National Commission. While nothing could match the Taliban's brutal determination to render women invisible, restrictions on women's full participation in society predated that regime.
        Furthermore, under the Taliban, the pattern of control varied across the country, where the enforcement of edicts circumscribing women's rights was dependent on local authorities that varied in attitude. Some were willing to co-operate with aid agencies. Indeed, if that had not been the case, it is difficult to see how many women would have survived.
        Despite all the best efforts of the aid communities during the past decade, the plight of Afghan women remains dire. Estimates indicate that one Afghan woman dies in childbirth every 15 minutes; one in four children die before reaching five years of age; and female literacy is less than 5 per cent.
        Against that background, the idea that women might participate in a future Government seemed unlikely to most people three months ago. When I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17 October, there was a tremor of unease on the Government Benches and—I am sorry to say—hearty
        1126
        guffaws from the Opposition Benches. The next day, broadsheet sketch writers took me to task and joked about all-women shortlists in Kabul. There was an immediate assumption that I was a tiresome feminist trying to impose western values on an Islamic society. Few people realised that I was simply reflecting the views of Afghan women campaigners themselves.
        Those women stood in sharp contrast to the images of burka-clad victims flitting nightly across our television screens; they were the women refugees in dozens of countries across the world, and the courageous women, organising secret schools, health clinics and beauty parlours under the noses of the Taliban. Those women came primarily from the educated elite in Afghanistan—older women who had lived through different times and their daughters and granddaughters.

        The first primary schools for girls were opened in the 1920s, and women's associations were then encouraged. The 1964 constitution gave equal rights to men and women. In 1965, four women were elected to the Afghan Parliament, and seven again in 1988. According to the UN in 1977, 15 per cent. of legislators were women, and until the early 1990s, 70 per cent. of teachers, 50 per cent. of Government workers and 40 per cent. of medical doctors were women.
        Following the Soviet occupation and the resulting civil wars, everything changed for women. In 1994, women were ordered to wear the hejab and chador and gender segregation began. In 1995, the Rabbani Government demanded that women be removed from the employment of UN agencies and non-governmental organisations. Violence against women became so extreme that initially the arrival of the Taliban in 1996 was welcomed. The relief was short-lived. The Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and Suppression of Vice soon began its brutal denial of the most fundamental rights of women and girls.
        The reaction to my first question on this issue in this House prompted me to set up a new organisation involving Afghan women resident in this country. The aims of the UK Women's Link with Afghan Women are to raise the profile of Afghan women and to campaign for women's involvement in the future Government of Afghanistan and the restoration of women's human rights. One of our first actions was to send a letter to the UN special representative for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, calling for women to be included in the Bonn talks. Some 153 women, including probably all my colleagues here tonight, from nine parties in the House of Commons and House of Lords, the European Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly signed that letter.
        Women's organisations, including Afghan women in many other countries, made similar pleas to the United States Congress and to the UN itself. Despite a notable lack of media coverage, the strategy worked. Three women delegates attended the Bonn talks, and there are two women in the interim Administration, but even before the talks started a new initiative was under way.
        The European Women's Lobby organised an Afghan women's summit for democracy in Brussels on 4 and 5 December. It was an extraordinary occasion. Afghan women of different ethnic, linguistic and religious backgrounds, from inside Afghanistan and from exile, came together to discuss the future of their country. I was

        1127
        there as part of the non-Afghan support team, and we were joined by the three women delegates from the Bonn talks.
        After two days of closed sessions, the Afghan women produced their blueprint. Their key demands are: the right for women to vote and to be entitled to equal pay and equal access to health care, education and employment; an emergency plan for reopening schools by March 2002 for girls and boys, including a new curriculum and teacher training; the inclusion of Afghan women lawyers in the development of a new constitution, which would include the principles of non-discrimination; the rebuilding of hospitals and provision of vital medicines, treatments and services, including psychological counselling and mother and child health care; the central inclusion of women in the Loya Jirga; and the protection of women from forced under-age marriages and sexual harassment.
        I believe that the UK has an important role to play in helping to achieve the aspirations of those Afghan women. I accept that the demands were drawn up by a group of women who, despite their differences, shared a standard of education quite removed from that of the average Afghan women today, but so do the leading men in the interim Administration.

        I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends have welcomed the increasing involvement of women, but I want them to do more. The Bonn agreement is a great triumph for the United Nations and the people of Afghanistan and it is welcomed by most, though not all, Afghan women's organisations.
        The UK has played a major part in shaping the military action and the humanitarian relief. Will my hon. Friend pledge that the Government will do everything in their power to ensure the restoration of women's human rights in Afghanistan? Nowhere in the Bonn agreement is this explicitly stated, and I know that this is not because such a commitment was not sought. I can only conclude that there was some ambivalence among the delegates.
        Will my hon. Friend state categorically that the UK Government will support the full restoration of Afghan women's rights in line with the UN charter? Legal authority exists. Afghanistan is a party to the major UN conventions on rights affecting women and a signatory, although it has not yet ratified it, to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, which is known as CEDAW. The interim authority will take Afghanistan's seat at the UN. Does my hon. Friend agree that observance of UN conventions on human rights and ratification of CEDAW are essential to the restoration of Afghan women's human rights?
        As my hon. Friend will know, the Bonn agreement provides for the interim authority to take power on 22 December. It is charged with setting up, within one month, the special independent commission for the convening of an emergency Loya Jirga, the traditional grand council. There is no mention of women's participation in the commission, but let me assure my hon. Friend that Afghan women lawyers stand ready to participate. Again, will he try to ensure that there are places for women on this most crucial body?
        The Bonn agreement specifies that the special independent commission should ensure that
        "due attention is paid to the representation in the Emergency Loya Jirga of a significant number of women".
        1128
        This is extremely welcome, but some have sought again to label it as the imposition of western values. Afghan history does not support that argument. Women are first recorded—all 12 of them—as participating in a Loya Jirga in the 1920s.
        The interim administration is also charged, together with the UN, with establishing an independent human rights commission and a judicial commission. The former's responsibilities will include human rights monitoring and investigation of violations of human rights; the latter with rebuilding the domestic judicial system. There is no stipulation that women should be involved in either body. Does my hon. Friend agree that women, who have been the prime victims of injustice, will have no confidence in these bodies unless women are members of them?
        No one can be confident of progress in Afghanistan. None the less, the Bonn agreement is far reaching and ambitious. The emergency Loya Jirga will establish a transitional authority. This will convene a constitutional Loya Jirga within 18 months. It will also establish a constitutional commission to prepare a new constitution. Does my hon. Friend agree that women should play their part in drafting the constitution and will he ensure that, if UK officials are involved in any way, they will remain sensitive to the need to enshrine the rights of women in the constitution?
        Let me turn now to reconstruction. Can my hon. Friend tell the House how he believes the meetings of the World Bank and the United Nations development programme in Islamabad and Berlin will impact on women in Afghanistan? Does he feel that lessons have been learned by the international community in relation to reconstruction in Sierra Leone and the Balkans that should be then applied in Afghanistan? UN gender audits and women who have worked in those areas report serious inequalities in reconstruction assistance.
        I am aware of the excellent work of the Department for International Development as a leading funder of the UN development fund for women—UNIFEM. I am also aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and non-governmental organisations such as Oxfam, Christian Aid, Save the Children, Afghan Aid and Afghan women themselves all believe that, wherever possible, local people rather than foreign nationals should be employed in reconstruction.
        At the Brussels Afghan women's summit, women's international NGOs called for all reconstruction funds to be conditional first on, the participation of women in decision making on the granting of those funds; secondly, on the inclusion of women's NGOs among recipients of the funds; and thirdly, on the use of funds for implementation of the priorities of Afghan women themselves. Will my hon. Friend support such a proposition?
        My hon. Friend will know that most of the top UN decision makers on the ground are men, and it is likely that macro projects for physical reconstruction will mainly provide work for men. Will he ensure that reconstruction funds provide immediate work for women, not least the estimated 700,000 widows, and that major funds are allocated for the education of girls and capacity building for women, to ensure that in the longer term women have equal access to jobs and to secondary, as well as primary, education?

        1129
        The Taliban prohibition on women working has created the impression that women never made a contribution to that economy, but in rural areas women were equally involved with men in agriculture. Even under the Taliban, NGOs such as Afghan Aid worked with rural women in seed planting and vegetable gardening. The World Food Programme also set up bakeries, largely run by widows, which provided food for half a million people. Other NGOs have been successful in employing Afghan women in a low-key way, but the majority of those women trained as teachers and health workers have had to remain at home.
        There is, however, considerable room for optimism. The day after the fall of the Taliban in Kabul, six women previously employed by the UN turned up for work. They were asked to find other women to conduct a house-to-house survey to establish needs. Some 2,500 women were recruited by the UN, and already the survey is under way. Hundreds of local women doctors and nurses have also been identified, so the participation of women in the early stages of recovery is probably secure. The challenge lies in the future arrangements. Once again, the UK Government, as a member of the UN Security Council and a major donor, have a vital role to play.
        The transitional authority will lead Afghanistan until such time as a Government can be elected, around the middle of 2004. If women are to stand for office, they will need not only support but work and financial assistance. In the rush for physical renewal—for food, education and health—the political process must not be ceded to men only. The many courageous women who have continued to work in teaching and health have already demonstrated their readiness to serve and to lead, but there are many others, traumatised by their experience, who will need further encouragement. Will my hon. Friend recognise that need, and ensure that the UK promotes funding for capacity building and leadership skills where it is sought by Afghan women?
        Already, the Afghan women with whom I am working report renewed struggles by the women's organisation in Afghanistan. At the start of the Bonn talks, two peaceful marches for women's rights were banned by the Northern Alliance in Kabul. Attempts to regain use of a building that used to be a women's centre in the city were also rejected by local commanders. I appreciate that it is early days, and that there is not yet an overall authority in Kabul, but these are important touchstones in the rebuilding of civic society.
        Afghan women welcome an international peacekeeping force. They remember only too well the terrible years of gender-based violence and, even now, fear the repeat of the rapes, beatings and abductions of the past. Will my hon. Friend accept that foreign troops deployed in Afghanistan must be particularly sensitive to the terrible trauma suffered by women and children? Will he convey to the Secretary of State for Defence the point that special training is needed for that assignment?
        In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend for his attendance tonight. All of us who have taken an interest in the events following 11 September have been on a steep learning curve. I am particularly grateful for briefings from UNIFEM, Oxfam, the UN information centre in London and the British Afghan Aid group. I also pay tribute to the
        1130
        remarkable Afghan women with whom I am working—Wahida, Sahar, Alia, Sabah, Nazifa, Assiya, Zarghona and others, who are my inspiration. The United Kingdom Government are, I know, committed to the future reconstruction of Afghanistan. While the future must be determined by the Afghan people themselves, the vast need for resources dictates the long-term involvement of the international community, including the UK.
        As I said at the outset, women's organisations do not seek to impose. Our mission is to ensure that where the UN holds the ring, space is made for Afghan women. Only with the full participation of women are we likely to see the creation of a democratic, stable and peaceful Afghanistan, which, I know, we all desire.
        12.50 pm
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) for her work in bringing the plight of Afghan women to public attention. I pay particular tribute to her work with the UK Women's Link with Afghan Women. I congratulate her on an excellent speech; I am sure that all Members in the House—and it is nice so see so many here at this late hour—concur.
        We all agree that one of the most appalling features of the Taliban regime has been its treatment of women, including restrictions on women's access to health care and education. The Taliban were a sinister, barbarous and fanatical regime who demonstrated mediaeval cruelty, especially towards women. Their collapse has given the people of Afghanistan hope for a brighter future. Under the Taliban, women's access to health care was severely restricted and they were denied access to education. As my hon. Friend pointed out, maternal mortality rates in Afghanistan are among the worst in the world. Life expectancy is just 44 years.
        When the Taliban took Kabul in 1996, they closed 63 girls' schools and more than 100,000 girls were immediately thrown out of school. They ordered that women could not teach, so 150,000 boys were forced to leave school. The university was shut down and 10,000 students, 4,000 of whom were women, sent home. As well as denying women access to education, the Taliban enforced further repressive laws affecting women. By law, they could not go outside their homes unless accompanied by a close male relative. It was made almost impossible for them to work; even their dress was regulated by law. The penalties for breaking such laws were savage. Now that the Taliban do not govern their lives, those laws are thankfully at an end.
        Last week, the first step was taken on the long road towards rebuilding Afghanistan and giving women a voice in its future Government. Exceeding all expectations, the representatives of the non-Taliban Afghan factions, including women and members of Afghanistan's four major ethnic groups, agreed that an interim authority under the leadership of Hamid Karzai would take office on 22 December. The British Government have long said that we would like a broad-based, representative Government in Afghanistan. We expect any Afghan Government to recognise international human rights norms, including women's rights. We believe that adherence to international human rights norms, including

        1131
        the UN charter and the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, which the previous Afghan Government signed but did not ratify, are the key to restoring the rights of women.
        One of the most encouraging aspects of the Bonn talks was the participation of women delegates. There will be women in the new Administration, as my hon. Friend pointed out—a clear indication that the new Government in Afghanistan will be very different from the old one. Dr. Shima Samar has been appointed one of the five vice-chairs of the interim Administration and Minister for Women's Affairs. Although women often served as Ministers in Governments before the Taliban came to power, Dr. Samar will be the first woman to occupy such a senior post in an Afghan Government.
        Dr. Samar is from the minority Hazara group and gained a medical degree from Kabul university, where she developed a passion for women's rights. She escaped from Afghanistan after the Russian invasion and currently runs an organisation based in the border town of Quetta in Pakistan, which provides health and education services for Afghan women and children. She also provides medical training for female students at several hospitals that she runs in Afghanistan.
        Dr. Samar opened 10 Afghan clinics and four hospitals for women and children, as well as schools in rural Afghanistan for more than 17,000 students. Literacy programmes established by her organisation were accompanied by the distribution of food aid and information on hygiene and family planning.
        The new Minister for Public Health, Dr. Suhaila Seddiqi, as well as being a doctor, is Afghanistan's only female military general. She has served as a surgeon in Kabul's military hospital for more than 20 years. Dr. Seddiqi, an independent Tajik, stayed in Afghanistan throughout the civil war and played a key role in keeping the hospital functioning throughout the 1990s. Dr. Seddiqi managed to keep working throughout the five years of Taliban rule. After initially ordering her to stay at home, they realised how crucial she was to the running of the hospital and reinstated her as head of surgery.
        As well as supporting the overall political process, and the implementation of the Bonn agreement, it is extremely important that the international community should consult the women of Afghanistan about their priorities. The UNIFEM Afghan women's summit, which my hon. Friend attended in Brussels last week, was also attended by Dr. Seddiqi and Dr. Samar, and marked a positive start.
        The summit was the largest global gathering of Afghan women leaders to focus on the role of women in the new post-Taliban Afghanistan. It addressed the crucial needs of all the people of Afghanistan, focusing on health care, education, refugees and human rights. The British Government hope that the international community will support the aims of the summit declaration—for our part, we certainly will—which calls for a greater role for women in the future decision-making process in Afghanistan.
        1132
        We have long said that, while the form of the Government and constitution is for the Afghan people to determine, the future Government must be broadly based and representative of all Afghans. We hope very much that women will be involved.
        Slowly, the people of Afghanistan are beginning to see real improvements in their lives brought about by the collapse of the Taliban regime. We welcome the reports that female students are beginning to re-enrol at Kabul university for the first time in five years. Access to television and to international media will allow women to become better informed about the situation in their country and in the wider world.
        Improvements will take time. Better access to health care and education will afford women an improved standard of living. As they return to work, their financial situation will improve. That is especially important for all the female heads of household who were destitute when deprived of their livelihoods by the Taliban. Life for Afghan women has always been difficult. Afghanistan has more than a million war widows. Non-governmental organisations and UN-run projects to get women back to work will have a huge impact on the lives of many Afghan women and children.
        The UK recognises the need for capacity building and leadership skills training and, where it is sought by Afghan women, the Government will endeavour to ensure that funds are available for that. The international community continually uses experience from past development projects to develop long-term strategies elsewhere. I am sure that the lessons learned from the Balkans and Sierra Leone will be applied in Afghanistan.
        I am also sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will understand the need for any British troops in Afghanistan to be particularly sensitive to the traumatic experiences faced by Afghan women and children.
        Pledges for the UN appeal for Afghanistan exceeded the $622 million identified as necessary for the UN inter-agency emergency humanitarian assistance plan. Currently, as my hon. Friend said, the UN has received 55 per cent. of the amount pledged. The British Government urge all those countries who pledged money but have not yet realised their commitments to do so as soon as possible. That is terribly important.
        The meetings of the World Bank in Islamabad, and of the United Nations Development Programme in Berlin, were key to the restoration and reconstruction of Afghanistan. That reconstruction is an essential part of the effort to restore the rights of all the Afghan people and to underpin a commitment to the new Afghanistan made by the delegates at Bonn.
        The international community and the UN have assisted the Afghan people to begin the process of rebuilding their nation. Their future is in their hands. We have an urgent responsibility to support the interim Administration, and we will continue to support them so as to build a brighter future for all the people of Afghanistan—a future which, I hope, the voice of women will have a major role in shaping.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Adjourned accordingly at one minute to One o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Public Health
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned. —[Mr. Caplin.]
2.30 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter of the Health Committee's report on public health, which was issued in the previous parliamentary Session. Today's debate is timely. Hon. Members may have seen press reports of the latest confidential inquiry into maternal deaths, which stated that women in the most disadvantaged groups in the United Kingdom are 20 times more likely to die in childbirth than women in the two highest social categories. Those are worrying figures and it is right to spend some time on the subject of health inequalities.
The debate takes place against the background of several public health worries. I have expressed concern in recent weeks about the narrowness of political debate on health, in the Palace of Westminster and elsewhere. We have tended to tie the debate down to waiting lists, waiting times, targets, pledges and the number of doctors, nurses and beds. We have compared the proportions of GDP spent by different European countries and the UK. Our view has been specific and narrow, and I welcome the opportunity to look at the bigger picture today.
It struck me that the anti-poverty measures announced in the autumn statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably have more of an impact on health than the health measures that he announced amounting to £1 billion. Public transport improvements, and this week's announcement on transport funding, are also relevant. Reducing vehicle emissions and enabling more people to use public transport makes more sense than employing more specialists in chest disease to treat childhood asthma, which has increased to a worrying level. In the Committee's view, a wide perspective is better in evaluating health issues than the narrow confines to which debates in this place usually adhere.
The second factor that is relevant to today's debate is the impact on public health strategies of the current major structural change in the national health service. I find the pace of change phenomenal. Four separate formal consultation processes on changes in the national health service are under way or about to begin in my constituency. I broadly support the direction in which matters are being taken, but we must accept that the pace of change creates questions and problems. One matter of concern is the location of the public health function. I welcome the creation of strategic health authorities and primary care trusts, but the location of public health in the new framework is a cause for concern.
We began the inquiry in May 2000 and our report was published on 28 March 2001, with a Government reply in July. Our inquiry was undertaken in response to
318WH
several factors, including Government initiatives on public health: health action zones, employment action zones, the Health Development Agency, health improvement programmes, the Acheson inquiry on health inequalities and, of course, the first appointment of a Minister for Public Health. We wanted to assess whether the Secretary of State's rhetoric that the time had come to take public health out of the ghetto was substantiated by the Government's action on public health. We wanted to consider the subject so that we could respond to feelings expressed by many that public health had been marginalised and lacked any strategic direction. People were concerned about the fact that the strategy of the Department of Health was still dominated by the medical model rather than the social model. The Health Development Agency stated in the evidence that
"over 70 per cent. of what determines people's health lies outside the domain of health services and in their demographic, social, economic and environmental conditions".
We all accept that, and it is important to see how the Government develop their wider strategy to take account of those arguments.
I want to express the Committee's thanks to several individuals, including the many who submitted the written evidence that formed the basis for many of our discussions and oral hearings. I also want to thank our witnesses, many of whom gave extremely relevant evidence that helped the inquiry. I express my appreciation to all those who were involved in arranging our visits. We made several illuminating visits in the United Kingdom, including to Cornwall and Scotland.
We also went to Cuba. The Opposition are currently travelling around Europe in consideration of their health policy. If they have a chance to board a plane for Cuba, I recommend it, as I left Cuba impressed by its health system and, to be honest, every aspect of the system there, which surprised me. Many lessons can be learned from the Cuban model. Despite a background of third-world poverty, it has health outcomes that are comparable to those in western countries such as our own. I thank the Government of Cuba and the colleagues there who made our visit so successful and useful.
I thank our specialist advisers and first-class staff, who serve us well. We do not have many staff, but they are of the highest quality, and I appreciate their support.
Perhaps I will be forgiven for paying tribute to three Committee members who were involved in the inquiry but who are no longer in Parliament. Our good friend and colleague John Gunnell, the former Member for Morley and Rothwell, was not in the best of health and struggled on occasion. Despite that, he was a consistent hard worker on the Committee and went on the visits to Cuba and elsewhere. I and all other members of the Committee appreciated his advice and wise counsel. I miss the advice of Dr. Peter Brand, who was the Member for Isle of Wight and lost his seat at the election. We did not always agree, but he was the best of company and had a detailed knowledge of the health service. We have missed that knowledge in Parliament since he left. Eileen Gordon also lost her seat. She worked hard on the inquiry and contributed a great deal to the success of the Committee's work.

319WH
I come now to the detail of the report, and specifically to health inequalities. Research by a range of experts shows that health inequalities have increased during the past 20 years. The Acheson independent inquiry into inequalities in health stated:
"In the early 1970s, the mortality rate among men of working age was almost twice as high for those in class V as those in class I. By the early 1990s, it was almost 3 times higher".
That is an indictment of the policies—not health policy directly, but policies overall—that have led to those worrying changes.
Sir Michael Marmot, a public health expert, gave evidence during the inquiry. He told us that different causes explained the changes. Some will be determined by health status in childhood, but less tangible factors such as the amount of control that one feels over one's environment, which in turn relates to one's position in society, affect physical and mental health. Our report states that he explained:
"it is…true that social and economic inequalities have increased over the last twenty years, and it would be hard not to see a causal link of some kind between the increase in these inequalities and the increase in health inequalities".
We should take close note of his strong evidence. We recommended the incorporation of health inequality targets into the health improvement programme and the community plan, to give it bite and clout. We are pleased that the Government have accepted our suggestion that what we term baskets of intermediate targets should be created for each of the headline targets. We also recommended that each Government Department should have a public service agreement to conduct health audits. We note the Government's more cautious acceptance of that, but feel that it is a good initiative that could be taken further.
The Government seem to have introduced a plethora of initiatives somewhat unsystematically and with no clear strategy as to how they might inter-operate. The theme of initiative overload arose frequently in both oral and written evidence to the inquiry. We wrote that
"ironically, the very energy and zeal which the Government brought to bear in their battle against health inequalities has… undermined their policy goals."
That lack of coherent strategy reflected more profound systemic and structural problems caused by a lack of co-ordination between Government Departments, strategy agencies, elected authorities and the voluntary sector. We also noted an apparent cooling of the Government's enthusiasm for structural reform. We argued that the NHS plan apparently marginalised public health and we were dismayed by the repeated delays in publishing Sir Kenneth Calman's report on the public health function.
We felt that there was much merit in Professor Sally McIntyre's suggestion that area-based interventions should be subject to more rigorous analysis and we are pleased that the Government are following up that initiative. We remain unconvinced that area-based initiatives engage the communities that they serve, and nothing in the Government's response convinces us that they have a clear strategic role in mind for Health Promotion England and the health promotion function. We were impressed by the Health Development Agency, which we should like to see resourced more
320WH
appropriately. We were also persuaded by the evidence from Sandwell and Hillingdon health authorities that the health improvement programme and community plan should be more closely integrated. We are delighted that the Government accepted that that would be advantageous.
We urged the Government to establish new partnerships in the form of local strategic partnerships and were delighted to see that they accepted that recommendation also.
In part of my constituency, the two primary care groups are considering the establishment of either one or two primary care trusts. I am concerned as to whether the two PCTs could fulfil the public health function separately in my constituency or elsewhere. We voiced our grave concern in the report that primary care providers lacked the capacity to take on the public health function. Nothing has occurred since our report was published to mitigate that concern. It is a crucial problem. There is a danger that the combined effects of the culture in which health professionals work—the "fix and cure" and "beds, doctors and hospitals" models—a lack of proper career opportunities in public health medicine and a general pressure on health professionals will submerge public health.
We talked in the report about shifting local emphasis to empower a professional whom we saw to be underused—the health visitor. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) is not present, because she thinks that I am obsessed with health visitors. However, when I was a social worker in the early 1970s, before the Heath Government removed the health function from local authorities, I worked extremely closely with health visitors and observed the extremely valuable role that they played in dealing with child protection issues and other problems in the community. The Committee shared my view that we should press for better use of those professionals, who have achieved a lot in the past and have tremendous potential for the future.
We also argued in the report for greater co-ordination between health visitors and school and community nurses. We suggested that PCGs and PCTs should be required to have an additional designated local authority officer with a broader public health remit. That is not the first time that the Committee has called for closer links between local authority and health authority functions, and we are heartened that the Department of Health
"recognizes that relationships between local authorities and health services are critical to the ability of both to contribute to service development."
We hope that the growth of care trusts will foster a culture of greater co-operation, although there are clearly great uncertainties at present.
The Committee also recognised that the shift from 100 health authorities to 300 PCTs would challenge public health capacity and raise questions about collaborative work between PCTs across their patches. I received a copy of a letter dated 4 December that the Association of Directors of Public Health sent to the NHS chief executive, Mr. Crisp. It welcomed Lord Hunt's endorsement of a strengthened public health function in a speech on 13 November. However, it continued:

321WH
"If the NHS is not performance-managed for health improvement it will not deliver health improvement."
That important point reinforces our concern about the role of the strategic health authorities and the position of PCTs. Interestingly, the association proposes that a director of public health at strategic health authority level should lead a small team that is responsible for performance management. I raised the issue with the Secretary of State when he came before the Committee a few weeks ago, and he recognised health inequalities as a key issue for the new strategic health authorities. I cannot say whether the Committee would endorse the call for a director with a small team, but I think that it makes a good deal of sense in terms of ensuring that PCTs across the board take that important issue seriously in their patch.
Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the system's inability to deal with public health. The report was written when there was no sign of the structural change that would abolish health authorities. The NHS plan has been published, the Committee has done excellent work and everyone has set out to tackle the problem, but we now find that half the organisations involved will be abolished and their staff will have to spend much of their time finding a new job. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is unfortunate?
Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman was not here when I referred to the pace of change and to my concerns about the issue that he raises. I have had discussions with the Secretary of State, and I am encouraged that he and the Minister recognise that it is crucial for the strategic function to be appropriately located.
It might help if hon. Members consider what is happening in their areas. This week, knowing that this debate was coming up, I asked the director of public health in my area for his views on the role of the strategic body. I think that he would endorse the concern expressed by the Association of Directors of Public Health that there should be a clear handle on public health at that level and that PCTs' work should be properly monitored. Those that do not perform appropriately—I worry that that may be true in parts of Yorkshire—should be reminded, assisted and, indeed, made to perform appropriately on such an important issue.
To return to the role of local authorities, it is fairly common knowledge that my agenda includes a much stronger role for local government in health issues. So far, I have been unable to persuade the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister of my views, but I am working on it.
Andy Burnham: There is time yet.
Mr. Hinchliffe: There is time yet, as my hon. Friend says. As a young social worker before 1974, I worked in a local authority that had a health department. It had a more obvious organisational framework than we have now. I worked in child protection, care of the elderly and mental health, and that framework made much more sense. As a young councillor, I also served on a public health committee. I worked with the local medical
322WH
officer, who used to attend our committee meetings. He had clear targets and challenges on issues such as smokeless zones, slum clearance and inoculation of children. This might sound old hat, but the old Ministry of Health created a much healthier society than would otherwise have been the case. I favour a stronger role for local authorities. The Committee debated long and hard whether we should retain the current arrangements or move the public health function back to local government lock, stock and barrel.
Mr. Oliver Heald: I am following closely what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that the Government's reply on coterminosity and joint appointments for directors of public health makes it hard to see exactly what model they favour? Some of those issues need to be resolved if we are to have a clear and understandable framework for public health.
Mr. Hinchliffe: Yes, I agree. Our difficulty was recognising the lack of coterminosity. I do not want to be partisan, but the Conservative Government have a great responsibility for that lack. I wish that the present Government would turn the wheel the other way, but the latest changes do not take us back in that direction. The Minister may respond to that point, because she may have a better idea of what the Government meant by their response.
Local authorities have as important a role as they did in the past. They are still responsible for air quality, environmental health, food hygiene, leisure services, education, planning, safety and transport; all those policies are directly related to public health. We welcome the recognition, widely expressed in evidence to the Committee, that public health should be at the heart of local government, and we have recommended that health should be a key element in the local authority community plans. We were pleased that the Government were considering ways in which the health improvement programme and the community plan could be more closely aligned. I hope that the Minister may have something to say on that.
Somewhat reluctantly, however, we concluded that major structural upheaval in the location of the public health function was not the answer, but that incentives needed to be created to ensure that the function delivered across the entire health system, wherever it was positioned.
I turn to development in the community. One or two hon. Members who were not members of the Committee may know that we were impressed by a scheme that we visited in Cornwall. The Minister—not my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), but the then Minister for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—visited the Penwerris estate in Falmouth in Cornwall to see the remarkable achievements there.
For those who are not aware of the scheme, it is a beacon project based at a housing estate in Falmouth, the poorest ward in Cornwall. It had serious social problems and vandalism, joy-riding, drugs and teenage pregnancy were all rife. A scheme emerged that was fronted by Hazel Stutely, a health visitor who I gather now works for the Department; I commend the

323WH
Department on making use of her expertise. She managed to combine the commitment and collaboration of all local agencies to tackle those problems collectively. We saw listening forums engaging with the local community, bringing people on board who were alienated and who thought of the authorities and agencies as enemies rather than friends.
That group achieved a remarkable turn-round on that estate. Post-natal depression decreased by 80 per cent. and a 60 per cent. reduction was achieved in the number of children on the child protection register. The child accident rate halved, as did the crime rate. Boys' results in standard assessment tests improved by 100 per cent. Generally, we saw a happier environment where previously there were many serious problems.
We were impressed by that scheme, not least because it illustrated that such initiatives must engage with local communities and that they should derive their energy from the bottom up rather than from the top down. We learned a big lesson. We can go in with all sorts of schemes at the top, but unless we get people at the bottom—the key people—working well we may be wasting our time. I welcome the fact that Mrs. Stutely passed on her ideas to other areas, and I hope that they use them.
In order to assist local authorities, the Government should review the bidding system to ensure that it is more equitable and efficient. We have looked at this question before and considered the work of voluntary organisations and local groups. It has been difficult, but we appreciate the Government's positive response to our recommendation.
A critical part of our inquiry was into the role of directors of public health. We gained the strong impression that the role had diminished in authority over the years. Strong supporting evidence—which frankly surprised us—came in the disclosure that some directors of public health did not attend the annual review of their health authority. That is an increasing trend. Some 56 per cent. of those surveyed attended meetings in 1998, but only 43 per cent. did so in 2000. Moreover, at half those meetings, the key annual report on public health was not even discussed. Some excellent information is contained in those reports, as hon. Members will see if they read them, and it worries me that while dust gathers on them, not much is done. One of our tasks is to ensure that they are taken seriously.
Overall, we concluded that directors of public health were not currently providing the necessary leadership on public health. To strengthen his role, we recommended that the annual report should form a key part of a combined community and health improvement programme. It should form a consistent format to allow a comparison between areas, and it should include contributions from other stakeholders in statutory local and voluntary organisations. We felt that more effort needed to be made to promote joint health authority and local authority appointments, even in those areas where coterminosity did not apply. We especially endorsed a suggestion from Ken Jarrell that, as well as being jointly appointed, directors of public health should be jointly accountable, thereby creating a link that is frequently lacking at the moment.
324WH
The Committee spent some time considering the issue of physical activity and sport. Hon. Members may have noted the recent National Audit Office report on overweight youngsters. The number of obese 15-year-olds has more than trebled in the past decade. We found that fewer than a third of schoolchildren devoted two or more hours a week to physical activity—well below the levels found elsewhere in Europe. There is probably a connection with the fact that our national sports teams do not do very well. Sport has fallen off the agenda in schools.
I congratulate the Yorkshire Post on running a campaign called "A sporting chance", which highlighted the fact that schools were not ensuring that youngsters received basic opportunities to play sport. We were impressed by the way in which sport is linked to health in Cuba. That is such an obvious connection, but one that we fail to make. The former Minister for Sport my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), gave evidence to the Select Committee, and we were surprised to hear that there was no formal connection between local initiatives on public health and on sport. Healthy living centres are an obvious example of how that connection can be achieved. In my constituency, one rugby league club hopes to have a healthy living centre based at its clubhouse.
We gave the Government the benefit of the doubt in agreeing that responsibility for sport should remain with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but we are heartened that the Secretary of State now sits on the ministerial committees that consider home and social affairs and health strategy, which accords with one of our recommendations. I was delighted to see in the press a few weeks ago an interview given by the current Minister for Sport, in which he emphasised his role in the health of the nation and the connection between sport and health. To be fair to the Government, they have taken up some of our recommendations.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that another crucial area of work for the Health Development Agency relates to anorexia and eating disorders? Sport is relevant to that issue, but a more holistic approach is required, perhaps with more funding and a higher profile, which the HDA might be able to help solve.
Mr. Hinchliffe: That is an important point. My hon. Friend is probably unaware that when the Health Committee considered mental health, we identified eating disorders, which are not a direct mental health consideration, as one area in which the organisation left a great deal to be desired. The hon. Gentleman's point is valid.
Before I conclude, I would like to focus for a moment on the location of the public health function. Having recognised that public health was about far more than just the health service, we spent considerable time considering whether public health policy should remain with the Department of Health. We considered many alternative locations, including the Cabinet Office.
We did not accept the view expressed by some that the status of the Minister in charge of public health had been downgraded simply because my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford now holds the more junior title of Under-Secretary, whereas my right

325WH
hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) was a Minister of State. Bearing in mind that the accountability structures in the Department mean that Ministers are directly accountable to the Secretary of State for Health, we did not feel that that represented a downgrading.
We heard strong arguments on all sides for and against shifting the public health function out of the Department of Health altogether, to free it from the domination of the medical model, which some consider to be inevitable. We concluded that, rather than implementing change for its own sake, it would be better to promote greater cross-departmental working. We are pleased that the Government are making some progress on that, but unless public health achieves the priority in Government that we believe it deserves, calls for the function to be taken out of the Department of Health will inevitably grow.
In terms of the priority given to public health, I am sure that I reflect the Committee's view in expressing my deep disappointment that, despite many welcome policy initiatives to reduce smoking, legislation to ban tobacco advertising did not appear in this year's Queen's Speech. I hope that that measure, probably the most fundamental public health measure of all, will be brought before the House soon.
I have gone on for some time, and I am pleased to see that so many other hon.Members want to contribute. We still need to learn the lessons of the great advances of the 19th century. I recall years ago studying the work of Edwin Chadwick and his remarkable achievements in public health. I recall that he argued for a key role to be given to the district medical officer—as he was then called—to supervise improvements in sanitation, the workplace and the physical environment. I would argue that the zeal, energy and authority of district medical officers must be recreated. That will happen if local government and the health service co-operate more closely.
To end on a more positive note, the Government deserve some praise. Sir Michael Marmot and Sir Donald Acheson drew attention to the aggravating effects of relative poverty on public health. I am heartened by the recent report of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that, for the first time in four years, the number of indicators of poverty that have improved has exceeded those that have got worse. As I said at the beginning of my speech, tackling issues such as relative poverty, education, housing and social services will have more impact on public health than changes in the health care system.
3.2 pm
Mr. David Amess: I am very impressed by the turnout of hon. Members. They have shown great interest in our report. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and I are the only two survivors who participated in the report able to be present today, but it is gratifying that so many Members are interested.
As one who is not entirely content with the way in which Parliament has moved, I think that our Select Committee structure is splendid. All members of Select Committees say this, but the Health Committee is a particularly strong one. It comprises 11 different
326WH
characters. We do not always agree, but we spend our time well, and the fact that we produce such good reports is in no small measure due to the excellent leadership of our Chairman.
The Committee issued its press notice—not at my suggestion—in response to the annual LSE health lecture given by the Secretary of State on 8 March 2000, when he stated that
"the time has come to take public health out of the ghetto."
The Committee wanted to see whether the Government would deliver on that speech—that it was not merely rhetoric. It is far too early to come to any conclusions about that, but it was the speech of the Secretary of State that prompted the Select Committee to undertake the inquiry.
I shall not bore the House by mentioning again aspects of the Committee's work already covered by the hon. Member for Wakefield, but I shall talk about Cuba presently. I viewed our experiences there entirely differently from the hon. Gentleman. We visited some very interesting schemes elsewhere, including one in, I think, Newcastle.
I am not sure whether the House realises that the Health Committee has a unique guessing ability. Little did we know, as we prepared the report, that within a month structural reforms would be announced. Government announcements in the following weeks featured many of our recommendations, so I suppose we can in a way take credit. I know that hon. Members who took part in the inquiry—three of whom are present—were very pleased.
I want briefly to mention the role of school nurses. The Minister was not in office at the time of the inquiry. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, who I believe is on maternity leave, gave evidence. She and I had an exchange about the role of school nurses. During my time as a teacher I found that what they did was invaluable, whether checking heads for lice, showing children how to brush their teeth properly without pushing the gums up or a range of other work. That is why I am pleased about the Committee's recommendations.
The relevant paragraphs of the report—185 to 188—show that we were concerned that the traditional role of the school nurse had shifted away from the provision of health screening towards a more strategic public health role. That may be splendid, but most of my children are still at school and my gut feeling is uncertainty about whether the sort of support most parents would want is available. For instance, I challenged the Minister to come up with a cure for head lice. It is an embarrassing subject, but having them does not mean a child is dirty; children just catch them. She kindly sent me all the Department of Health literature on the issue. Unfortunately, many schools in my constituency still have outbreaks. Could it be that the nurse used to carry out the revolting job of checking for head lice, but now more people have them? It is very expensive to purchase all the chemicals. It is even possible to give the lice electric shocks through special combs, but apparently they resist those too. The matter is an important one.
Asthma is a real problem for children. One has only to go to a head teacher's office and open the cupboard there to see many different appliances for dealing with asthma fall from it. I do not have a simple answer. Is air

327WH
pollution the cause? I do not know. We can all see that a problem exists. Another condition from which many children seem to suffer is epilepsy—this may, I suppose, be special pleading, as one of my children, aged 13, has it. It is a particularly difficult form and it seems the medication cannot be got right. We touched on it in our inquiry and I should be interested in the Minister's comments. She may want to write to me on the subject.
School nurses are an underdeveloped resource. The Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association highlighted this concern. We suggested that the employment structures of school nurses should be rationalised to allow effective joint working and partnerships—my goodness, I am coming out with new Labour-speak, but I am sure that the Minister understands what I mean. The Committee also thought that the Government should support and consult the professional bodies to develop school nursing services as a vital public health service. It would be beneficial if this service could be integrated with other public health services in the community.
The hon. Member for Wakefield touched on the recommendation that PCGs and PCTs should have a designated officer from the local authority with a broad remit for public health. I had a meeting with my local authority on Monday, and we will be getting a dedicated officer. Can the Minister advise me whether the appointment of such officers will be according to a local authority's resources, or will it be a requirement to have a dedicated officer? Such officers would be useful if PCTs are to achieve their targets. The hon. Member for Wakefield was right to emphasise that the Committee thought that the current role of the director of public health was too vague.
My final point—I shall mention Cuba—concerns sport. If everyone in the United Kingdom were living a healthy lifestyle, we would not be spending huge sums on the national health service. As a Conservative Member, how can I call on the Government to develop a nanny state that tells people not to do this and that? Nevertheless, I implore the Minister to see whether more can be done in terms of sport.
The former Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), gave evidence to the Committee. She gave a splendid account of herself, but I felt that her hands were tied. I gained the impression that Departments were not working together, and she felt strongly that the Department of Health could do more. I know that the hon. Member for Wakefield has spoken about the adviser, which is welcome, but I wonder whether the Government could do more. I had a wonderful briefing from the Central Council of Physical Recreation and Sport England. They tell me that the Treasury spends £750 per person on health care, but only £1 per person on sport. Some people would say that that is right, but the difference seems huge.
The hon. Member for Wakefield mentioned children. We have many lazy children, including my own, in this country. Young people found out what their legs were for only during the petrol crisis. Some children are so lazy that when they are dropped off at school they virtually want the cars to be driven into the classroom. Older people set younger people an example by not wanting to be driven everywhere and by being prepared
328WH
to walk. Considering the terrible trial that concluded yesterday, I am not suggesting that young children, who are vulnerable, should be left to walk alone; I am simply making the point that we, as a nation, could do more to encourage our children to participate in sport.
Sport England is concerned that the Government are not promoting sport across the Departments and highlights some alarming statistics on coronary problems and cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. For example, 37 per cent. of deaths from heart disease can be attributed to inactivity.
The hon. Member for Wakefield mentioned obesity. All hon. Members will have been sent reports on that growing problem. When Edwina Currie was a health Minister, she took an individualistic approach to various aspects of people's lifestyles. Some of the messages that she gave out had an element of common sense, although a few of my hon. Friends thought that she could have used slightly more diplomatic language.
Hon. Members always draw on their own family circumstances. My 90-year-old mother tells us that she goes to keep fit classes once a week. We are not sure exactly what she does there—perhaps they all sit on chairs and touch their toes, or just chat to one another. The quality of the residential and nursing homes that we visit in our constituencies varies considerably. It would be a good thing for the Government to encourage older people, especially those who are recovering from health problems, such as strokes, to do some sort of physical activity.
The CCPR believes that partnerships should be established between PCTs and voluntary sports clubs, that voluntary sports clubs and dance classes should play a key role in exercise referral schemes, and that all schoolchildren should have two hours of curricular physical education a week. I know that many children hate sport and do not want to do it, and we do not want to make them unhappy or see them bullied, but we should encourage them to engage in as much physical activity as possible.
I am heartened that so many hon. Members are here to express their interest in the report. There is nothing so frustrating as working hard on a report only to find that no one takes any notice of it.
The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin), who has just joined us, was one of my colleagues who thought that it would be a good idea to visit Cuba. In making these remarks I mean no insult at all to the Cuban Government. They could not have been more generous with their hospitality and it was a splendid visit. However, I was shocked by the condition of the country. I should not call it a dump, but I had no idea that half the buildings were falling down and unfinished. My constituents would be outraged if they saw the state of some of the hospitals and the working conditions there.
Mr. Hinchliffe: Some of us understand the background to the physical state of and appalling poverty in the country, which is partly due to the blockade and the difficulty of getting drugs. Does the

329WH
hon. Gentleman agree that that makes it all the more remarkable that the health care system there has such tremendous outcomes?
Mr. Amess: I was about to come to that. The Cuban Government spend much less than we do on their health service, but people live for about the same length of time and there is about the same rate of infant mortality.
The Cubans' emphasis on sport is definitely an example that we could follow. They also have a good diet, mainly because it is a poor country. It is ironic that some of my colleagues and I became ill during the visit. Some of us are still engaged in correspondence with British Airways about who was to blame. British Airways blames it on our lifestyle in Cuba; I blame it on the rotten prawns that we ate on the flight back. Our visit to Cuba was worthwhile, but given its poverty I doubt whether my constituents would want its medical facilities to be replicated here.
This is a splendid report. I am sure that the Government will take it seriously, and I look forward to monitoring carefully how they deliver on some, if not all, of our recommendations.
3.19 pm
Mr. David Kidney: I have never served on the Select Committee on Health, but I aspire to do so one day and I was delighted to read its report. In four years as a Member of Parliament, I have been closely involved with all my local health services, and in that time I have experienced the gnawing doubt that public health is not getting the attention that it should. I could not quite put my finger on those inadequacies, until I read the report. Reference has been made to the very sentence, in paragraph 40, that caught my eye:
"We believe…these difficulties reflect more profound systemic and structural problems which relate to the lack of co-ordination between different Government Departments, statutory agencies, elected authorities and the voluntary sector."
Reading that was like watching a light being switched on; it summarises exactly what I think is wrong.
I congratulate the Select Committee on a superb report that puts its finger on the things that are wrong and how to put them right, and I hope that we develop a programme during this Parliament that follows the report like a route map. I want to illustrate the problems and my dissatisfactions by mentioning a couple of incidents that have occurred since the general election. A very senior public health professional came to me to ask what was happening to public health in the restructuring of our health service. It seemed a bit odd that the person in the front line—a professional with years of experience—needed to ask me about his future, his job and his role. That made it clear to me that something was wrong in public health.
The second example concerns a PCG health promotion officer—health promotion is a subject that interests me intensely—whom I visited to ask what she could do in our community. I was amazed to discover that she could not get the budget for health promotion from the local health authority, which was hanging on to the money and leaving her to do the job. As she could not get that money, she was unable to carry out her desired projects.
330WH
The Health Development Agency might well appear impressive to the Committee, but in my time as an MP with an interest in public health and the promotion of healthy living, I have never heard from it. Health Promotion England has never told me about what it is doing, and friendly though my local health authority is—we co-operate closely—it has given me no answers on health promotion and the budget that it has hidden. I could get no action from my primary care group; it has not got the money.
I should point out that the health promotion officer whom I met was incredibly imaginative in her work. She developed partnerships and sponsorships and achieved much, but she found the situation terribly limiting, and now she has found another job. Doubtless she got fed up with scratching around, but I should make it clear that she was a marvellous officer. I should also make it clear that we have a very good local director of public health, and I exclude him entirely from criticisms of the local health community.
Thank goodness that the report calls for clarity of roles, effective presence and partnerships that deliver for their local communities, because that is precisely what we need. We can get it right, and I shall give two further examples. Nationally, the smoking cessation programme has been a great success, offering a marvellous example for us to follow in future. According to the CCPR briefing, exercise on referral is a growing phenomenon at a local level. GPs in my area have come together to refer people for exercise programmes such as keep-fit classes and gymnastics courses, which the local authority provides through its recreation centre. That is another example of effective and successful partnership at a local level.
We need to tackle the other challenges that we face with the same effectiveness. This week, there has been much publicity about alcohol misuse, but despite our highly effective 10-year action plan to defeat drugs misuse, that dreadful problem remains. My experience at Stafford police station—I should immediately point out that I was not detained there—offers a practical example of why the drugs plan is not yet working effectively. Ours is one of three pilots in the country for the drug testing of people who have been charged with offences. I do not know whether it will surprise, shock or confirm the belief of hon. Members when I say that more than half of those offenders test positive for heroin or cocaine.
An arrest referral worker asks each offender if they would like some help with their drug misuse problem. Almost to a man or woman, they say, "Yes, please." There lies the problem. There are no services outside the police station to which they can be referred for treatment. By the time they have waited to get on to a course or get help from a counsellor, they have lost their resolve to solve the problem and they continue in the cycle of drugs misuse. The new integrated drugs and alcohol service teams in Staffordshire are finally up and running. I have great hopes for them for the future, but there are still problems in accessing sufficient resources to meet needs.
Other challenges include the unacceptably high level of suicide deaths and the unacceptably high level of deaths from accidents in the home and workplace. Deaths from such accidents are dwarfed by deaths on our roads. Mention has already been made of obesity. I

331WH
include that as a challenge, because I recently raised it in questions to the Minister for Sport in the Chamber, and in writing. I am pleased to see that he chairs a ministerial committee that includes representatives from the Departments of Health, Education and Skills and Transport, Local Government and the Regions, as well as representatives from Sport England, the new opportunities fund and other co-ordinators. That has monthly meetings chaired by the Minister for Sport. Let us hope that strategic thinking about sport and health going together—something my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) called for—will arise from those meetings.
In the briefing from the CCPR, I was struck by the lack of resources, in terms of the £1 per head of spending on sport. On the other side of the coin, however, I was struck by the huge resources that could be mobilised if we wanted to. Mention was made of the 110,000 voluntary sports clubs in England.
That brings me to the main argument of my contribution today; the imbalance in spending between the Department of Health and private sector advertisers who advertise products that make people unhealthy. I have seen that argument used on the television recently. In the news report about the chief medical officer's report on alcohol misuse and death from liver cirrhosis, someone said that we could spend only £1 per head, compared with the thousands or millions of pounds that advertisers can spend. We should not mind that. I certainly do not call for the spending of more public money on advertising to try to get the message across.
Instead, the Department of Health should tap into the other resources available to match the advertising in a different way. Those resources include other Government Departments, such as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and all the quangos that it can tap into, such as the HDA and Health Promotion England, and especially local authorities such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. I gave the example of the recreational centre. I find my local authority very keen to take part in joint health promotion campaigns and deliver practical help. The authority can reach the whole of its community, and if it does not have the experience itself, it knows someone who has. Local authorities are a huge resource that is not used enough on the health front.
Directors of public health are also key resources that should be used much more. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield mentioned their annual reports. Some of them are fantastic, and packed with useful information, but that never gets used for any good purpose.
Mr. Heald: I am listening with interest to what the hon. Gentleman says, especially about the way in which sports clubs could be used to develop the message of health promotion. Does he agree that one of the real problems is that there are not enough sports coaches with quality skills in coaching? Something needs to be done about that. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Sport England initiative—which the Government
332WH
support and which Trevor Brooking has been fronting—designed to improve the number and quality of sports coaches? That sort of thing needs to happen.
Mr. Kidney: That is a good example and I am aware of it. We have just had the launch of Active Sport in Staffordshire. Sport England was represented and Tessa Sanderson and the Minister for Sport were there. We have money from the new opportunities fund and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to promote sport in schools and communities and I am optimistic about that project. It is a good example of something that can be tied into health to meet challenges such as obesity. The Department of Health could use many resources to meet the problem of advertisers spending more money than it does.
"Voluntary groups" includes sports groups. The voluntary sector in Stafford is absolutely thriving and bubbling with enthusiasm. Many such groups could be used to help the campaign for health promotion in this country. A group that has been overlooked—I did not see it mentioned in the report—is that of employers and trade unions. One of the best places to get people's attention is at work, and employers and trade unions would be willing partners in delivering the message and helping us if they were given information to pass on. That just needs co-ordination.
Another valuable resource is Members of Parliament. I want to receive messages from the Health Development Agency and Health Promotion England and help them by taking part in their campaigns. My local authority and director of public health make full use of me; I have fronted many launches in Stafford, such as "health through warmth" and the exercise on referral that I mentioned. I have promoted such schemes, talked to other decision-makers and networked. I have been delighted to carry out that role. I bet that the other 658 hon. Members would do the same thing in their communities.
I should also mention that airlines would be a good partner for tackling deep vein thrombosis. As I am a Member of Parliament, I cannot help but create some self-publicity; the subject of my ten-minute Bill, to be debated on 25 January next year, is making airlines give more information on avoiding deep vein thrombosis during flights.
The message must be one of prevention, as well as cure. I understand the immediate pressures on the Department of Health. Great restructuring is taking place, and there are pressures to reduce waiting lists and tackle high-profile killers such as coronary heart disease and cancers. People are also clamouring for high-profile drugs and medical procedures, whatever the cost. There is a big challenge to deliver in Labour's second term and all those pressures crowd out more strategic thinking that will pay dividends later.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. Those who organise the sound system are finding it difficult to catch some of the speeches, so I make a plea for speakers to address the microphones.
Mr. Kidney: I will back up a bit, Mr. O'Hara. The point is to have a strategic vision and a long-term plan. I believe that a long-term plan pays and reduces pressures

333WH
later. An example of that from the past is intermediate care; we now face the difficulty of rushing to keep up with demand, which we should have planned for 10 years ago.
I want to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) about the nanny state because it is vital that we avoid being accused of attempting to develop one. I agree with the quote from the World Health Organisation that health promotion is
"the process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve, their health".
We must provide facts on healthy living through guidance that must become familiar to everyone. One shocking statistic from the report of the CCPR is that only 11 per cent. of GPs recognise the Government's guidelines on the amount of physical activity recommended for adults. If front-line services have not got the message, there is not much hope for the rest of the community.
11.34 pm
Dr. Richard Taylor: I should like to consider the role of the public health doctor, historically and now. I will show that I think that the role has somehow lost its way. As the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, it began with Sir Edward Chadwick, who was not a doctor but a Lancashire man brought up in a Lancashire farmhouse, in which the proverb, "Cleanliness is next to godliness", was the absolute rule. This proverb enabled him to live to the age of 90. During a long and profitable life, he sorted out the water system and proved the connection between water and illness.
Coming a little bit more up to date, in the 1880s, in my own constituency, we had a remarkably forward-looking medical officer of health, who, once he had established the waterworks, the sewers and the fire service—with which he was involved as well—he suddenly realised that the death rate from drowning in the River Severn was extraordinarily high. As the voice of the people he recommended that swimming lessons should be available. He then realised that a lot of the people who were drowning were drunkards who were just falling into the docks—in Stourport we have docks. The health officer then tried to get fences erected. He was not very successful with that, but he was amazingly forward-looking. The health officer also discovered that the mercury in teething powders caused desperate illnesses in children. This was not recognised until the 1950s; he was 70 years ahead of his time.
At that time medical officers of health really spoke for their people. Sadly, the medical officer of health role was abolished in 1974 and society then went into a limbo in which we had community medicine specialists. The community chest of the Monopoly board meant more to me than community medicine as a specialty. This was only put right by the Acheson report in 1988, which defined public health very sensibly as the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health through the organised efforts of society. Sadly, I think that that has been rather watered down in the report.
The Select Committee—of which I was not a member at the time—picked up the Association of Directors of Public Health description of the core business of the
334WH
director of public health as being medical management with the science of epidemiology. That is where I think things began to go wrong. As a medical manager, the director of public health was automatically on the executive of various NHS bodies. As with other executives, they also became, in effect, civil servants. This produced a tremendous conflict. It has been referred to in at least one letter to the British Medical Journal from a very senior public health doctor, who pointed out how difficult it was to act as the voice of the patient when one was in fact a civil servant.
The loss of the director of public health as a voice of the patient has led to so many of the problems in my own constituency. The Independent picked this up relatively soon after my election to this House, and regarded the lesson of my election as a condemnation of the state planning of health services in the area, which had failed. The newspaper went on to say that, in the market,
"the customer is always right, and if the closure of Kidderminster A&E does not make sense to local people, then it does not make sense.
Sadly, we did not have such a person to speak for the people. Those involved can convince themselves, through various methods, that what they are being told—they are, sadly, almost being dictated to—is in the best of interests of the people.
This role as a voice for the people is becoming more important. Only yesterday the press contained reports from the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, saying that because of the tremendous shortage of surgeons, a large number of hospitals would probably lose their surgical facilities. Unless we have a medically qualified voice of the people to speak up against the royal colleges, we will again be in trouble.
The role of the director of public health—the public health doctor—should be to get back to being the voice of the people. This gives me a little bit of hope because, with the reorganisation, the strategic health authority will have one senior public health doctor and—I hate to say this—he may be a long way away from being able to do much damage. I am not clear where the public health presence fits in with the primary care trusts and I should be grateful for more details of that. The Government stated in their response that there would be a new public health team in each PCT, with a board-level appointment to lead the work. I should like to have a little more detail about that and how it is envisaged.
I must mention sport, because it was one of the key points to which Liam Donaldson referred when summarising public health. They were; do not smoke, eat a balanced diet, keep active, manage stress, moderate alcohol, cover up in the sun, have safer sex, keep cancer screening appointments, read the highway code, and learn first aid. Several hon. Members referred to keeping active and that was emphasised at an inspiring meeting that a number of us attended yesterday with the Prince of Wales when we heard about his trust and charitable activities. In response to a question from the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the Prince acknowledged the importance of activity, including football. Another huge value of sport in the community, in addition to its tremendous health implications, is that it takes young people off the streets. I should like to hear a little more about the future role of the public health doctor and to have an assurance that sport and exercise will be emphasised.
3.41 pm
Gareth R. Thomas: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on another excellent report from his Committee. I strongly endorse his comments on the need for a ban on tobacco advertising and I share his view of the importance of sport.
3.42 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.57 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Thomas: The two issues that I want to highlight relate to anorexia and alcohol misuse. I apologise to the Minister and to other hon. Members for the fact that I shall not be able to stay until the end of the debate, but I shall read Hansard carefully tomorrow.
I urge a greater focus from the Health Development Agency and public health professionals on the issue of anorexia. I confess that I did not take a great deal of interest in the issue until a local family visited my constituency surgery. Mrs. Porter told me about the experience of her two daughters and their treatment for anorexia. Their treatment illustrates both the best side of the national health service and a side on which further work is needed.
In 1996, Helen Porter received treatment as an in-patient at Bowden house, a facility in my constituency. She was there for some six months on a placement funded by the national health service. In the words of Mrs. Porter, her daughter made excellent progress. Sadly, Rachael, her second daughter, also suffered from anorexia and became ill in 1997. Unlike her sister, she received much more sporadic treatment for the same condition. She managed to continue at university and graduated successfully last year, to the delight of all her family. When she came home from university she was, in the words of her mother, "at death's door," weighing some 30 kg. Thirteen months on, when her mother came to see me at my surgery in July, Rachael weighed only 3 kg more. She has not had the opportunity to receive the same high-class treatment at the Bowden house facility in my constituency as her sister did.
When I started to consider anorexia, I was surprised—perhaps I should not have been—to learn how widespread the condition was. An estimated 60,000 people in the United Kingdom have eating disorders. I am told that only one in 10 sufferers are male, and the majority are young women. The problem affects roughly 1 or 2 per cent. of the UK's female population between the ages of 15 and 30. Of the statistics, the most frightening must be that between six and 10 out of every 100 patients die as a result of the disorder.
I did further research and read with great interest "Eating Disorders, Body Image and the Media", the report of the board of science and education of the British Medical Association, which was published in May 2000. The report highlighted a range of issues of
336WH
importance for public health professionals and stressed the importance of education, which might relate to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield about the importance of the role of local authorities in improving public health. It also identified the need for clear anti-bullying policies, proper policies on eating disorders at a local education authority and school level, and proper counselling and mentoring services. The report advocated greater research so that some of the underlying causes of anorexia could be identified, as there is still no clear view of its cause. It made a series of recommendations on diet, physical activity and mental health services for the Government's health strategy.
The Government are acting on the issue. The Minister for Public Health rightly called a summit in June 2000 to stimulate debate on the issue. I urge the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who is in the Chamber, to consider urgently what else the Government could do to respond to the concerns of organisations such as the Eating Disorders Association. The association has highlighted the difficulty of access in some areas to specialist eating disorder treatment, the difficulties in recognising eating disorders as a problem in primary care, and differences in patterns of referral among general practitioners and other primary care professionals. The EDA has also advocated the development of therapeutic options for the problem, which are not as advanced as those for better known and more high-profile conditions.
I suspect that another point made by the EDA was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield in the report of the Health Committee on mental health services. It stressed that treatment for those who suffer from eating disorders must take place in appropriate settings. It is sad that settings are less than ideal at the moment.
For the sake of my constituents, I look to the Minister and her colleagues in the Department of Health to continue to seek to raise the profile of the issue and the Government's response to it. That family has gone through considerable trauma as a result of the condition.
I urge the Government to consider alcohol misuse, a subject that other hon. Members have mentioned. I have spent time on the scheme run by the National Council of Voluntary Organisations—which is equivalent to that run by the Industry and Parliament Trust—with Alcohol Concern, an excellent organisation that rightly continues to campaign for an alcohol misuse strategy. It has consistently highlighted the importance of alcohol to a wide range of social, economic and health problems. There is a huge public health dimension to alcohol misuse. The number of deaths directly attributable to alcohol misuse rose sharply in the second half of the 1990s from some 3,800 per year in 1994 to over 5,500 in 1999, while 60 per cent. of employers stated that their organisations had experienced problems as a result of employees' misuse of alcohol. I am told that a comparative study has shown that 15 to 16 year-olds in the United Kingdom have some of the highest drinking levels in Europe.
There is also a clear correlation between alcohol misuse and crime, notably in terms of domestic violence—60 to 70 per cent. of men who assault their

337WH
partners do so under the influence of alcohol. Most tellingly, as others have mentioned, at peak times 80 per cent. of those who go to accident and emergency departments with injuries have a high percentage of alcohol in their bloodstream.
A Government strategy to tackle the problem could create coherence across the various Government Departments that have an interest in alcohol policy. Such a clear political commitment would have an enormous impact on a range of providers of services, and the imposition of clear targets would lend urgency to the tackling of problems. A strategy could also identify the structures in the public health domain and elsewhere that might be able to help to address the issues. I urge the Government to direct additional funding to this aspect of public health. I understand from a written answer to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) that just £1.1 million has been allocated specifically to deal with alcohol misuse as opposed to £91 million to tackle drugs and almost £34 million for tobacco. I do not condemn the Government for that, but I urge that, as part of a proper national alcohol strategy, another look be taken at funding in this important area.
I apologise again that I cannot be present to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister says. However, I shall study her response, and the contributions of other speakers, very closely.
4.7 pm
Mr. David Tredinnick: This is a timely and important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and his Committee on the vast amount of work that they must have put into the report and their travels to other places. It is important to have this debate now because, I suggest to the Minister, the Government have entertained us with some dramatic changes in health policy in the last week or so. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) to agree that the Government have pirated Conservative policy in trying to get the private sector involved in the health service in the way for which—I see my hon. Friend smiling—we have argued in at least the past two Parliaments.
Mr. Heald: Just to take up my hon. Friend's partisan note, does he agree that it is sad that, for five years, so many patients have suffered when they could have had their treatment through the private sector?
Mr. Tredinnick: I hear what my hon. Friend has said. I agree with him. It is not my intention to have a party political knockabout.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I understand from a colleague that last week the Public Accounts Committee calculated that the NHS would have the equivalent of 2,000 additional consultants if those who worked part-time in the NHS and part-time in the private sector worked wholly in the NHS. I am not completely on board as regards the Government's current direction. If they moved in the opposite direction, they could have a profound impact on our problems with waiting lists.
Mr. Tredinnick: I was going to suggest that there was an inconsistency in the Government's policy. On one
338WH
hand, they want the private sector to deal with acute cases; on the other, the Minister and her colleagues have not dealt with complementary and alternative medicine, which is largely in the private sector. I shall return to that.
Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman suggested that a Government addiction to the private sector was a panacea for which he had called for some time. However, that does not mean that he was right, because both the Conservative party and the Government could be wrong.
Mr. Tredinnick: I have never looked to the Liberals for panaceas, and I never will.
Dr. Harris: Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Tredinnick: I am sorry; the Liberal Democrats. We have had the Social Democrats and—perhaps I should not go down that road, because I would hate to be called to order.
The second aspect of the Government's change of policy is that they have pretty much admitted that they cannot solve the problems with the existing criteria. The evidence for that is that they have had to go to the Chancellor for more money. I have never agreed with the Chancellor on much, but I certainly agree that he should audit what is happening at the Department of Health. The Treasury is always very tough when it is asked for more money, and I welcome that.
The third dramatic change is the decision to send patients abroad for treatment. I welcome the idea that we should reduce waiting lists, particularly if that benefits those of my constituents who are on them. However, as I have said before and I shall say again, the Government should look to those who practise different forms of therapy in this country but who are not properly integrated into the national health service. If the Government drew on the resources of those 50,000 additional practitioners—the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) smiles in what I hope is agreement—the numbers on waiting lists would fall and life would be much easier for doctors and surgeons.
When I read the report yesterday evening, I was slightly amused that the Committee had alighted on Cuba as its destination. I wondered whether we were dealing with new Labour or real Labour, the Stalinist tendency. I wondered whether the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) was behind the report. She has a tendency to get involved, as she did in the case of that poor Labour Member who was hounded by the Labour Whips. The press release said, "Labour thugs attack MP"—
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman is departing from the script.
Mr. Tredinnick: I certainly would not want to do that, Mr. O'Hara. However, it crossed my mind that those were the right people to go to Cuba to get a few lessons and perhaps some beer, sandwiches and cigars from

339WH
Fidel. I am sure, however, that the hon. Member for Wakefield is not part of that militant tendency in the Whips Office.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been to Cuba, but its people are probably the nicest that I have met in any of the places that I have visited.
Mr. Tredinnick: I have not been to Cuba, but I look forward to an invitation. I am unlikely to get one from the President after my remarks, although I live in hope.
I was interested by paragraph 19 on page 15, which stated that life expectancy in Cuba was 76 years. Paragraph 21 on page 16 states:
"In the absence of expensive imported pharmaceutical products, considerable emphasis"—
in Cuba—
"is placed on herbal and other alternative remedies."
[Interruption.] I thank hon. Members. Turning to paragraph 29, hon. Members will see that life expectancy in England and Wales has increased from 52 years and 55 years for women in 1910 to 74 years for men and 79 years for women in 1994. Our life expectancy here is still worse than that in Cuba. One reason for that is that the alternative and complementary services that are available in Cuba are not available on the national health service in Britain.
Mr. Hinchliffe: And we do not have socialism, either.
Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, makes a point that, coming from his stable, he might be expected to make. It seems bizarre that citizens of a country that cannot afford pharmaceutical products—another paragraph says that it is not allowed to import them because of the cost—and uses natural remedies have a better life expectancy than the citizens of a country that can afford pharmaceutical products. I respectfully suggest that there are one or two lessons for us there.
Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman is raising a very important, very serious matter. However, does he accept that better lifestyles and prevention, rather than treatments, whether conventional or alternative, are what count in terms of life expectancy? If a place has those better lifestyles, the use of the herbal and alternative remedies there does not prove that those remedies have a positive effect on life expectancy; rather it proves, and I think that many people would agree, that lifestyle issues have an impact.
Mr. Tredinnick: I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I will agree with him a little this afternoon. I accept that lifestyle is an issue and I intended to talk about that and about the amount of money that we spend on preventive care. Sport is important in Cuba, and people's lifestyle is more relaxed. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) had a pina colada on a beach—perhaps he did. Cuba is a big tourist
340WH
destination, is it not? My hon. Friend is such an assiduous worker—I well remember his efforts at Basildon in the old days.
I hope that no one in the Chamber thinks that I am being flippant. Although I am trying to lighten some aspects of what I say, these are key issues. I read the report unable to believe my eyes that the Cubans should be using alternative therapies and have a greater life expectancy. In this country, already one in four people are using some form of traditional therapy, or "integrated health care" as we tend to call it now. Such therapies include herbal medicine, acupuncture, back treatments such as shiatsu, reiki—all sorts of things. There are roughly 750,000 consultations a year with 50,000 complementary practitioners. Most referrals are outside the health service. Some are now inside—we are just beginning to get there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears)indicated assent.
Mr. Tredinnick: The Minister nods and it is true, but there is a long way to go. The Government could make their life so much easier if they moved forward on the issue.
The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, in its landmark report, came to the conclusion that complementary therapy—the herbalists and homeopaths—had been adversely affected by the recent NHS reforms in primary care. Primary care groups have brought about a levelling down in services, and 58 per cent. of primary care groups now provide access to some form of complementary therapy. A recent survey of primary care groups found that 227 out of 278 had not come up with a policy on the matter.
The difference between GP fundholding and the primary care group system is that whereas, in the past, GP fundholders could get together as a small band and commission, primary care groups tend to be more unwieldy because more people are involved. Crucially, their membership includes quite a few old-style health authority officials. It is often less easy to commission therapies on the health service. The Minister would be well advised to examine that so that we get an increased provision in the health service, which is important when regulation is gradually being improved for all therapies.
I served on the Committees of the Osteopaths Bill and the Chiropractors Bill three Parliaments ago; those provisions are now part of mainstream health care. In those days, such treatments were considered pretty wacky. When I damaged my back many years ago, I would certainly not have told a doctor such as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that I was going to an osteopath, because he would have been tough with me and told me that he thoroughly disapproved.
John Austin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if chiropractic was more readily available under the national health service, the waiting lists for orthopaedic surgery would be dramatically reduced?
Mr. Tredinnick: That is absolutely right. One of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, whose name I shall not mention because he is a good friend of mine, told me

341WH
that he went to visit a chiropractor in a major city in England. When he was waiting for treatment, he was surprised to bump into an acquaintance. He said, "Hello, what are you doing here—you're the chairman of the local health authority, why aren't you at the royal infirmary getting treatment for your back?" His acquaintance said, "I'm not letting those people near me; I'm coming here first."
That story should not suggest that there was anything wrong with the surgeons in the hospital, but I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says—I nearly called him my hon. Friend, but I would not want to damage his chances of promotion. If one allows chiropractors in first to examine backs, pressure is taken off the waiting lists for the surgeons, who can concentrate on valuable and necessary work. The complementary world can take the pressure off the health service.
The Government have outlined targets—national health service priorities—among which coronary heart disease, cancer and mental health are key. I can remember them without looking them up. I was talking to a homeopath yesterday and he agreed that all those priorities could be dealt with using homeopathy. Hypertension, which leads to heart disease, is readily curable using homeopathic medicine, as are ulcers and asthma. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West mentioned asthma, of which he has family experience. My children have had experience of asthma, and it is frightening when it happens, but there are remedies.
Remedies for skin may also be effective, and the treatment does not have to involve powerful steroids with their side effects. I do not suggest that there is anything wrong with traditional approaches, but there are other ways in which to treat those health problems before using powerful drugs. Let the doctors use them, but let us try other remedies first and take the burden off the health service.
I shall concentrate on homeopathy for a moment, before turning to some other therapies. In Scotland, 20 per cent. of doctors use homeopathy—one in five. One of the reasons for the Act of Union with Scotland was to get doctors down to London, was it not? I think that happened in 1706—I am not an historian. We have always had a great respect for Scots medicine. We do not have anything like that here—we have only five homeopathic hospitals. We should build on that, and the Government have an opportunity to take the initiative.
Regrettably, doctors sometimes like to say that homeopathy is all rubbish and that nothing has been proved, but studies on complementary medicine are often ignored. The study entitled "Unexpected solute aggregation in water on dilution" was received in Cambridge on 20 June and accepted on 7 September, which means that it was accepted by the medical establishment. Homeopathy works through weak doses: the weaker the dose the more powerful it is—so it is more powerful if it is diluted from 30c down to 6c or lm, for example. That has been scientifically proved. It is an important study and we must take note of it.
Yesterday I was with someone who has been using homeopathy to treat dysfunctional children—the type of children whom we were talking about earlier in the debate—at Impington village college in Cambridge. I
342WH
have been given leave by the college, via the therapist, to draw the matter to hon. Members' attention this afternoon. Impington college asked homeopath Jacqueline Schaerer to help with its inclusion project. The trial proved successful.
A group of 25 children from 12 to 15 years old, with behavioural problems such as violence, swearing, truancy, fighting in the classroom, shoplifting and being generally disruptive in and out of school were treated individually, and sometimes in groups, with homeopathic remedies either weekly or monthly, with the parents' consent. After the relatively short time of three months, the teachers reported that the majority of the treated students were back in a normal classroom situation, behaving acceptably and studying to the best of their ability. Impressed by the results, the college decided to support some of the 16 to 18-year-old students; they had more emotional social problems, including suicide attempts, eating problems and even drug taking, which disrupted their education and their exams. The results were equally successful.
Impington village college valued the input of the homeopath as an important strand of its educational inclusion work. Now, a year later, the same students are still behaving in an acceptable manner but without any kind of further treatment. That is significant. I understand that almost all the pupils who received that treatment have effectively been cured of their problem. Not only have the pupils benefited; so have the teachers, parents and society in general. The trial was considered a huge success. The inclusion project was funded by Government grant No. 19.
Homeopathy can result in enormous savings not only in the general health sector, as I have suggested, but in education. The Minister seems very interested in that. If she wants to see them, I shall ensure that she has a copy of the papers. The Homeopathic Society has 1,200 members, and they are all available. The Minister can lock them onto the health service. Homeopathy has been available on the health service since 1950; she does not need to look at the regulations, and there is no reason why that should be a stalling point.
When the House of Lords reported on the subject last year, there was absolute uproar among the Indian community here and in India at the fact that ayurvedic medicine was not classified as a serious therapy. I looked up some statistics for the debate, and ayurvedic medicine has been used for more than 6,000 years and is practised in 2,000 Indian hospitals. Yet we have the audacity to say that the treatment is not proven. We need a radical rethink on our attitude to medicines from Asia, because they are increasingly popular and they have a formidable ability to cure problems.
I have in my hand a list from a Chinese practitioner who lectures in Chinese medicine and who trains western doctors in London in how to use it. The list shows the problems that traditional Chinese medicine can cure using acupuncture, which is part of traditional Chinese medicine. I shall give a copy to the hon. Lady—I nearly said right hon. Lady, but not quite: if the Minister adopts and embraces complementary medicine, she might soon be promoted and might yet be asked to the Palace. The document lists the therapeutic functions of acupuncture. They include analgesic and anaesthetic functions. Acupuncture deals with nervous problems, regulates body fluids, regulates the digestion,

343WH
helps with respiratory problems and deals with the circulation, blood pressure, cervical vessels, coronary artery and digestive system. It can affect the blood, and is used in red cell and white cell management; it deals with blood platelets, and has an effect on the endocrine system, the nervous system and the immune system. I could go on.
Dr. Richard Taylor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the Prince of Wales Foundation for Integrated Medicine. Its aim is
"to promote integrated delivery of safe, effective and efficient forms of health care, including orthodox and complementary medicine through greater collaboration."
That organisation is trying to set up controlled trials of complementary forms of treatment, and I commend to the hon. Gentleman that method of furthering his desires. I also commend to the Minister the work of that organisation.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) to continue his speech, I want to advise hon. Members that the winding-up speeches will start at 5 o'clock, and the intention is that each of the Front-Bench spokesmen will have 10 minutes each. Hon. Members who still wish to speak—I know that two are still hoping to catch my eye—might like to bear that in mind. Should we finish before 5 o'clock, the extra time will be allocated between the Front-Bench spokesmen, and should we be interrupted by Divisions, we may have extra time.
Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. We have already lost 12 minutes or so as a result of a Division. Will we have extra time to make up for that?
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): We have until 5.45 pm, but if there are further Divisions we may add some time. The winding-up speeches will start at 5.15 pm.
Mr. Tredinnick: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. It might assist if I inform you that I spoke to the Table Office on that very point. I was informed that we have extra time for every Division.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): That is right. I have just said that.
Mr. Tredinnick: I am sorry; I misunderstood you.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): I shall not repeat myself. I think that people understand. We should not waste any more time.
Mr. Tredinnick: I hope not to waste any time and I certainly have no intention of talking out colleagues who want to make a speech. I shall try to speed up.
There is currently a big debate about the regulation of acupuncture. The Minister can help by taking that forward and ensuring that herbalists and acupuncturists
344WH
are regulated. Then more doctors will refer patients to them, as happened when osteopaths and chiropractors were regulated.
I turn briefly to the issue of obesity, which has been raised by several hon. Members. I agree that it is a terrible problem and an indictment of our society, and that we must do something about it. The statistics in the report show that physical education has been reduced in a third of primary schools, there is no physical education at all in 95 per cent. of primary schools, and children spend twice as much time watching television or playing with computers as doing sport. It is vital that we redress that state of affairs. Whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is the right vehicle for that is an important issue.
In Australia and Cuba, sport is seen as part of health. I try to exercise every day. I go to a yoga class on Wednesdays, if the Whips are kind to me and I can get away. I find that beneficial because it gets the blood moving. On the subject of smoking cessation, I defy anyone to try smoking a cigarette after a yoga session. I speak as someone who has just about knocked the habit on the head. The money that the Government have made available for smoking cessation services is very important, as I told the Minister at Health questions. Hypnotists and homeopaths can help too, and acupuncture is effective for smoking cessation, so I hope that the Government will examine those possibilities.
On diet, there is a problem with additives. A study in a secondary school, published a week or so ago, reported on the problems of E-additives in orange juice that can cause disruptive behaviour. There is too much sugar in our diet.
I have always believed that there are three classes of medicine: mainstream, conventional medicine; herbalists and homeopaths, whom I would loosely describe as "alternative"; and energy people and healers who use their hands and work with energy medicines such as Bach flower remedies. People who heal with their hands work in advanced cancer clinics such as those in Hammersmith and Bristol. Prisoners are being shown how to channel energies in prisons such as Coldingley near Guildford and Hollesley Bay near Ipswich. I have watched remarkable demonstrations in which prisoners have worked with warders and warders have worked with prisoners.
During birth, babies can have their cranial plates put in the wrong place as they go down the birth canal, and cranial osteopathy can help with that. Many prisoners have plates that are out of place, and a cranial osteopath can put back those plates, which can completely change their behaviour patterns.
Only 2 per cent. of Britain's health care budget is spent on prevention. We must look harder at prevention, and we should certainly look harder at sport.
According to the Library's statistics, the amount of research funding for complementary and alternative medicine is 0.08 per cent. of Department of Health and Medical Research Council funding, and 0.05 per cent. of research funding from medical research charities. It is a pitiful sum when one considers the money that the drug companies attract.
The report is tremendous and a great deal of work has gone into it. We can learn one or two interesting lessons from Cuba, but the big lesson for the Government to

345WH
learn as they send patients across the channel before they go to the Chancellor with their begging bowl is that they should make better use of the indigenous complementary practitioner population.
4.36 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who has spoken extensively. Indeed, he has spoken for longer than the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) did. The only thing about which he has not informed hon. Members—perhaps he will enlighten us—is whether there is a homeopathic cure for verbal diarrhoea.
It is a great pleasure to speak about the Health Committee report because it is excellent and raises several important issues. My interest in public health dates back to the days when my mother was the medical officer for the west of Scotland. My childhood was spent being carted around various developmental clinics that she had set up, so I speak with the benefit of years of experience of public health, albeit not of the professional variety.
The report highlights the issue of health inequalities. The Chair of the Committee said that health inequality had doubled or tripled in the past decade—he would want me to make it clear that over that period, life expectancy and health increased dramatically while morbidity decreased. None the less, health inequality concerns all hon. Members, including Ministers.
I want to speak specifically about the section of the report that states:
"People in Black (Caribbean, African and other) groups and Indians have higher rates of limiting long-standing illnesses than white peoples."
Given that my constituency is located in a borough where 106 languages are spoken in schools, health inequality among ethnic minority groups has troubled me for a long time.
I should like to focus the Minister's attention on the problems that such groups face in screening programmes—specifically, breast screening programmes. I believe that the problem is that the system is based on the convenience of doctors and the administration. It seldom takes account of the culture and traditions of Indian and other Asian communities. I am delighted to say that, about a year ago, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health visited my constituency to examine the breast screening programme there and speak with the Indian and Asian community about cultural differences.
At present, when the letter from the doctor arrives saying that it is time for a woman to present herself for screening, in most households of those communities, if the woman opens the letter, she will go to her husband and say, "I have this letter." If the husband does not say at that point, "That's good, it is important for the family that you go and do this," the letter goes in the bin. It is absolutely vital, especially in areas where many women, particularly elderly ones, do not speak English as their first language or even at all, that there is support from the family network and from the wider community to
346WH
ensure that the women not only go for screening, but are supported when they go by another family member who speaks English.
One would imagine that mobile units were a way of addressing that problem but, sadly, they are not as mobile as their name implies. They often get dumped in a Sainsbury's car park for six months, nine months or a year at a time and people are referred to them. I urge the Minister, with her ministerial team, to examine working with local community groups such as, in my constituency, the Brent Indian Association and the Hindu Council of Brent, to make it clear that the work starts with them. The mobile unit could be located in a venue such as the local community association, and the whole community would then be encouraged to ensure that people present for screening.
We could then invert the process whereby the reference comes down centrally through the doctor to the woman, and the matter then goes into limbo. It must come from the community so that the support is there to ensure that women present for screening and receive the care that they deserve. We must turn the focus of the service delivery on its head and try to make it customer-focused and patient-focused, instead of designed for the doctors' convenience.
Dr. Evan Harris: I am very interested in the cogent case that the hon. Gentleman is making, but could he be more specific? How can those letters of invitation, an important part of the screening process, come from the community, given that they contain confidential medical information?
Mr. Gardiner: I am saying not that the letters of referral should come from the community, but that if one located a mobile unit at a community venue and a campaign was then undertaken with the local community association—a particular ethnic or community group—women would be encouraged to present for screening. The work would then be done in a venue with which the women were familiar and with the support of the whole community. The point has been made by the men who are leaders of their communities that unless the men in each family give support, the letter will not be acted on. It is vital that we seek to turn the system round, and ensure that the inequalities in health care that the report so properly mentions are tackled in ethnic minority communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield was right in his remarks about the importance of health visiting. Health visitors have a vital role to play in health promotion and the delivery of primary health care. My hon. Friend's remarks are indeed timely, given that the draft Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001—a reference to health visitors used to be included—is being debated this week in another place.
At a recent meeting, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), referred to health visitors as his shock troops for the delivery of primary health care and preventive medicine in the community, and for looking at how best to overcome social inequality. The report highlights Sir Donald Acheson's remarks about the

347WH
uncontroversial benefits of home visits to pregnant women and during the first two years of a child's life. Health visiting is an absolutely vital front-line support for mothers and young families. It is central to what this Government are trying to do through the sure start programme and other measures. It ensures equality of health opportunity for young children from the outset, no matter what part of society they are born into.
The report makes an important recommendation about how health visitors can get involved at the other end of the life cycle. It looks at the ways in which health visitors can use and develop their skills in order to present an equal service to the elderly population. The recommendation fits in with the Government's agenda to extend skills traditionally concentrated in health visiting and health visitors, so that the role of community public health practitioners is enlarged.
In passing, I should mention the draft Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, and the health visiting profession's concerns about it. The profession has been surprised—I put it no more strongly—to find that the name of "health visitor" has been omitted from the order, and that it will be registered not as a distinct profession, but as a distinct nursing specialism. Given the shock waves that that decision has sent through the health visiting profession, it is vital that Ministers send the strongest possible signal that they value the role of health visitors in our primary health care delivery programme, and that they will protect in statute the body of knowledge that health visiting has built up over decades. We have been told that the education, skills and training of health visitors will be protected in statute, and Ministers must offer that assurance.
The other day, I had the good fortune to launch my own local strategic partnership, in Brent. The report is excellent in highlighting the role that such partnerships should play in building alliances across the community by working with elected bodies, the local council and all manner of authorities. Paragraph 149 of the report states that
"health objectives are at the heart of these neighbourhood renewal strategies."
That is an extremely important part of the report's argument, and I commend the Committee for its work in highlighting that point. I hope that the Government will take that forward.
The section of the report beginning at paragraph 178 concerns cross-Government work on school health. It says:
"The onus is on local education and health authorities, in collaboration with schools and the local community, to develop their own plans for improving health in schools using all aspects of school life, including the curriculum (particularly Personal, Social and Health Education), the physical environment of the school, the nutrition policy of the school, the nutrition policy of the school and the time spent in physical activity by children."
Many important points are contained in that short passage and, indeed, in the report's other comments on the subject.
I welcome the Government's programme for making fruit available in schools. My local area was one of those in which it was piloted. It is a tremendous initiative, and I look forward to its roll-out across the country. It is
348WH
vital that children be educated into good nutritional habits and that they get the benefit that the fruit in schools programme has delivered to schools in my constituency.
I want to pay far more critical attention to the Government's policy on physical activity by children at school. The expectation that schoolchildren should have two hours per week of physical education shows a poverty of aspiration on the part of the Government that is shameful and shocking. It is a disgrace, especially as the time that children are given has declined since 1994, when they were getting two hours a week. They should have two hours per day, not per week. In respect of cross-departmental co-operation, I am delighted that the Minister for Sport is working with Ministers from the Department of Health, but we must recognise that unless policies are implemented with the full and dramatic co-operation of the Department for Education and Skills, we shall not achieve the objectives that we set.
The Chairman of the Committee was right to highlight the report on obesity that went to the National Audit Office, and to the Public Accounts Committee on which I serve. The revelations in that report were shocking. Obesity is increasing faster in children than in any other age group. From 1984 to 1994 it rose from 5.6 per cent. to 9 per cent. in boys and from 9.3 per cent. to 13.5 per cent. in girls. In 1999, the direct costs to the nation of obesity reached £0.5 billion, and the indirect costs are estimated to be £2.5 billion. It is pointless to channel funding into treatments for the diseases that are caused by obesity, which is recognised as a so-called gateway disease to a host of other ailments, if we do nothing to address the root causes of obesity through good nutrition and exercise.
I shall draw my remarks to a close because I know that other hon. Members have important contributions to make. I plead with the Minister to ensure that her Department, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education and Skills consider restructuring the school day. It should be put on the same footing as the working day, starting at 8.30 in the morning and finishing at 5.30 or 6 o'clock at night. In the middle of the day, at about 2 o'clock, two solid hours should be taken out for sport and physical activity—not after the school day has finished, as extracurricular activity. That central position in the timetable would make sport central to the curriculum. Children would spend the same amount of time in the classroom as they currently do, and the period in the middle of the day could be well used by teachers for the preparation and marking of work that they now have to do after the school day. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is already saying that it will put money into increasing the provision of coaching and development in that area.
Unless there is an integrated approach that looks to putting two hours of sport and physical activity at the heart of the school day, I believe that we shall not be able to deliver the health improvements that we seek for young people.
4.55 pm
Andy Burnham: Public health is such an important subject, and it is great to have the opportunity to talk about it in such detail today. I pay

349WH
tribute to the contributions that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) and many other hon. Members have made today. It is sad that we do not have more opportunities to talk about the subject. Public health is one of those things that touches almost every facet of life. The work of every Government Department is crucial to the lives of people in this country, but I believe that we should give public health more attention.
The report on public health is fantastic, and it is a tribute to the Health Committee. Sadly, I can take no credit whatever, as I did not join the Committee until the summer. I am sadder still that I missed the intriguing trip to Cuba, although I am glad that I did not have the British Airways prawn butties, which, by the sound of things, are doing their own damage to the health of the nation.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). It is obvious when he speaks on this subject that he does so with great passion, conviction and knowledge, and he deserves to be listened to. The report is a tribute to him, and also to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin). The report has shaped Government policy; we can say that with great certainty, and that alone is a great tribute.
My background in this area is that I worked for a short time for the NHS Confederation and helped to prepare its response to the Acheson inquiry in the late 1990s. While we were talking about the Acheson report we began to see how engrained and embedded the issues were in some of the more deprived communities of the country, but it was only recently, since I became the Member of Parliament for Leigh, that I began to appreciate some of those issues at first hand. Only then did it strike me how hard it was to get underneath the issues and tackle them without being glib about the subject.
As people will know, Leigh has a long and proud industrial past, and a great tradition in coal mining; but that has left a terrible legacy to the local population. I find it quite humbling when former miners visit my constituency surgeries to see their pallid skin and to see them struggling to get around. The industrial past of the town has left great scars on the local population's health. Nothing can be done now for that generation, but let us hope that we can give the younger generation something better later in life, when they reach the same years.
What I have learned locally on an anecdotal basis has been borne out by the report of the chief medical officer this week. Some of his findings are truly shocking—a national scandal. I shall read a few conclusions from his report. He said:
"In some parts of north-east and north-west England, communities had death rates similar to those prevailing in the 1950s."
He is talking of the late 1990s, when the data were collected. He continued:

"Death rates of the most deprived sections of the population declined little in the 1990s, whereas death rates among the more advantaged declined substantially."
350WH
A partisan note was injected into our debate by the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who seems to have left the Chamber. The conclusion that I have just quoted is an indictment of the policies pursued in the 1980s and 1990s by the Conservative Government.
The chief medical officer said that
"being poor in the north is worse for your health than being poor in the south."
He qualified that remark by saying that it was because
"access to better educational and employment opportunities and living in a better quality environment are associated with better health."
A few months ago there was a debate about whether the north-south divide still existed. This report gives anyone who cares to look at it absolute, concrete and conclusive proof that the north-south divide is, sadly, very real.
The findings of the chief medical officer are the product of the failure of successive Governments to get behind the issue. We can say only that they failed the people in the communities where problems are still bad. The chief medical officer drew particular attention to the 20 worst wards in the country. The Minister will know that, because some of the wards of her Salford constituency are highlighted in the report. She, too, feels passionately about the subject and will be committed to making a difference, as are we all.
The report shows that housing, leisure and lifestyle opportunities, job opportunities, personal fulfilment and schooling all shape people's lives and future health. From the standpoint of my constituency, I must say that the Government are acting to address those fundamentals. Last week we were awarded £58 million to improve housing in the Wigan borough, connected with the setting up of the arm's-length management organisation for housing. We also have, in Hindley, sure start, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North mentioned. That is an attempt to get behind some of the difficult issues that have entrenched health inequalities in our population.
It is ironic that a Government often accused of being headline-grabbing and after the quick soundbite are putting in place policies that will deliver only 20, 30 or 40 years hence. It is a tribute to the people and the Government who have pushed those policies through that they have not gone for easier policies that produce results quicker.
I am extremely encouraged by the reforms to the national health service currently under debate in this place. Primary care trusts will have a powerful role to play in tackling health inequalities. They offer a more finely tuned mechanism to get behind the problem of health inequalities. They will be able to be more sensitive to local health needs and, crucially, less hidebound by traditional health service orthodoxies over prescribing, health promotion and other initiatives related to increasing the activity of the local community. The health service has, to date, failed on those subjects. It has not been as focused on public health and health promotion as it should have been. We now have an opportunity to turn that round.
The Government are currently examining the funding formula for primary care trusts. I hope that the Minister will touch on that when she replies. When that formula is drawn up, I hope that the Government will examine

351WH
closely the chief medical officer's report and the stark health inequalities that still exist in this country. As the chief medical officer says, this is not just about resources, although those are extremely important. Areas where death rates are unacceptably high need resources to begin to tackle the health problems in their communities.
We must look at the issues more broadly. Will the Minister urge her colleagues in the Government to recognise the importance of the funding of local authorities in the tackling of health inequalities? As the chief medical officer points out, the whole range of facilities, services and opportunities for people touch on their future health. Those are provided by local authorities, and the funding that they have reflects their ability to provide high-quality opportunities to the local population.
It follows naturally that funding for deprived areas such as mine in the Wigan borough must be increased if improvements are to be made. As the Member of Parliament representing Leigh in that borough, I certainly want to see those improvements.
I would like to emphasise a point that, encouragingly, all hon. Members have touched on today—the need to promote sport in society. I am surprised that all hon. Members touched on that, because it is sometimes seen as a peripheral or add-on subject to public health. It is not; it is absolutely at the heart of public health. It has a crucial role to play in driving up the quality of life. It makes people feel better about themselves, puts them in a more constructive frame of mind and gives them opportunities and life chances that they did not have before. It helps people out of a negative cycle and into a positive frame of mind, which has knock-on effects on health.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield mentioned the National Audit Office report, which contained figures for obesity in children. That alone should be enough to show that we are not doing enough to get young people to take part in sport. I believe that sport holds the answer to many of the entrenched and intractable social problems that the Government face—not just poor health but antisocial behaviour. In my constituency, there are often gangs of teenage children hanging around street corners of an evening, rattling the letter boxes of old people's houses and, worse, letting off fireworks and the like. Places could be provided for them where sports facilities were available, such as a floodlit astroturf pitch. Schemes around the country—I think that they are called midnight leagues—are targeted at areas with high crime rates. They provide attractive environments for young people—they are seen as a bit daring and trendy—and draw people away from less antisocial behaviour.
Sport tackles exclusion and improves regeneration. A town such as Leigh does not always have a great deal going for it, but people are united by a passion for sport—in our case, for rugby league. The hon. Member for Wakefield may agree that supporting rugby league clubs, such as those in Leigh and Wakefield, can sometimes be bad for our health and that of the local population. However, it is a passion that runs deep. Sport can be a galvanising factor in turning
352WH
communities around; it gives them something to be proud of and draws them into healthier and more constructive lifestyles.
I should like to read a letter that I received from a 12year-old constituent called Katie Parkinson. She wrote to me after I had written an article in our local paper. She said:
"Recently your article in the Leigh Reporter caught my eye on `Our town needs more sport to keep kids off the street'. Your headline couldn't of been more true. Recently, all you hear about is people who are in hospital because of drugs and alcohol and now it is becoming regular that children are doing the same so more sport should keep them off the street.
I play Hockey for my school…My teacher has told me that I may be able to play for the county and that would be a dream come true but I only have school to practice and nowhere else. I once went to a team out of town but I had to keep travelling so I couldn't keep it up.
In Leigh there are no Netball teams, Hockey teams and nowhere to practice golf."
That says it all. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North mentioned the drastic rise in obesity. The reason for that is that places to play supervised sports in out-of-school hours do not exist.
The hon. Member for Southend, West said that part of the problem was that sport was regarded as the poor relation in Whitehall—indeed, it is seen as barely worth considering. I speak as someone who has worked as a special adviser in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We have worked extremely hard there for more funding for sport and it irritates me when the media comment on things such as Wembley. I take some credit for the fact that we persuaded the Government to make £750 million available through the lottery for the sport in schools initiative, which targets sports facilities in schools that are open to the community during out-of-school hours. We also managed to double the Treasury budget for sport, which, as the hon. Member for Southend, West said, will go into coaching initiatives. That is crucial. Organisations such as Sport England and the Central Council for Physical Recreation have done excellent work and have shown how we are still failing to fund sport adequately in this country. Trevor Brooking, the chair of Sport England is a great champion of that issue.
As regards solutions, one simple fact remains. The provision of sport and leisure facilities is not a statutory duty of local authorities. In the leisure sector, they are required by statute only to provide a full and comprehensive library service. Given the financial climate in which local authorities work, sport is often the first to go. We have all seen that in our constituencies. When times are hard, the grass is not cut, the person who supervises the facilities disappears, and the graffiti appears. That starts a terrible spiral of decline and leaves facilities that are not good enough to introduce young people to sport. If sports are to be taken seriously, people must learn to play them on a flat, well-cut pitch. There should be working toilets and not a boarded-up cubicle. Those factors may sound trivial, but they are crucial and not enough importance is given to them.
Allowing sports facilities to fall into decline is shortsighted and sad. It sends a poor message and fails to acknowledge the long-term impact on the lives and health of the local population. I ask the Minister to

353WH
consider whether local authorities could be given a statutory duty to provide quality sports facilities to which everyone in their area has access. That would require extra funding, but sport is central to the Government's policy on crime, health, education and so on, and it would be money well spent.
In the run-up to the next spending round, and given Whitehall's traditional sidelining of sport, some will say that sport has had its lot and that it had its money in the last round, but I urge the Minister to accept that we have barely scratched the surface of what sport can do to turn round some of the intractable social problems in our deprived communities and inner cities. If we can keep ramping up the funding and make opportunities available to children, that can make the difference between drink, drugs and poor health, or a better path in life. It is that simple.
Some of the issues that I have raised go beyond the Minister's remit and it is difficult to tempt her on to ground that is not her responsibility, but I am sure that she also has strong views on the subject of public health. I hope that she will refer briefly to some of the issues that are the responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
I believe that the Government are committed to tackling health inequalities and the social problems that still exist in this country. They must acknowledge that there is a huge north-south divide which scars the country. They should make it a high priority to tackle that. Sport is an excellent place to start.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): There are 11 minutes left for each speaker before the winding-up speeches start.
5.12 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who is an admirable Member of Parliament and for a long time has been an admirable Chair of his Committee, which has produced an admirable report. I give him more than three out of four points, but I generally agree with him three out of four times. I share his scepticism about the NHS giving taxpayers' money over the odds to the private sector, which may then use it to poach more staff from the health service, further diminishing the capacity of the NHS. It is right that he shows that scepticism.
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for closer links between local authority social services and the health service. Indeed, he and I want each of our parties to go further for good health and economic reasons. We also agree about the importance of effective public and patient involvement at local level. I differ with him about a proscription on consultants working privately because, if there was a ban, I think that many would leave the NHS. If he thinks that we are short of 2,000 consultants now, I agree with him and the answer is to employ 2,000 more.
I pay tribute, as did the hon. Member for Wakefield, to my former colleague, Dr. Peter Brand. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not always agree with him. He was a fellow Liberal Democrat and a fellow doctor,
354WH
but I did not always agree with him, notoriously so. However, he had huge experience, and was a charming man and, I understand, a great yachter.
The hon. Member for Wakefield started by stressing the shocking differences in life expectancy between socio-economic groups. He said that that was an indictment of health policy over the decades. I agree, but it is an indictment more of acts of omission than of acts of commission. I agree that correcting the difference takes time and is not, as other hon. Members have suggested, amenable to easy targets.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), atypically, stated that it was too early to make a judgment on the Government's strategy. I normally find him quick to condemn the other side and to praise his own. He was wrong to imply that the structural changes that the Government had made constituted the implementation of some of the recommendations in the Committee's report. As the hon. Member for Wakefield said, moving away from coterminosity by abolishing health authorities, and moving towards PCTs is moving away from the thrust of some of the recommendations of the report. Similarly, the abolition of health authorities and directors of public of health runs the risk of fragmenting the public health function, which the report rightly warns against. He was correct to praise Edwina Currie, who rightly sacrificed diplomacy on occasion, for speaking her mind. She was often right, and she continues to be right in many of her pronouncements on public health issues.
I was struck by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). He was right to raise questions about the effectiveness of the Health Development Agency, not because of the lack of effort of people who work in it, but because one might question whether it has been given the right priority and is properly funded and resourced. I should have thought that a measure of its effectiveness would be that it made more headlines than did the Health Education Authority, which it replaced. It has failed to do that, and that is a worry. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that health promotion was often sacrificed to immediate ambitions; I recognise that that is a temptation for any Government, and restraint is required to avoid it.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) gave some of the history of public health and mentioned Dr. Chadwick's motto "Cleanliness is next to godliness". When I grew up in Liverpool, they used to say that cleanliness was next to impossible. I do not think that that was directed solely at me, but perhaps it was. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the advocacy role of directors of public health on behalf of the patient and the public. One of the worries that is borne out in some of the literature is that DPHs have been recruited as adjuncts to Government, which might have trammelled their independence. Public health stretches beyond medical matters, and people who are directors of public health have backgrounds other than medical, so I hope that they are tied more rather than less into being agents of Government policy or organisation.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who is no longer present, raised what many of us as constituency Members of Parliament will recognise as the important issue of eating disorders. He stressed the enormous trauma that they cause whole families, let alone the sufferer, and the difficulties in accessing

355WH
treatment. When a former Minister responsible for public health organised the body image summit, some scorned it and were sceptical and teased the Government. I was shouting, "Good on you," and would like to know from the Minister what has happened to that initiative. My worry is that the Government have been scared off. It is an important issue, and its profile should be raised.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West and others mentioned the importance of an alcohol strategy, given the huge cost in health terms of alcohol abuse. The funding for tackling alcohol problems is so much lower than that for other issues, and so much less than the alcohol industry spends on advertising its products.
The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) raised some important points. We should not laugh at what he has said. He sets a challenge for those of us who believe in evidence-based practice, whether alternative or orthodox, as does the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest said in his telling speech, we must provide the resources to ensure that alternative medicine can pass the evidence test.
The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who is also not in the Chamber, was unfairly harsh on the hon. Member for Bosworth, but he made an important point about ensuring that screening programmes were accessible to those most at risk. Will we ever have proper screening for type II diabetes? That is important for the Asian population. A shortage of radiographers and radiologists may limit the Government's ambitions for screening. The hon. Member for Brent, North made an important point about health visitors, which we have discussed, and was remarkably strong in his call for much more sport in school. It is up to people like us to say what we would drop from a crowded curriculum in order for pupils to do more sport, or how we would fund an extension to the day. One has to be responsible about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) would have shouted, "Hear, hear," to much of what was said on the love of sport.
The hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is making a name for himself by his intelligent contributions and special knowledge of public health. He stressed health inequalities, income inequalities and the role of sport outside schools in communities. Sport is for girls, too. They are capable of antisocial behaviour, and we must think outside the box. That is a terrible expression; I apologise to the hon. Member for Southend, West.
I have a moment to talk about the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, which was introduced in the last Parliament. Many of us regret that a similar measure was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech this year, but the Bill is proceeding through the Lords as a private Member's Bill with the co-operation of the Government, or at least a lack of obstruction from them. My party is grateful for that, as our health spokesman in the Lords is promoting it. As the measures have been considered by the Commons already, will the Minister give the Bill fair wind if it reaches this House in much the same state in which it left it? It would reassure people if she were to say yes.
356WH
We must tackle not only health inequalities but income inequalities. Without redistribution of wealth, we will never tackle health inequalities, or we will give ourselves less of an armoury with which to do so. The Government—it is not a matter for the Minister—must think about the importance of ensuring adequate redistribution of wealth to get rid of income inequalities as part of the strategy to deal with health inequalities.
5.22 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: I start, as did the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), by congratulating the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and his Committee on an excellent report. The investigation was thorough and extremely interesting. I would not have thought of Cuba as a health model for the United Kingdom, and I still would not do so completely. However, there are public health lessons to be learned from the concentration on sport, a theme that has been developed throughout our debate.
I have a little experience of running a youth football team in the inner city—it was down the Old Kent road—with the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). Many of the young people involved benefited hugely. Such teams were not widely available to them, and some of them would no doubt have become involved—they had been—in acts in which they should not have been involved. They valued being part of the team, and it kept them out of trouble. Following that experience, and from reading the findings in the report, I agree that sport is important.
The hon. Member for Wakefield and other hon. Members have made the point that given the organisational changes that are taking place, we should not have what the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon described as fragmentation. The changes that primary care groups and primary trusts are going through present a challenge on public health. There are widely held concerns that the timetable for change is demanding and ambitious, and that it may not be possible to put in place what is needed to meet it. The Royal College of Nursing and the BMA have raised that issue. The reforms have the potential to improve public health in the longer term, and primary care trusts are a good basis on which to proceed. However, if we rush the changes and do not deal clearly with public health, it could fall between two stools, as it has in the past.
The National Primary Care Research and Development Centre and the King's Fund, with support from the Department of Health, are working on the national tracker survey. The survey's research suggests:
"Primary Care Groups and Trusts have begun to make important contributions to modernising the NHS…Progress in commissioning, health improvement and partnership working is slower."
It also suggests that there is a lack of managerial capacity and information in those organisations. The survey's project director says that
"there is a real danger the management of the organisational changes is going to divert attention from the core functions".
He says that the
"process of learning and building on experience"

357WH
is important. He also notes that although many improvements can be made in the next two years, the worry is that general health improvement may take longer. Many others have expressed concern about the changes, and we should take the issue seriously.
One of the survey's conclusions on information technology, which is vital to implementing the changes, was:
"Information to support core functions of PCG/Ts is inadequate and shows little sign of improving."
Although there has been some progress in formulating plans for information management and technology and in increasing connectivity, shortages of skilled staff and resources make it doubtful whether key national targets will be achieved.
The Committee recommended that the national public health work force development plan and the public health skills audit should examine the issue to assess whether primary care has the capacity to take on public health responsibilities. However, the plan is still not available, and the Government's response makes me wonder when it will be. Will the Minister tell us when it will be ready?
The Committee commented on the role of directors of public health. It said that the way in which the role was framed was too vague and that directors had too little influence. Many witnesses voiced support for a joint appointments system for the role of director of public health. Given that we have now lost coterminosity and that the Government response talks of the Office for Public Management looking into matters, what point have we reached as regards the role of directors of public health? What does it mean when we are told that a study will be done at this late stage? Surely we should have an idea of whether there will joint appointments, how they will work and how the problem of coterminosity will be solved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) said that school nurses played an important role in public health. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) picked up on that when he spoke about the role of health visitors. It is vital to bear in mind that there are groups of experienced professionals who have been doing the job and providing a valuable service. We should not allow that body of experience and knowledge, which has been built up over years, to be lost. We should give those jobs the sort of status and importance in the system that they really deserve.
I was very taken with the Penwerris example from Cornwall. Health visitors Hazel Stuteley and Phil Trenoweth set up the project and developed all the ideas, which were not just about medical matters. In that, they differed from the Secretary of State, who was criticised by the Committee for constantly resorting to medical interventions. They came up with the idea that if the houses were insulated, people would be warmer. They came up with ideas to deal with a range of public health issues in their community. That seems to be a fine example of what can be achieved, so let us give health visitors the credit that they deserve.
On the question of children today being lazy, we have a duty to give them the opportunity to exercise. It is not simply a matter of sport. We live in a society where parents—I am a parent and feel this way—do not want
358WH
their children to go to school on their own. However, ideas such as the walking bus, where the children in a community walk to school together, with one of the parents keeping an eye on things and ensuring that the children are safe, should be built on. However, we should ensure that we do not make the mistake that they made in Australia where, when a scheme for cycle safety was started and children were encouraged to cycle to school, the number of accidents on the roads increased. Things must be done sensibly, but such initiatives have much to recommend them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) mentioned alternative therapies. Although he always raises that point, and it is tempting to be amused that he managed to raise it again, it is not a laughing matter. His points are very serious and it is a cause for concern that, since fundholding ended, there has been a reduction in the number of therapists, counsellors and others in what could be loosely described as the alternative field attached to GP surgeries. In the mental health field, about which I know a lot, users value such services tremendously and find them useful. The Opposition's view is that if an alternative therapy can be shown to work, it should be made available.
I was going to speak at much greater length, and I shall not be able to pick up on every contribution to the debate. However, I would like to comment on the Government's record. I do not want to be partisan, but the record shows that the Government have concentrated on issues other than public health, and that is damaging.
5.33 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I will do my best to deal with as many points as I can. I would like to begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) for his Committee's report, which is one of the most powerful reports of its type that I have read for a long time. It is wide-ranging, thoughtful, covers a huge range of issues in depth and gives the Government excellent food for thought. The report was matched by an equally powerful speech from my hon. Friend. His speech was complemented by all the contributions made today.
I am a little disappointed that there are no other women Members in the Chamber. Nevertheless, all the contributions have been excellent and I have learned a great deal about events in Members' constituencies, as well as about wider public health issues. I will want to consider further many of the issues raised.
In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield made a powerful point, illustrated by the recent confidential report on maternal deaths. The figures in that report were shocking, showing that women from the poorest backgrounds were 20 times as likely to die as women from better-off backgrounds. That sums up the whole tone of the debate. These are not just issues for discussion; they are real issues that devastate people's lives.
For far too long, public health has been talked about as an academic practice. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) talked about the study of epidemiology. That is a narrow definition of public

359WH
health compared with what public health should mean to us. The Select Committee report and our discussions today emphasise the need to translate that knowledge and theory into practical action that makes a difference in communities. Perhaps we have reached a point in the development of public health when academic study can be translated into programmes that can be measured, so that we can measure performance and assess outcomes.
In its evidence to the Select Committee, the RCN said:
"It is important to recognise that in some senses, public health is everybody's business".
That is a telling phrase because it implies that public health has an impact across the piece, whether it is on people's lives, business, urban regeneration, crime and disorder, sport and obesity; all the issues that have been mentioned today. Public health is one of the most wide-ranging issues that we have to consider.
Several hon. Members raised the issue of the link between poverty and ill health. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) talked about the link between income inequality and ill health. For many years, making the links was taboo, but I am delighted that we now recognise the connection. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced many measures to eradicate child poverty—the working families tax credit, the national minimum wage, neighbourhood renewal, sure start programmes, massive investment in education, the new deal for communities and the fuel poverty strategy. Those are overarching methods of attacking underlying poverty and massive steps forward in improving people's health. For far too long, the issue of public health has been confined to the medical model followed by clinicians, doctors and nurses and other therapists. Valuable though that is, there are clearly bigger issues such as poverty that have a huge impact on people's health.
I believe that the report was designed to test whether the Government's action matched up to their rhetoric, following the Secretary of State's remark that it was time for public health to come out of the ghetto. Despite some of the issues that have been raised today, we have made significant progress in ensuring that public health is pushed up the agenda. I welcome the Select Committee's efforts in ensuring that it remains in the forefront of the Government's mind.
Many proposals that shift the balance of power and restructure the health service are designed to put patients and the public at the centre of the service. Several hon. Members raised issues relating to the new structure, because the report was completed before the proposals were made to shift the balance of power. People are rightly anxious to see that the public health function is carried out at local, regional, strategic and national level, and perhaps I can offer some reassurance on that point.
First, there will be a strong public health team in every primary care trust. It will engage with local communities and, crucially, with local government, which is responsible for many of the wider determinants of public health, whether that is a decent education, safe streets or warm and safe homes. The links between the primary care trusts and the local strategic partnership
360WH
are key. In addition, we want to widen the primary care trust function to involve public health doctors and to bring in a wider range of professionals with relevant skills. I understand that work is taking place on training and accrediting people who are not from a purely medical background.
That picks up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield that, in the early days of medical officers for health—when environmental health departments had certain responsibilities—not only a medical model was applied. People from a range of backgrounds brought their expertise to bear on making progress. We will also ensure that there is a public health doctor with strategic management experience in every strategic health authority because, in addition to people who can deliver to local communities, it is important to have people who can take a longer-term wider view and consider where we should be going in the next 10, 15 or 20 years with our public health programmes.
We also want to be sure that a regional director of public health and support team are linked with each of the regional government offices. The latter will be increasingly responsible for a wide range of regeneration programmes. They will have the unified regeneration budget, so keying in public health with the regeneration role will give them a better and stronger role.
Capacity will be a problem. We must be creative about the sort of networks that we set up because not every area of public health in every primary care trust will have its own expert. As in other areas, I would like primary care trusts to collaborate with each other and to develop areas of expertise that they can share with their neighbours. They will not then run the risk of skimming through everything and doing a superficial job; instead, they will develop some depth and expertise that can be shared with the community through managed networks.
That is the way forward not only for public health, but for other parts of the health service that have capacity problems and where we need more skilled people. We must involve people in different ways; perhaps technicians will do jobs that others might have done, and nurses will do things that doctors might have done. We can try to break down those skills barriers to achieve a better skills mix, which will enable people to do much more. I hope that the new structure will strengthen the public health function, not fragment and dilute it.
The report mentioned a number of area-based initiatives, including partnerships, health action zones and education action zones; it also mentioned the difficulties caused by initiative overload. The only initiative for health is the action zone initiative. The regional co-ordination unit of the Cabinet Office is reviewing all area-based initiatives to try to simplify them, so that we do not have so many and that they can concentrate on simpler outcomes.
I am delighted to say that HAZs are in the first tranche of that review, but they have contributed to some innovative ways of working. They have sometimes engaged communities when the traditional ways of the health service were not able to. Health action zones have sometimes been able to use innovative ways of drawing in people, particularly those in ethnic minorities, and making sure that they can participate.

361WH
We want to give HAZs space to keep their innovative edge and their "blue-skies" thinking, which we do not see enough of in the health service. We want to integrate them as far as we can into local strategic partnerships, so that they can influence not only local government but businesses, the voluntary sector and community groups. They will allow us to ensure that public health is at the heart of building healthy communities.
Mr. Heald: In her last two minutes, could the Minister say something about what will happen in terms of the huge rise in disease, including tuberculosis and sexually transmitted disease, and hospital infection?
Ms Blears: Obviously, all of those matters are of great concern. We have the sexual health strategy for sexually transmitted diseases, but it is not an easy thing to deal with. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said that tackling health inequality and public health issues would be one of the most challenging things that the Government could do, but we have not shied away from it. We have tackled some of the issues head-on; we know that they are of concern to our communities and that we need to take action.
Hon. Members have raised a wide range of issues. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) expressed concern about school nurses and asked how they could be integrated into the system. We have a project to allow school nurses and health visitors to work together. We want to ensure that school nurses have a key role in the primary care trusts, because they are a valuable resource, as are health visitors. I agree
362WH
with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) that health visitors are on the front line. They can often reach families that others cannot, and they have done a fabulous job in sure start by making certain that, at the beginning of their life, children have the prospects and advantages that other communities sometimes take for granted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) mentioned some of the practical issues that he had come across locally. I am delighted that he wants to ensure that public health is not an academic study, but that it should encompass smoking cessation, alcohol and drugs misuse. I welcome his suggestion that Members of Parliament should be ambassadors for such messages, and we shall ensure that that happens.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest mentioned the advice of the chief medical officer, who told us not to smoke, to drink moderately, to keep active, to use sunscreen, to manage stress and to learn to relax. That is excellent advice for Members of Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) raised two particular issues. One was anorexia, and I assure him that we take it extremely seriously. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon was concerned about the body image summit. We are not shying away from those issues and we shall continue to press them. My hon. Friend also mentioned alcohol misuse. We have pledged to bring a strategy forward by 2000, and we are on target to do that.
It being fifteen minutes to Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Political Developments
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on political developments in Northern Ireland since 1 December. [23080]

  Dr. John Reid
  We believe the time is now right to extend to hon. Members who have not taken their seats at Westminster—that is, at present, four Sinn Fein members from Northern Ireland—access to certain facilities and accompanying allowances here. We believe that, as well as enabling their constituents' interests to be better represented, this would be consistent with the progress made in implementing the Belfast Agreement, including recent steps to establish on a more stable footing the political institutions provided for in the Agreement, in which Sinn Fein participate fully. This is however entirely a matter for the House, and we shall therefore be tabling a motion on the subject for debate next week.

  Police Service
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish a timetable for the implementation of lateral entry, secondments and other north/south co-operation issues between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana. [23250]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have today published a timetable, which has been agreed with the Irish Government, identifying how both Governments intend to implement the Patten recommendations on co-operation between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana, including lateral entry and secondments to the two police services on a reciprocal basis. Copies of the timetable have been placed in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade Unions (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the level of trade union membership among firms in the Buckingham constituency. [22642]

  Alan Johnson
  None. A reliable estimate cannot be made using the data held by central Government.

  Homeworking
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to increase employment opportunities for those who rely on schemes providing home-based work. [21253]
  942W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are no specific plans to increase employment opportunities for those who rely on schemes providing home-based work at present, although such opportunities may be available in companies that are developing work-life balance initiatives for the benefit of their business, employees and customers.

  Adult Education (Financial Impact)
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact on(a) women's and (b) men's wages of years spent outside the labour market for educational reasons. [21778]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Women and Equality Unit published a report on the Gender Pay Gap on 5 December. This included an analysis of available research on the impact of qualifications on women's and men's wages and found that the evidence varies across studies. None the less, although it is difficult to identify the precise size of the impact, acquiring qualifications has a positive impact on wages and labour market participation for both men and women. Estimates of the relative impact also vary by qualification. Research commissioned by the skills taskforce suggests that private returns to A-levels are slightly higher for women, while returns to first degrees are broadly equivalent by gender.

  Near Earth Object Task Force
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's response on 24 February to the recommendations contained in the report of the Near Earth Object Task Force. [23492]

  Ms Hewitt
  An updated response is nearing completion and will be published shortly. Copies will be put with the report and the Government response which were placed in the Libraries of both Houses. A copy of this response and press release will also be found at www.nearearthobjects.co.uk

  Equal Treatment Directives
  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government will consult on its plans for implementing the Equal Treatment Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. [23491]

  Ms Hewitt
  Yes. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the Minister responsible for equality co-ordination, has today published a consultation document about our proposals to take forward implementation of the Employment and Race Directives in Great Britain.

  I have arranged for copies of the document to be placed in the Libraries of the House. We have asked for responses by the end of March 2002. The proposals build on our current arrangements for tackling discrimination. They will involve: introducing new legislation prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, age and sexual orientation in the areas of employment, occupation and training; and making some adjustments to the Race Relations Act 1976 and Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA).

  We intend to have the new provisions on race, religion or belief and sexual orientation in place in 2003; on disability in October 2004 to coincide with the planned

  943W
  implementation of other aspects of the DDA; and on age by the end of 2006, taking full advantage of time allowed in order to assist sensible implementation.

  These proposals provide a practical and sensible way forward which will benefit both business and individuals by promoting best use of people's talents and potential.

  Oil and Gas Infrastructure
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on the preparation of guidance on the use of legal powers to settle disputes over third party access to upstream oil and gas infrastructure. [23490]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have, today, placed in the Library of the House a copy of a consultation document from my Department which seeks industry's views on proposed guidance on how, if asked to intervene, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would use longstanding powers, now in the Petroleum Act 1998 and other legislation, to settle disputes over access to infrastructure.

  Access to infrastructure is a key element in the process of extracting the UK's petroleum resources. The proposed guidance builds on consideration of the results of an earlier consultation. It is intended to reduce industry uncertainty about the operation of the regulatory regime and is one element of the Government's policy aimed at addressing barriers to exploration and development on the UK continental shelf.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further measures she will take to enforce the age restrictions on the sale of fireworks at(a) new year and (b) fireworks night 2002. [22663]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Enforcement of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 is the responsibility of local authority trading standards departments. I have sought feedback from trading standards departments on levels of compliance and enforcement issues following this year's fireworks season.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what recent representations she has had regarding the inappropriate use of fireworks; [18155]

  (2)what action the police and local councils can take to control the inappropriate use of fireworks; [18153]

  (3)what action she plans to control the inappropriate use of fireworks; and if she will make a statement. [18154]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has received representations from the public concerning the impact of noise, the misuse of fireworks in public places and issues of safety.

  Under current legislation it is an offence under section 80 of the Explosives Act 1875 to throw or set off fireworks in any highway, street or thoroughfare or public place. The power to enforce this section of the Act rests with the police.

  All fireworks sold to the public must also comply with the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997. The regulations, among other things, ban certain types of larger and more
  944W
  powerful products from retail sale, set the minimum age for purchasing fireworks at 18 years and require that all fireworks for sale must comply with the British Standard (BS7114). Local authority trading standards officers enforce the regulations.

  In addition the Department runs an annual fireworks safety campaign, working closely with police, fire brigades and local authorities to promote safety messages during the firework season. This year over 25,000 safety toolkits were distributed to schools for use in the classroom to heighten awareness of the dangers of fireworks and to promote considerate behaviour.

  We believe that the current restrictions on the sale of fireworks and rules on their use, backed up by an active safety campaign, provide the right level of control over the sale of fireworks. We have no present plans to introduce further controls but will continue to keep the position under review.

  Tesco v. Levi Strauss Case
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the decision of the European Court of Justice in the Tesco v. Levi Strauss case; and if she will make a statement. [18045]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The judgment by the European Court of Justice in the Tesco v. Levi Strauss case confirmed that the European trade mark directive (89/104/EEC) means that branded goods cannot be imported into the European Economic Area without the trade mark owner's consent.

  Many people will have been disappointed by this judgment. We believe that liberalisation of trade mark law will be good for consumers, good for business, and good for the economy.

  We are working hard in Europe to achieve the necessary consensus for change to the directive. We are looking to the European Commission to help us to work through the issue of parallel trading.

  Office of Fair Trading
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions since May 1997(a) she and (b) her predecessors have overruled the advice of the Director-General of the Office of Fair Trading. [10135]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has overruled the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading regarding mergers of enterprises on eight occasions and on monopoly reports on three occasions since May 1997.

  Vehicle Price Fixing
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the nature of the assistance her Department has provided to the European Commission over allegations of price fixing in the United Kingdom vehicle market. [14829]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department supports the European Commission in its application and enforcement of the EC competition rules.
  945W

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals she has for amending the regulation of accountancy to ensure that accountants(a) report all money laundering which comes to their attention and (b) play no part in (i) opening accounts and (ii) setting up and closing down shell companies to carry it on. [15249]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Home Office has policy responsibility for primary legislation on money laundering offences, while HM Treasury is responsible for regulating the financial services industry, including policy responsibility for secondary legislation such as the 1993 Money Laundering Regulations (which are shortly to be amended).

  The Proceeds of Crime Bill, which is currently before Parliament, will consolidate and strengthen existing anti-money-laundering legislation. It will also provide new power for the investigation of money laundering. It is currently an offence for any person to fail to report knowledge or suspicion of drug or terrorist money laundering which comes to their attention in the course of their trade, business or profession. The Bill replaces that offence with an offence for a person working in a sector covered by the Money Laundering Regulations to fail to make a report to the authorities if he knows, suspects or has reasonable grounds to know or suspect that another person is laundering the proceeds of any criminal activity.

  At present, not all accountants are regulated under the 1993 Money Laundering Regulations (although all are subject to the general obligation to report knowledge or suspicions of drugs or terrorist money laundering arising in the course of one's trade, business or profession). However, under the second European money laundering directive, which is expected to be formally adopted after Christmas, accountants will be brought within the regulated sector. When this directive is implemented in UK law, accounts will be subject to both the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, and the requirements of the Money Laundering Regulations as regards identification of customers, record keeping and reporting of suspect financial transactions.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is responsible for the statutory oversight of the arrangements for the regulation of company auditors and, in that respect, of the adequacy of the procedures of recognised accountancy bodies for investigating and disciplining auditors. This Department also has a wider interest in the regulatory arrangements of the main accountancy bodies for investigating and disciplining their members, including those who may have engaged in or facilitated money laundering, or who may have failed in their duties to report suspicious transactions to the appropriate authorities. Members of these bodies are subject to byelaws and regulations which make them liable to disciplinary action and penalties. Under reforms previously agreed between the bodies and the Government, a new Investigation and Discipline Board, under the aegis of the Accountancy Foundation, will take over responsibility for disciplinary cases which raise significant public interest issues.
  946W

PRIME MINISTER

  NHS Spending
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Prime Minister if his target for Government spending on the NHS is(a) a fixed percentage of gross domestic product and (b) a specific sum of money. [22244]

  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.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Volunteering
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to work with the voluntary sector and to encourage volunteering. [20567]

  Margaret Beckett
  The impact of foot and mouth disease showed the need for a healthy rural voluntary sector, and the creation of the new Department, with an explicit focus on rural affairs for the first time, enables us to enhance the Government's capacity to work with the voluntary sector in rural affairs.

  I am holding a series of meetings with rural voluntary and community bodies to discuss their contribution to the well-being of rural communities and this work is being developed by officials in the new Rural Affairs Directorate.

  Timber
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to ensure that the Government purchases timber and wood products only from legal and sustainable sources. [20569]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have set a policy for central Government Departments and their agencies to actively seek to procure their timber and timber products from sustainable and legal sources and to report their purchases annually.

  Air Quality
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on air quality in the UK. [20571]

  Mr. Meacher
  Air quality in the UK is improving year on year, thanks in large part to the actions we have taken to reduce emissions from road transport and industry. Last year saw the lowest number of days of poor air quality in urban areas since our detailed records began. But we still need to do more if we are to achieve all of the objectives in our Air Quality Strategy.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set up a commission to consider the impact of traffic congestion on air quality. [20581]
  947W
  Mr. Meacher
  We have no plans at present to set up such a commission.

  Ash Moor, Petrockstow
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will withdraw the consent to use the site at Ash Moor, Petrockstow for the disposal of animal carcases. [R] [20572]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government currently have no plans to use the Ash Moor site for the disposal of animal carcases.

  Flooding (West Country)
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on flooding in the West Country in the last year. [20573]

  Mr. Morley
  Following record levels of rainfall, the West Country suffered serious flooding last autumn and winter. The full extent of the flooding was set out in the Environment Agency's Lessons Learned reports. Since then flood defences have been repaired and where necessary strengthened so residents have at least as much protection as they did before the floods, and often are better defended. Longer term improvements in flood defence are in hand in many areas.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it a condition of licensing GM crop trials, that the licensee take out insurance against being held liable for crop contamination; what financial provision she has made against being held liable for crop contamination; and if she will make a statement. [20574]

  Mr. Meacher
  The European Commission is preparing a proposal for a directive on environmental liability, including in respect of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This initiative is expected to cover liability for damage to biodiversity and serious harm to human health, leaving to member states the issue of liability for economic loss. The Commission intend that the contained use, deliberate release and transport of GMOs should fall within a strict liability regime for significant environmental hazards. I am considering whether liability rules are needed for GM crop releases to complement the Commission's wider proposal, but am not in a position to provide any further details at present. The Government have not made any specific provision against liability for GM crop trials.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on genetically modified crop trials. [20579]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Farm Scale Evaluations are a three-year trial programme involving four GM herbicide-tolerant crops. These trials are studying the impact of the herbicide use associated with the GM plants on a range of biodiversity indicators. This can only be done by testing under normal farm conditions. The plants in the trials have passed all regulatory safety standards relating to their release into the environment.
  948W

  BSE
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her oral answer of 15 November 2001,Official Report, column 962, on BSE, when the chairman of SEAC wrote to Professor Ebringer; and what the outcome was. [20575]

  Mr. Morley
  The chairman of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee wrote to Professor Ebringer in September inviting him to attend a future meeting of the committee. The SEAC secretariat has subsequently written to Professor Ebringer inviting him to attend the next SEAC meeting in February 2002.

  Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority. [20576]

  Mr. Meacher
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no recent discussions with the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the progress made with implementation of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [20577]

  Alun Michael
  We are making good progress. Consultation began last month on the first draft maps showing where the new right of access to open country and registered common land might apply. We shall shortly publish the first of a series of consultation papers on the Act's rights of way provisions and we are working closely with English Nature to improve the condition of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. We expect to lay regulations on vehicular access over common land early in the new year.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her strategy for the combined heat and power industry. [20578]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government fully recognise the difficult circumstances facing the UK CHP industry at present, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his pre-Budget report. The Department is developing a draft CHP Strategy in close collaboration with other Government Departments, which we will issue for consultation early in the new year. It will set out the measures needed to achieve the Government's CHP target of at least 10,000 megawatts of Good Quality CHP by 2010.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to increase the contribution of combined heat and power to Britain's energy supplies. [20592]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department is developing a draft CHP Strategy in close collaboration with other Government Departments, which we will issue for consultation early in the new year. It will set out the measures needed to achieve the Government's CHP target
  949W
  of at least 10,000 MW of Good Quality CHP by 2010. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his pre-Budget report, the DTI has consulted on the impact of the first few months of the New Electricity Trading Arrangements on smaller generators and Government are considering the means by which any concerns could be addressed. Subject to legal and other constraints, the Government will also consider the environmental case for providing more favourable treatment for CHP within the CCL, taking account of the role which CHP might play in meeting the UK's climate change targets.

  Meat Imports
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to reduce illegal imports of meat products and improve the Government's inspection activities. [20580]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA officials are co-ordinating a number of initiatives, involving interested Government Departments and local authority enforcement bodies, aimed at ensuring that rules for importing animal products are enforced effectively and efficiently. We have already taken action to improve publicity to travellers about import rules, to improve the collection and analysis of information about illegal imports and to use that information better to target enforcement activity. We are keeping these measures under constant review and we are looking at a wide range of other options for improvements, including, for example, the use of sniffer dogs, X-ray machines, on-the-spot-fines and changes to administrative structures.

  Landfill
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received concerning her policy on landfill. [20582]

  Mr. Meacher
  Government policy on landfill was set out in the Second Consultation Paper on Implementation of the EC Landfill Directive. Consultation has now closed and we received over 100 responses from the waste management industry, waste producers, local government, environmental groups and members of the public. The representations received have informed our drafting of the regulations that will implement the directive and that we hope to lay before Parliament shortly.

  Livestock Industry
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for the regeneration of the British livestock industry following the foot and mouth epidemic. [R] [20583]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA's objectives are to create a livestock production sector which is sustainable, competitive, responsive to consumer demands and founded on high animal health and welfare standards.

  To ensure sustainability we need to have regard to environmental limitations and market limitations. We continue to argue the case for decoupling EC beef and sheep payments from production to enable producers to align their livestock numbers to the carrying capacity of their land and to the likely markets for their produce.
  950W
  Better marketing is needed to shorten the supply chain between producer and consumer. This should enable producers to be both more competitive and to respond to consumer tastes.

  DEFRA is determined to develop a coherent strategy for the identification and tracing of animals to enable diseases to be tackled more effectively and to ensure consumer confidence in animal products. We are also launching the National Scrapie Plan, which is a long-term programme for breeding genetic resistance to scrapie and BSE into the national sheep flock.

  Fridge Recycling
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the recycling of fridges. [20584]

  Mr. Meacher
  Although EC Regulation No. 2037/2000 now requires the recovery of CFCs and HCFCs from foam, this had not been the original intention under the proposal for a regulation published by the European Commission in August 1998. The text prepared by the commission only required the recovery of ozone depleting substances from foam "if practicable". The language in the relevant article was changed during negotiations shortly before the draft regulation was agreed by the Environment Council in February 1999. The UK raised this issue at a number of meetings with the commission and other member states in order to seek clarification. However, it was not until June this year that the commission finally clarified that the regulation requires the CFCs and HCFCs to be removed from foams found in waste refrigerators for destruction.

  From 1 January 2002, the EC Regulation on Ozone Depleting Substances will require 'controlled substances' (including CFCs) in coolants and in insulating foam to be removed before recycling or reclamation of domestic refrigerators units. Waste refrigeration units will need to be stored until suitable domestic processing facilities come on-line. The Department has issued guidance on CFC extraction plant and guidance on the storage of waste refrigeration equipment, prior to CFC extraction. The Department's website http://www.defra.gov.uk. also contains information on the requirements of the regulation.

  We have recently announced an extra £6 million in the local government finance settlement to help local authorities with the extra costs of dealing with fridges to the end of this financial year. We are urgently assessing the impacts of the regulation and will determine what further action will be necessary beyond that.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to ensure that local authorities are able to deal with recycling of refrigerators in accordance with EC Regulation 2037/2000. [20590]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has written to all English local authorities to inform them of the requirements of the regulation. More recently we have written again to issue guidance on the storage of waste refrigeration equipment, prior to CFC extraction, and to provide information for householders disposing of fridges and freezers.
  951W
  We have recently announced an extra £6 million in the local government finance settlement to help local authorities with the extra costs of dealing with fridges to the end of this financial year. We are urgently assessing the impacts of the regulation and will determine what further action will be necessary beyond that.

  Livestock Scheme (Welsh Language Forms)
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason her Department does not provide Welsh medium forms in Wales to be used in connection with the autumn movement of livestock scheme. [20585]

  Mr. Morley
  Application forms for movement licences are available in Welsh from every local authority in Wales. Movement licences in Welsh are available from some local authorities. The Department will make these forms fully available as soon as possible.

  Sugar Beet Industry
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to promote the viability of the British sugar beet industry. [20586]

  Mr. Morley
  Support for the sugar beet industry is regulated under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). A revised sugar regime under the CAP was agreed at the May 2001 Agriculture Council and runs for five years until 1 July 2006, with a review in the early part of 2003. We continue to believe that further substantive reform is needed to take account of trade liberalisation resulting from the "Everything But Arms" agreement and to put the industry on a more sustainable basis for the future.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what impact the aggregates tax will have on the work of her Department. [20587]

  Mr. Meacher
  The main impact of the tax on DEFRA's work is in creating an aggregates levy sustainability fund. We have recently consulted on how the scheme might work and we are now considering responses to the consultation. We expect the fund to:Minimise the demand for primary aggregates;
  Promote environmentally friendly extraction and transport; and
  Reduce the local effects of aggregates extraction

  The range of activities the Fund proposes to support is broad. It includes promoting conservation and increased biodiversity, restoring natural landscapes and local community projects.

  Environmentally Friendly Lorries
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's plans for encouraging the environmentally friendly use of lorries. [20588]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's overarching plans for encouraging the environmentally friendly use of lorries were set out in the Sustainable Distribution Strategy, published in March 1999. The Strategy includes 952W
  a package of measures to promote best environmental practice in the distribution industry. This includes encouraging more efficient freight logistics with the aim of minimising environmental impacts, and improving business efficiency. The Strategy is being supported through various initiatives including the DTLR-sponsored PowerShift and CleanUp programmes which provide grants towards the cost of purchasing vehicles—including lorries—running on cleaner fuels such as gas and fitting them with emission reduction technologies such as particulate traps.

  Livestock Markets
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the future of livestock markets. [20589]

  Mr. Morley
  Livestock markets have an important role to play in the marketing of farm animals between the various stages of production and some are developing a broadened range of services to farmers. I look forward to the recommendations from the Policy Commission on future developments in livestock marketing.

  Over-30-months Scheme
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the losses incurred by farmers through the OTMS due to being unable to move cattle; and if she will make a statement. [20591]

  Mr. Morley
  The Over-30-months Scheme (OTMS) delivers some £240 million per annum in payments to beef and dairy farmers. As a result of foot and mouth disease movement restrictions and suspension of the OTMS farmers will have incurred losses arising from additional costs of keeping cattle, delays in sales receipts and any differences between prices actually received and those which would otherwise have been obtained. It is not possible to quantify these losses.

  Noise Pollution
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for tackling noise pollution in the United Kingdom. [20593]

  Mr. Meacher
  Much has been done to address noise from transport and industry including: reducing the level of noise generated by individual vehicles and aircraft; traffic management schemes; and addressing noise at the planning stage of new noise generation or noise sensitive developments. Such action has considerably reduced the output of noise from individual sources but has often failed to reduce the overall ambient noise because of other factors, such as the growth in the number of vehicles on our roads. A consultation seeking views on the first steps towards an Ambient Noise strategy will be launched later this month. A significant part of this strategic approach will be an exercise to build on the noise mapping already carried out of the major transport and industrial noise sources across England. The first stage of this exercise, for which £13 million has been set aside, will start in the new year.
  953W

  Hunting with Dogs
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what permit conditions will apply when hunting with dogs resumes in foot and mouth disease-free counties. [23532]

  Alun Michael
  On 15 November I announced the Government's intention of relaxing the ban on hunting with dogs imposed in February 2001 to control foot and mouth disease, to allow hunting in FMD free counties from 17 December under a temporary system of disease control permits. Interested parties were invited to comment on the proposed permit conditions by 7 December.

  As a result, a small number of changes and clarifications have been made to the permit conditions published on 15 November. I have placed copies of the final version of the permit conditions in the Library of the House. This material has also been published on the DEFRA FMD website. Permits will be available from DEFRA Animal Health Divisional Offices from 17 December onwards to applicants who can demonstrate compliance with the disease control conditions required.

  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the 2000–01 annual report for the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency. [23346]

  Margaret Beckett
  The 2000–01 annual report and accounts for the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Chemical Weapons Dumps
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are in place to manage deteriorating chemical weapon and munition dumps in coastal waters of the United Kingdom. [21854]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no specific measures in place to manage chemical weapons and munition dumps on the seabed in the coastal waters of the United Kingdom, as the consensus of international scientific opinion is that munitions on the seabed present no significant risk to safety, human health or the marine environment, provided they remain undisturbed.

  I am aware, however, that there are two range danger areas, D306 (formerly RAF Cowden) D307 (RAF Donna Nook), which are near my hon. Friend's constituency. D306 was closed as a range a few years ago, but D307 continues to be used by the RAF for practice bombing runs. Coastal erosion of the range danger area D306 has caused much of the explosive ordnance previously used for practice bombing to re-emerge. A quantity of unexploded iron bombs are lodged in the cliffs at this range, and, periodically, these fall on to the beach area as a result of the three metres of erosion which occurs each year. To ensure that any danger to the public is kept to a minimum, Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) personnel from the Ministry of Defence are carrying out clearance and disposal of this ordnance. It is expected that this will take up to 15 years to complete.
  954W
  On the D307 range, explosive ordnance from World War Two was buried offshore under the sand, which is covered daily by the tides. An EOD team from RAF Coningsby carry out an inspection, either daily or weekly depending on tides and the programme of activities at the range, to determine if any ordnance has emerged through the sand. If any munitions or other hazardous items are discovered during the regular inspections, action is taken to remove or destroy the offending article. This is an important activity, which is intended to minimise any risks to the public from exposed ordnance on the range. A risk assessment was conducted three years ago, which endorsed the acceptability of the procedure for handling exposed munitions.

  IACS Payments
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the delays in making Integrated Control and Administration System (IACS) payments. [21106]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: Several thousand man days of effort on the processing of CAP payments have been lost by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) as a result of industrial action. This action comes on top of the diversion of significant numbers of staff to deal with the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. In addition the need to develop computer software upgrades for the bovines schemes to reflect regulatory changes has meant that the start of advance payments has been delayed. Moreover, because of the need to perform FMD cross-checks in order to establish entitlement to aid progress with processing is slower than normal.

  As a result of these factors advance payments on the livestock schemes are expected to be made within the advertised payment windows but later than would have been the case in a normal year.

  The Arable Area Payments Scheme (AAPS) under which payments are made in a regulatory payment window running from 16 November to 31 January is the scheme mainly affected by industrial action. In a normal year approximately 60–70 per cent. of the aid would be paid in the first two to three weeks of the window. This year the figure will be a little over 50 per cent. The Rural Payments Agency is taking all reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the industrial action to ensure that payments delays are kept to the absolute minimum.

  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    English Language Schools
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which regulations cover schools which specialise in teaching English as a foreign language. [20834]

    John Healey
    There are no specific regulations applying to private English language schools but such schools must comply with general regulations applying to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and, if appropriate, legislation relating to children.
    955W

    Internet Access
    Alistair Burt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of schools in England and Northern Ireland have internet access. [21268]

    John Healey
    The information requested is shown in the table.

    Schools connected to the internet: 2001

    England

    Percentage

    Primary

    96

    Secondary1

    more than 99

    Special

    97

    All schools2

    97

    1 Results from a sample survey indicated that nearly all secondary schools were connected to the internet.

    2 An estimate for all maintained primary, secondary and special schools. Other types of schools excluded.

    These figures are based on a sample survey. Responses were received from 785 primary, 753 secondary and 330 special schools: response rates of 67 per cent., 64 per cent., and 66 per cent. respectively of the chosen sample.

    For information on schools connected to the internet in Northern ireland, I refer the hon. Member to the Northern Ireland Department of Education.

    British Educational Communications and Technology Agency
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the administration costs of the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency were in 2000–01; and what she expects them to be in 2001–02. [21296]

    John Healey
    In 2000–01 the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency's overall income from grant, project and contract funding was £19.8 million. Of this, core grant funding from this Department was £4,725,000 and administration costs were £1.2 million. In 2001–02 administration costs are expected to be of a similar level to the previous year.

    Pupil Exclusions
    Linda Perham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research her Department has commissioned into the underlying causes of school exclusions. [22294]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    My Department is funding a study tracking 200 pupils from point of permanent exclusion from mainstream school in years 9–11 over a two year period. This will report in september 2002. My Department is funding jointly with the Home Office an evaluation examining the Crime Reduction in Secondary Schools Programme and Alternative Education Initiatives. This will report in May 2002.

    I refer my hon. Friend to two recently completed research projects: Outcomes in Secondary Education for Children Excluded from Primary School (DfES Research Report 271) and Reasons for Exclusions from School (DfES Research Report 244). Both can be accessed at http://www.dfee.gov.uk/research/pubs.cfm
    956W

    Information and Communications Technology
    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to increase awareness of information and communications technology in schools and further education colleges. [21811]

    John Healey
    97 per cent. of all schools are now connected to the internet. The National Grid for Learning (NGfL) is the main vehicle for promoting and facilitating the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in schools. The Government's £1.8 billion investment in the NGfL programme has developed the ICT infrastructure, effective links to the internet and access to educationally valuable content for schools.

    The Prime Minister announced on 10 December £50 million to fund 'Curriculum Online'; which is the world's first partnership between the Government, leading public/private broadcasters and innovative software producers to provide ICT based materials for every curriculum subject to transform learning in schools.

    £230 million has been made available by the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) to fund a programme to give serving teachers in the maintained sector the opportunity to receive ICT training.

    The National Learning Network (NLN) is embedding ICT into further education. Investment of £158 million in the NLN is improving the ICT infrastructure, developing staff skills, providing learning materials and guiding effective learning, teaching and management within colleges.

    Trade Unions (Skills Development)
    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps her Department is taking to support the role of unions in developing skills. [21810]

    John Healey
    Trade unions have a key role to play in promoting the development of learning and skills in the workplace. To help them do this our Department has provided financial support through the Union Learning Fund since 1998. The ULF budget is £7 million this year. This source of funding is helping trade unions use their influence with employers, employees and others to encourage greater take up of learning at work and boost their capacity as learning organisations. It has so far benefited over 25,000 people in the workplace through a wide variety of projects ranging from tackling basic skill needs to advanced professional development. It has also led to the development of a new breed of activist, the union learning representative, and helped to establish a network of over 3,000 learning representatives nationwide.

    Union learning representatives are ideally placed to help and encourage workers to improve their skills, particularly among low skilled workers and those with literacy and numeracy problems. That is why we have included a clause in the new Employment Bill that will give statutory backing to union learning representatives. This will reinforce the invaluable role that union learning representatives are currently playing in the workplace to promote work force development and open up new training opportunities for their colleagues.
    957W

    Regulations
    Mr. Prisk
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many regulations her Department has proposed to Parliament since June; what regulatory impact assessments have been made for those regulations her Department has implemented in 2001; and what plans her Department has to reduce the number of regulations affecting small businesses. [21974]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    The Department has laid 89 regulations before Parliament since June; during the same period, no regulatory impact assessments have been made for those regulations, but a total of four regulatory impact assessments have been made for 2001 so far, and these were for the following regulations:

    The Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 2001

    The Industrial training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 2001

    The Day Care and Childminding (National Standards) (England) Regulations 2001

    The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001.

    Following the machinery of Government changes in June, policies for which the Department is responsible only impact directly on the private sector (including small businesses) within a limited number of discrete areas. Consequently, the Department's Regulatory Reform Action Plan, which will form part of the forthcoming Government-wide Plan, focuses mainly on measures to remove and simplify existing burdens on front-line delivery services within the public sector.

    OECD Survey
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in which years the pupils researched for the recent OECD survey of educational achievement(a) began their education, (b) reached Key Stage 1 and (c) reached Key Stage 2. [22042]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    The pupils in England who participated in the OECD survey were born during 1984 and, depending on the month in which they were born,(a) would have begun statutory education in 1988 or 1989, (b) reached the end of Key Stage 1 in 1990 or 1991 and (c) reached the end of Key Stage 2 in 1995 or 1996.

    Post-16 Learning
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made (1) of the need for an early introduction of a level playing field for the funding of work-based learning to help meet Level 2 targets; [21768]

    (2) of the Learning and Skills Council's proposed timetable for an integrated funding system for post-16 learning. [21784]

    John Healey
    We consulted extensively about funding arrangements for post-16 education and training. Planning and implementing these new systems to meet the Government's learning targets is the responsibility of the Learning and Skills Council which has published its corporate plan for the period to 2004 and its plans for developing post-16 funding systems for 2003–04 onwards. The Council plans to introduce a common funding approach for 2003–04 in line with our consultations in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Progress to date 958W
    has been good with development of a consistent national funding system this year for Work Based Learning. Progress in 2002–03 will continue with the development of new funding arrangements for further education and the council's assumption of responsibility for school sixth form funding. We are committed to work with the council further to develop funding systems, to ensure that funding follows the learner and facilitating the development of a rational and coherent approach to funding different forms of post-16 provision.

    Family Learning
    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she is taking to promote family learning. [21809]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    Family learning, which is one strand of our strategy for involving parents in children's education, can strengthen families, help children to achieve and give adults the confidence to go on learning. That is why we have commended it to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and, in 2002–03, are making £7.5 million available to local education authorities (LEAs), through the Adult Learning Plans they will agree with local LSCs. One specific type of provision—family literacy and numeracy—is part of 'Skills for Life', our national strategy for adult literacy, language and numeracy. In 2001–02, £17 million will be spent to help parents and children improve their literacy and numeracy skills together.

    Family learning is part of a wider drive to support families through our education and skills policies. We are providing a range of materials enabling parents to help their children learn, including "Learning Journey" guides to the curriculum, our free "Parents + Schools" magazine and our "Parent Centre" website. We are encouraging schools to offer a range of family and community services, which might include learning opportunities and child care. Study support initiatives can offer parents the change to get involved in school life. Our Sure Start programme works with parents and young children to combat disadvantage; and the Children's Fund is being used to develop family support services, including family learning, in a number of deprived areas.

    Individual Learning Accounts
    Alistair Burt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she has been informed of the conclusions of the police investigations in Durham into alleged fraud in the operation of the Individual Learning Account Scheme; and if she will make a statement. [22157]

    John Healey
    [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The Department has been in discussion with Durham Constabulary's Fraud Squad. The investigations into alleged fraud in the operation of the Individual Learning Accounts programme that Durham Constabulary were conducting are now being taken forward by Cheshire Constabulary's Computer Crime Unit.

    Alistair Burt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects to come forward with a new scheme to replace the Individual Learning Account Scheme; and if she will make a statement. [22155]
    959W
    John Healey
    [holding answer 10 December 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 22 November 2001, Official Report, column 449W.

    Alistair Burt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) criminal charges and (b) arrests have been made in relation to allegations of fraud in the operation of the Individual Learning Account Scheme; at what (i) times and (ii) locations; and if she will make a statement. [22162]

    John Healey
    [holding answer 10 December 2001]: One person has been charged out of the 39 arrested in relation to allegations of fraud in connection with the operation of the Individual Learning Account programme.

    Details of the arrests are a matter for the police.

    Alistair Burt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of students who would have taken advantage of the individual learning account scheme in 2002 but who will not now owing to its closure. [22154]

    John Healey
    [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The take-up of learning has been affected by changes in the programme's rules and, we believe, by mis-selling and potential fraud. Therefore it is not possible to make reliable estimates of future take-up.

    Alistair Burt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many local investigations in relation to alleged fraud in the operation of the individual learning account schemes are proceeding, and where; how many such investigations have been concluded, and where and when; and if she will make a statement on the outcomes of such investigations. [22156]

    John Healey
    [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The Department has referred a total of 27 cases involving alleged fraud in the operation of the Individual Learning Accounts programme to six different police forces: the city of London, Dorset, Leicester, the Metropolitan police force, the National Crime Squad and West Midlands. The Department's Special Investigations Unit is continuing to work with the police on these 27 cases. These cases arise from investigations that had started before 23 November 2001. None of the 27 cases have been concluded. To avoid the risk of compromising police investigations the Department is unable to give any further details at this stage.

    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how she will inform learning providers of her decision to shut down the ILA programme early. [19550]

    John Healey
    We issued a press statement on 23 November and provided notification of the shut-down on both the Department and Capita websites, which we updated as new information became available. On 29 and 30 November I sent a letter and e-mail to ILA registered learning providers about the shut-down of the ILA programme on 23 November. We have also been able to resume operation, on a limited basis, of the provider helpline from 29 November.

    New Schools
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answers of 960W
    27 November 2001, Official Report, column 773W, and 4 December 2001, Official Report, column 257W, on schools, for what reason her Department (a) holds information on the number of schools which have been allocated money for repairs and (b) does not hold information on the number of new schools which have been built. [22363]

    John Healey
    [holding answer 11 December 2001]: We hold information on the numbers of schools benefiting from the new deal for schools programme funded from the windfall tax, since it was a specific programme for repairs where funding was allocated in response to bids. It was aimed at addressing the worst of the condition backlog in schools in 1997. It has now been replaced by programmes that are allocated to local education authorities and schools by needs-related formulae, so that decisions on which repairs to undertake are made locally. One such formulaic programme is new deal for schools devolved formula capital grant, which is made available principally to fund capital repairs to school buildings. Since this is allocated to all schools, we can be assured that, for the first time, every school has a budget to support high priority repair work.

    It is for local education authorities to determine the need for additional schools places in the maintained sector and, where necessary, build new schools. The Department maintains a record of all currently open schools. For the Department, in addition, to collect and hold detailed information on capital investment at individual school level would be overly bureaucratic for the Department, local authorities and for schools.

    Basic Credit Approvals (Hampshire)
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what basic credit approvals her Department granted between 1997 and 2001 for Hampshire. [22215]

    John Healey
    [holding answer 11 December 2001]: The figures show basic credit approvals for Hampshire local education authority from 1997–98 to 2001–02.

    £ million

    1997–98

    10.1

    1998–99

    8.9

    1999–2000

    11.2

    2000–01

    10.8

    2001–02

    10.6

    Total

    51.6

    Means Testing
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the educational purposes for which a financial means test is required. [22795]

    Margaret Hodge
    We apply a variety of means tests when providing funding for students in order to target funds sensibly while increasing participation and achievement in education. Examples where means tests are used include higher education loans and grants, educational maintenance allowances, and financial support for students in further education.
    961W

    Special Educational Needs
    Mr. George Osborne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils there are with SEN statements at each of the secondary schools in Cheshire. [18442]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    The information requested is shown in the following table.

    Maintained secondary schools: Pupils with a statement of special educational needs (SEN)—Cheshire local education authority

    School name

    Number of pupils with statements

    Kingsway High School

    28

    Blacon High School

    37

    Queen's Park High School

    45

    Neston High School

    69

    Frodsham School (a Science and Technology College)

    18

    Tytherington High School

    20

    Ryles Park High School

    91

    Alsager School

    5

    Sandbach High School and Sixth Form College

    9

    Rudheath High School

    78

    Middlewich High School

    19

    Woodford Lodge High School

    41

    The Verdin High School

    23

    Coppenhall High School

    76

    Weaverham High School

    17

    The County High School Leftwich

    16

    Tarporley Community High School

    13

    The Ruskin School

    7

    Victoria Community Technology School

    28

    Malbank School and Sixth Form Centre

    9

    Shavington High School

    27

    Christleton High School

    13

    Upton-by-Chester High School

    13

    Stanney High School

    87

    Bishop Heber High School

    39

    Sutton High School

    24

    Knutsford High School

    59

    Holmes Chapel Comprehensive School

    13

    The Whitby High School

    21

    Poynton High School

    26

    Brine Leas High School

    16

    Helsby High School

    11

    Hartford High School

    23

    Kings Grove School

    8

    Wilmslow High School

    24

    Congleton High School

    7

    Eaton Bank School

    11

    The Catholic High School, Chester

    31

    St. Nicholas Catholic High School

    16

    Ellesmere Port Catholic High School

    11

    St. Thomas More Catholic High School

    3

    The Bishop's Blue Coat Church of England High School

    22

    All Hallows Catholic High School

    16

    Fallibroome High School

    19

    Henbury High School

    26

    Source:

    DfES 2001 Secondary School Performance Tables. Website address: www.dfes.gov.uk/performancetables

    Vice-Chancellors
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will review the process by which universities appoint their vice-chancellors and make a statement on best practice. [19457]

    Margaret Hodge
    Vice-chancellors are appointed by the governing body of their individual university and my right hon. Friend has no plans to alter current arrangements. We do, however, keep such matters under review and support the efforts of Universities UK, the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP) and the Higher 962W
    Education Funding Council for England to enhance strategic leadership and management in higher education institutions and look to them to disseminate best practice.

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Democratic Republic of the Congo
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid Britain is providing to the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and what assessment she has made of the obstacles to delivering aid to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with particular reference to British support for Ugandan and Ethiopian forces. [22311]

    Clare Short
    The UK gave over £3.3 in humanitarian assistance to the DRC last financial year. We expect this figure to be more than doubled in the current year. In addition, the UK has contributed more than £4.3 million in 2001 through the EU. There have been few recent ceasefire violations and humanitarian access has improved considerably, though difficulties remain in certain areas of the country. The UK provides no military support for either the Ugandan or Ethiopian forces and Ethiopia has no forces in the DRC. Assistance is being provided on security sector reform in Uganda.

    British Geological Survey Report (Bangladesh)
    Ross Cranston
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what were the(a) terms of reference, (b) scope and (c) conclusions of the British geological survey technical report WD/92/43R prepared for the ODA and dated 1992, the short-term BGS pilot project to assess the hydrochemical character of the main aquifer units of central and north-eastern Bangladesh and the possible toxicity of groundwater to fish and humans; and if she will make a statement. [21430]

    Clare Short
    The report referred to in this question is the subject of a potential legal case on behalf of sufferers from arsenicosis in Bangladesh by a UK legal firm against British Geological Survey.

    My Department has responded in writing to requests for relevant information from the parties to this case in accordance with legal advice.

    While legal action is pending, I regret I am unable to provide a statement for fear of prejudicing the outcome of the legal action as according to section 4 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

    Afghanistan
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been the daily average of food aid being transported into Afghanistan in each of the last six weeks; and what is her estimate of the rate of transport needed to ensure sufficient food stocks for the winter. [21685]

    Clare Short
    The table shows the daily average of food aid that has been transported into Afghanistan by week for the past six weeks. Graphs recording daily and weekly delivery of food into Afghanistan since 19 September are available in the Library.
    963W

    metric tones

    Week ending

    Daily average over the week

    31 October

    1,279

    7 November

    2,384

    14 November

    1,962

    21 November

    1,246

    28 November

    2,287

    6 December

    2,985

    The World Food programme aims to deliver 100,000 tonnes of food aid in the month of December to meet on-going needs and build up necessary winter stockpiles. It is prioritising deliveries to areas where access may become more difficult over the winter.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many tonnes of humanitarian aid have been deployed in Afghanistan since 11 September; what impact the military advances in Afghanistan have had on humanitarian missions; if the military campaign has opened up supply routes into Afghanistan; what steps she is taking to ensure that the public is informed of humanitarian advances in Afghanistan; and if she will make a statement. [22355]

    Clare Short
    Over 115,000 metric tonnes of food aid were dispatched to Afghanistan from 11 September to 9 December (the latest date for which information is currently available from the World Food Programme (WFP), the lead UN agency for food aid).

    Initial hopes of improved humanitarian access following the change in the political balance have been tempered by concerns over security. Although much of the internal delivery and distribution system is holding up, continued uncertainty over security in the north, around Mazar-e-Sharif, and the south-eastern province of Kandahar means that agencies are unable to reach many of the most vulnerable people.

    Improved security is key to enhancing the ability of humanitarian agencies to deliver assistance to those in need. We, and the rest of the international community, will continue to urge the authorities in Afghanistan to assist with the relief effort, and to help stabilise the environment in which the humanitarian community are trying to operate.

    Bilateral Debts
    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the value of all bilateral debts owed to the UK by developing countries; and if she will make a statement. [17949]

    Clare Short
    The total figure for ECGD-covered debt owed by developing countries is £8.0 billion. Of this, £1.9 billion is owed by countries eligible for relief under the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative.

    Bilateral aid debts are limited to those countries which have not qualified for relief under the Commonwealth Debt Initiative. Excluding debts, which are being written off as they fall due, the outstanding balances at the end of March 2001 were £170 million.
    964W

  DEFENCE

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the need for additional warm weather clothing and footwear of soldiers on standby for deployment in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [18224]

    Mr. Ingram
    [holding answer 26 November 2001]: We continue carefully to monitor the weather in Afghanistan and will make appropriate judgments on the equipment required by any UK service personnel deploying to the region. Until a decision to deploy troops is taken, and the precise timelines have been agreed, we cannot judge in detail what winter clothing will be required.

    However, we will as always do everything possible to ensure the safety and welfare of our personnel while deployed on operations, and plans are already in place to ensure that in the event of a further deployment to the region over the winter period, they will be properly equipped for the conditions they are likely to face.

    Mr. Galloway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British forces participated in the military action at Qala-I-Jhangi in Afghanistan on 25 to 27 November; and if he will make a statement. [20026]

    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what advice his Department has given to Northern Alliance military personnel regarding adherence to the Geneva Convention; [20242]

    (2) how many prisoners at Qala-I-Jhangi attempted to surrender during the prison revolt; [20240]

    (3) what advice was given by British military personnel to Northern Alliance military personnel during the prison revolt at Qala-I-Jhangi; [20236]

    (4) how many British military personnel were involved in the prison revolt in Qala-I-Jhangi; what regiments they belonged to; and what role they played. [20237]

    Mr. Hoon
    The Northern Alliance have been informed that we expect them to respect the rights of prisoners in accordance with applicable international standards. I understand that a number of Taliban fighters at Qala-I-Jhangi are reported to have surrendered on Saturday 1 December. Prior to this, I am not aware that any of the Taliban fighters who took up arms after their purported surrender to the Northern Alliance sought to give themselves up.

    British troops are operating in Afghanistan, and their tasks include liaison with the Northern Alliance. They are also supporting US troops in these activities. After Taliban fighters held at Qala-I-Jhangi fort overpowered their captors and seized the armoury, British troops went to the aid of their US colleagues and attempted to recover, under heavy fire, two US personnel apparently captured by the Taliban fighters.

    I am withholding further details under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
    965W

    Absence
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in each of the last four years. [21298]

    Dr. Moonie
    The Ministry of Defence sick absence rates for civilian non-industrial staff in the last four years for which data are available, measured in working days absence per staff year, are as follows:

    Year

    Days

    1996

    7.9

    1997

    7.9

    1998

    8.0

    1999

    8.8

    The MOD is committed to improving the health of its staff and managing sick absence more effectively. A programme of measures is being implemented to help meet the target in MOD's Service Delivery Agreement to reduce sickness absence from the 1998 level of 8 days per staff year to 6.6 days by the end of 2003.

    Military Testing Programmes
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to agree(a) common military testing programmes and (b) common use of testing sites with other European nations. [20904]

    Dr. Moonie
    [holding answer 5 December 2001]: The UK is a signatory to the four nations Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (with the United States, France and German) relating to the Mutual Acceptance of Test and Evaluation for the Reciprocal Procurement of Defence Equipment under which we jointly agree testing standards known as ITOPs (International Test Operating Procedures). These permit us to test defence equipment to a fixed standard. The results of testing equipment using these standards are accepted by the signatories to the MOU thus saving the costs of multiple tests. A number of ITOPs have been used as the basis for NATO standards.

    The UK is one of the leading members of the Western European Armaments Group Sub Group on Test Facilities (SGTF). To assist the common use of testing sites, this group has developed a detailed database describing all the Government-owned defence test and evaluation facilities covering 15 European nations. Further additions to this database are expected in the coming year from new member nations. In addition, SGTF has developed an umbrella MOU to facilitate, on a payment basis, the use of other nations' facilities.

    Separately, the group is tasked by Defence Ministers, through the national armaments directors of the nations, to produce a European strategy for meeting future test requirements. This strategy may also include the possibilities for the rationalisation of test facilities.

    Skynet 5
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will choose the contractor who will deliver the Skynet 5 project; and when he expects it to be operational. [21932]
    966W
    Dr. Moonie
    We currently plan to announce the preferred bidder for the Skynet 5 in the early part of 2002. Initial services are expected to commence in 2005 with full capability being delivered some three years later.

    Royal Marines Headquarters
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to move the Commandant General's headquarters for the Royal Marines from HMS Excellence on Whale Island; what the time scale for this move is; how much the move will cost; and if he will make a statement. [22197]

    Mr. Ingram
    The functions of the Commandant General Royal Marines (CGRM), currently based on Whale Island, will be absorbed into the new, fully integrated fleet headquarters which will be formed in the Portsmouth area in April 2002. £27 million has been allocated to the overall fleet reorganisation programme of which the CGRM restructuring element is a part. The fleet headquarters reorganisation is expected to realise cost savings of approximately £160 million over 25 years. It is planned to occupy purpose-built accommodation on Whale Island from the end of 2003.

    RAF Menwith Hill
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 114W, on RAF Menwith Hill, when the additional confidential arrangements were signed; how many there are; who the parties to these arrangements are; who has been informed of them; and when Parliament was first informed about the existence of these arrangements. [22148]

    Mr. Ingram
    The confidential arrangements relating to the presence of US forces in the UK are of long-standing, dating from 1950. The arrangements were concluded as part of normal bilateral business with the US Government, which is not routinely reported to Parliament.

    Aircraft Carriers
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to speed up the United Kingdom's future aircraft carrier programme; and if he will make a statement. [22442]

    Dr. Moonie
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 1 November 2001,Official Report, column 763W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle).

    MOD Housing, Portsmouth
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sites around Portsmouth have applied for outline planning consent for MoD housing; which sites are being considered for the PFI building contract for 160 houses; what the cost will be of building these houses; and if he will make a statement. [22358]

    Dr. Moonie
    The Ministry of Defence is short of accommodation for officers and certain other ranks in the Portsmouth area. The Defence Housing Executive is considering a PFI solution to this problem.
    967W
    In preparation for this new housing a number of potential sites are being considered in order to select the most suitable location. Consultations are currently under way with the appropriate local planning authorities.

    The following sites are being considered.

    Site

    Position

    HMS Daedalus

    Consultation in progress

    Eastney sports ground

    Consultation in progress

    HMS Sultan

    Consultation in progress

    RN Hospital Haslar

    Consultation in progress

    HMS Excellent (Whale Island)

    Consultation in progress

    Consideration of the Stamshaw (Matapan Road) and HMS Dryad sites have been withdrawn after consultation.

    Bids have not been sought so the costs are not yet known.

    Chemical and Munition Dumps
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) locations and (b) inventories of chemical and munition dumps in the coastal waters of the United Kingdom. [21855]

    Dr. Moonie
    The list of dumpsites of chemical and other munitions located in the coastal waters of the United Kingdom has been placed in the Library of the House. Primarily, the list contains information compiled by the Hydrographic Office from that published in Admiralty Charts for known dumpsites in UK waters.

    In addition, the list contains the locations of the deepwater sites in the Atlantic used for the disposal of chemical weapons after World War Two and details of some, although not all, of the service range danger areas in the coastal water of the United Kingdom. The D307 range danger area, which is near to my hon. Friend's constituency, is not shown as a designed sea dumpsite on the list of dumpsites, as explosive ordnance was buried on the site rather than being dumped at sea.

    Detailed information of the inventories of chemical weapons and other munitions disposed of to those dumpsites is no longer available, as may records were destroyed after the disposal as a matter of routine custom and practice. As a signatory to the Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) Convention, the United Kingdom ceased all dumping of munitions at sea in 1992 and continues to honour that commitment.

    Locally Engaged Staff
    Mr. Love
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 July 2001,Official Report, column 145W, on locally engaged staff, what reference is made in setting pay levels of locally engaged civilian staff to the local poverty datum line; whether the pay levels can fall below local poverty datum lines; and if he will make a statement. [22775]

    Dr. Moonie
    This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The pay and terms of service of locally engaged staff are 968W
    determined by processes which involve surveys of local employers. The employers used in such surveys are reputable and are chosen as representative of responsible local employment practice. Such employers include, for example, the Brunei Government for pay surveys in Brunei and the US embassy for pay surveys in Nepal. In Germany, where the largest proportion of locally engaged civilians are employed, pay and terms of service are negotiated centrally by the Germany Federal Ministry of Finance and the national Trade Unions in accordance with the Collective Tariff Agreement applicable to the NATO Sending States. Terms and conditions of service also reflect the requirements of local employment law.

    There is no reason to believe, therefore, that locally engaged civilians employed by the Ministry of Defence are disadvantaged in any way.

    Warships
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Review of Warship Maintenance and Support; what discussions are being held on privatisation; and what assessment has been made of potential job losses. [22076]

    Mr. Ingram
    [holding answer 12 December 2001]: The Warship Support Modernisation initiative is looking at ways to modernise support arrangements across all UK Naval Bases and Dockyards, and, by reducing national spare capacity, to achieve savings for the defence budget. We have received proposals from the Dockyard Companies for the provision of certain Naval Base outputs in partnering arrangements with the Naval Base Commanders. These are now being assessed alongside alternative proposals received from our joint Trade Unions. All options are being evaluated fully and without prejudice. Decisions on the way ahead are expected early next year.

    Privatisation is not being considered—if partnering with private companies is decided on as the way ahead, the Naval Bases would continue to be run by the Naval Base Commander, with the commercial partner helping to provide part of the service.

    Assessments are being undertaken of the potential, should partnering go ahead, for a number of civil staff employed at the Naval Bases to be transferred to the companies. It is too early to say what impact each of the options would have on employment at the Naval Bases.

    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names and locations of the shipyards that provide maintenance and support to RN warships and auxiliaries; and how many people are employed at them. [22082]

    Mr. Ingram
    [holding answer 12 December 2001]: Currently, maintenance and support of the Royal Navy Fleet is principally provided by the three Naval Bases and by the privately owned dockyard companies at Rosyth and Devonport and the commercial managers of the Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation at Portsmouth. The number of people employed at the Naval Bases and by the commercial companies (derived from our negotiations on overhead rates) are as follows.
    969W

    Location

    Numbers of civilian employees

    Babcock BES Rosyth

    2,360

    Devonport Management Ltd.

    4,000

    Fleet Support Ltd. Portsmouth

    1,070

    Naval Base Clyde

    2,840

    Naval Base Devonport

    1,450

    Naval Base Portsmouth

    1,200

    Work on minor warships and auxiliaries and also on Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels is generally completed. In addition to Babcock BES, DML and FSL, a varying number of commercial shipyards tender for such work, including Forth Esturary Engineering (Leith), Garvel Clyde Ltd. (Greenock), Buckie Shipyard (Buchan), Timbacraft Ltd. (Faslane), Swansea Drydock (South Wales), Milford Haven Shiprepairers (South Wales), Specialist Heavy Engineers Ltd. (Cardiff), Holyhead Marine (Anglesey), John Kearney (Belfast), A & P Holdings (Wallsend and Falmouth), Richards Drydock (Great Yarmouth), Small & Co. (Lowestoft), Camper and Nicholson (Gosport), Hythe Marine Services (Southampton), Manor Marine Ltd. (Portland), Mashford Bros. Ltd. (Plymouth), Penzance Drydock (Penzance) and Appledore Shipbuilders (North Devon). Details of the employment levels within these companies are not held.

    Queen's Jubilee
    Mr. Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers, sailors and airmen participated in the London celebrations of the Silver Jubilee in 1977. [22670]

    Mr. Ingram
    From the records accessible within the timescale available, it has been determined that approximately 3,050 soldiers, sailors and airmen participated in the London celebrations of the Silver Jubilee in 1977 on street lining duties, stair lining at St. Paul's Cathedral and two Guards of Honour. In addition, about 340 armed forces personnel were in the procession and there were 10 military bands which consisted of about 450 people.

    Mr. Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that the numbers of armed service personnel participating in the London celebrations of the Golden Jubilee match those for celebrations relating to the Silver Jubilee in 1977. [22672]

    Mr. Ingram
    The armed forces personnel participating in the London celebrations of the Golden Jubilee will be in sufficient numbers to meet the requirements for the Golden Jubilee celebrations in accordance with the wishes of Her Majesty the Queen. The size and scope of any previous Jubilee celebrations have no bearing on the Golden Jubilee.

    Mr. Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military bands participated in the Silver Jubilee celebrations in 1977; and how many will be available and eligible to participate in the London celebrations of the Golden Jubilee. [22671]

    Mr. Ingram
    Ten military bands participated in the London celebrations for the Silver Jubilee. Detailed planning for the Golden Jubilee is still on-going. However, I can confirm that a number of military bands will participate in the celebrations.
    970W
    Mr. Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 536W, how many soldiers, sailors and airmen will be available to participate in the London celebrations of the Golden Jubilee. [22673]

    Mr. Ingram
    I have nothing further to add at this stage.

    Battle of Britain Memorial Flight
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the annual running cost of the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight is; and if he will make a statement. [22269]

    Mr. Ingram
    The cost of running the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight in financial year 2000–01 was approximately £1.6 million. The flight performs a valuable role in promoting a positive image of the RAF and in reminding current generations of the sacrifices and achievements of those who fought in the Second World War.

    Military Equipment
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on reducing the number of (1) fixed wing fighter and ground attack aircraft in operational use by the Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement; [22388]

    (2) tanks and armoured fighting vehicles in service with the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [22318]

    Mr. Ingram
    We keep the numbers and types of platforms in use with all three Services under regular review, to ensure that we have the correct mix of capabilities for the range of tasks we are likely to be called upon to undertake.

    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) tanks, (b) armoured personnel carriers and (c) armoured fighting vehicles have been owned by the Army in each year from 1985 to 2000; and if he will make a statement. [22271]

    Mr. Ingram
    Army Equipment Holdings are published within the scope of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty. Since 1997 these have been set out in an annex to the annual Ministry of Defence Performance Report. For the period 1991 to 1996 this information was published in the Statement of the Defence Estimates (SDE) for each year. Prior to 1991, this information was provided in the SDE but in a different format, based on the force structures at that time. These documents are held in the Libraries of the House.

    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the(a)number and (b) purpose of the Challenger 2 main battle tanks based in Germany. [22273]

    Mr. Ingram
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 5 December 2001,Official Report, columns 356–57W. Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks provide the backbone of the armoured capability of the Army. Their purpose is the destruction of enemy armour in the contact battle, but they also have a wider utility across the spectrum of conflict, as has been demonstrated in the Balkans.
    971W

    Submarines
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the annual running cost of the Royal Navy's non-Trident submarines; and if he will make a statement. [22270]

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

    Depleted Uranium
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) UK military personnel and (b) UK defence industry employees have been (i) confirmed as suffering from and (ii) suspected of suffering from depleted uranium poisoning, in each year from 1980 to 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [22317]

    Dr. Moonie
    Although a number of people may suspect that they are suffering from ill health as a result of exposure to depleted uranium, including personnel in the Gulf and Balkans campaign, I am unaware of any individual who has been confirmed as suffering from ill health arising from exposure to DU over the period 1980 to 2001–02.

    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the health risks associated with material containing depleted uranium in the last 10 years; if he will publish the results; and if he will make a statement. [22315]

    Dr. Moonie
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 25 January 2001,Official Report, column 653W, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), in which the Ministry of Defence published a paper that explained the MOD's position on the risks posed by depleted uranium (DU). This paper included reference to the MOD's earlier paper published on 19 March 1999, entitled "Testing for the Presence of Depleted Uranium in UK Veterans of the Gulf Conflict the Current Position". Copies of both papers are available in the Library of the House and on the MOD's website at www.gulfwar.mod.uk.

    I also refer the hon. Member to my letter of 24 March (reference: D/US of S/LM 0291L/01/1) to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), which includes the review paper "Depleted Uranium—Safety Guidance to UK Armed Forces and MOD Civilians"; and my letter of 17 April (reference: D/US of S/LM PQ 0346L/01/M), to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), which discusses and lists risk assessments associated with DU. I also refer the hon. Member to my letter of 7 June 2001 (reference: D/US of S/LM PQ 0679L/01/Y) to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith), which lists reports on depleted uranium commissioned by the MOD from DERA and contains some additional relevant material. All three letters are available in the Library of the House.

    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations his Department has made in the last 10 years into whether(a) UK military personnel and
    972W
    (b) employees within the defence industries of the United Kingdom, have suffered from (i) depleted uranium poisoning and (ii) other medical conditions caused by exposure to depleted uranium; and if he will make a statement. [22316]

    Dr. Moonie
    The Ministry of Defence is funding a programme designed to establish whether a scientifically rigorous test can be developed to determine historical exposures to depleted uranium (DU). Given such a test is developed, epidemiological studies will be undertaken to establish whether there is any correlation between ill-health and exposure to DU. As part of the MOD's Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme, which has so far seen over 3,000 service personnel and a small number of defence industry employees who served in the Gulf, a very small number of tests for total uranium have been carried out in cases where physicians believed that such tests would assist in treatment of their patients. All these tests showed that the signs and symptoms displayed by these patients were not due to any form of uranium exposure. In the early 1990s, a small number of UK troops concerned they had inhaled DU dust while conducting work in the Gulf conflict had their lungs monitored—no detectable DU contamination was found.

    There are established systems within the United Kingdom for monitoring the health and safety of those who are exposed to depleted uranium as part of their work activities. These systems are, and always have been, employed throughout the MOD and involve monitoring of personnel and the working environment. Some individuals also receive annual health reviews. These measures ensure that exposures to depleted uranium are as low as reasonably practicable and do not exceed statutory limits. Therefore there is no reason for investigations of the type mentioned for these employees.

    Other than those mentioned above, the health of those employed within defence industries is a matter for the employers concerned and for the Health and Safety Executive.

    Compensation Scheme (Civilians)
    Mr. Simon Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the compensation scheme is for civilians who are(a) killed, (b) injured and (c) maimed by unexploded munitions on military training grounds. [23132]

    Mr. Ingram
    When compensation claims are submitted, they are considered on the basis of whether or not the Ministry of Defence has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a legal liability to pay compensation we do so.

    Ms Kay Coleman
    Dr. Palmer
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the appointment to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body of a replacement for Ms Kay Coleman. [23345]

    Mr. Hoon
    I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Dr. Anne Wright CBE to a three-year term. This appointment has been conducted in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointment's guidance on appointments to public bodies.
    973W

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Entry Clearance
    Roger Casale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will lay before the House the report by Mr. Rabinder Singh, the independent monitor of entry clearance refusals. [23347]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    Mr. Singh's report on entry clearance refusals was laid before the House today. I very much welcome the report which acknowledges the high standards of our entry clearance operation overseas and the Government's commitment to ensuring that it continues to operate fairly and professionally. Mr. Singh's comments and suggestions will receive careful consideration.

    Sheikha Shamsa
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact there has been between his Department and(a) Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum and (b) the Dubai authorities in relation to the allegation made by Sheikha Shamsa. [22606]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum's London office have raised this matter with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We have informed them that this is a matter for the police.

    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to investigate the allegations of kidnapping made by Sheikha Shamsa. [22605]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    This is a matter for the police.

    European Union (National Parliaments)
    Roger Casale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to increase the role and influence of national parliaments in EU decision-making. [22081]

    Peter Hain
    In line with a November 1998 White Paper, the Government have already strengthened the arrangements for Westminster's scrutiny of EU business.

    In Warsaw last year, the Prime Minister called for a greater role for national parliaments in EU decision-making. Subsequently, the Nice European Council agreed that this question would be one of the main agenda items for the next Intergovernmental Conference in 2004. The Laeken European Council on 14–15 December is expected to agree that the preparations for this IGC will be taken forward by a Convention consisting of, among others, national parliamentarians.

    Middle East
    Roger Casale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European counterparts in preparation for the EU summit in Laeken with a view to strengthening the contribution of EU member states to international efforts to re-establish the middle east peace process. [22083]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has regular contact with his EU counterparts to discuss how the EU can help the parties establish a974W
    permanent ceasefire, implement the recommendations of the Mitchell report and resume political negotiations aimed at delivering security for Israel and allowing for the emergence of a Palestinian state.

    He also met other EU Foreign Ministers at the General Affairs Council on 10 December. They agreed on the need for concerted international action. They reaffirmed their view that peace requires the recognition of Israel's irrevocable right to live in security and the emergence of a viable Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority must dismantle the Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist networks and appeal in public for the end of the armed intifada. Israel must withdraw its forces, end the practice of extra-judicial killings, lift the closures and freeze all settlement activity. EU High Representative Javier Solana was mandated to go to the region and report back at Laeken.

    Democratic Republic of the Congo
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the impact of British support for Ugandan and Ethiopian forces on diplomatic relationships. [22319]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    There has been considerable progress in resolving the conflict in the DRC during the last few months. There have been few ceasefire violations. There was a successful meeting of the major players in Abuja on 10 December, and all sides have committed themselves to the next meeting of the Inter-Congolese dialogue to be held in South Africa in January. But there is more to be done. We will continue to press all sides to ensure that they respect their commitments to the Lusaka agreement, and move the process forward.

    The UK provides no military support for either the Ugandan or Ethiopian forces. Assistance is being provided on security sector reform in Uganda.

    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what impact the conflict over coltan is having in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.[22320]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    The addendum to the UN Panel Report on the Illegal Exploitation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo's Natural Resources makes a clear link between the exploitation of natural resources, including coltan, and the continuation of the conflict. We are ready to work with all sides to put in place the necessary institutions and practices which will ensure that the funds raised from these resources are used to benefit the people of the DRC and not to fund the conflict.

    Brussels Agreement
    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a paper on what was discussed at the recent meeting in Barcelona under the auspices of the Brussels Agreement. [20452]

    Peter Hain
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 187W. A copy of the joint press communique issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary

    975W
    of State and the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs when they met under the Brussels Process in Barcelona on 20 November has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

    Arms Exports
    Roger Casale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what implications the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 on terrorism have for the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of arms exports. [23348]

    Mr. Straw
    By United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1373(2001) the Security Council inter alia calls upon member states both to eliminate "the supply of weapons to terrorists" (paragraph 2(a)) and to"co-operate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against the perpetrators of such attacks" (paragraph 3(c)).

    I have therefore reviewed the Government's policy in respect of arms exports in light of this resolution. In view of the Government's strong continued commitment to human rights, regional stability, and the campaign against terrorism, and taking account of the fact that our human rights obligations are not affected by the adoption of the resolution, I believe there is no need to amend the consolidated criteria in order for us to comply fully with the terms of the resolution. My detailed conclusions are as follows:

    (1) Export licensing decisions are taken on a case by case basis against all of the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, as set out on 26 October 2000, Official Report, column 200W, in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time. The last paragraph of the preamble to the consolidated criteria states that:
    "An export licence will not be issued if the arguments for doing so are outweighed by the need to comply with the UK's international obligations and commitments, by concern that the goods might be used for internal repression or international aggression, by risks to regional stability or by other considerations as described in these criteria".

    (2) Criterion two of the consolidated criteria includes the statement that HMG:
    "considers that in some cases the use of force by a Government within its own borders, for example to preserve law and order against terrorists or other criminals, is legitimate and does not constitute internal repression, as long as force is used in accordance with the international human rights standards described above".

    (3) In judging individual applications, the Government will take account of the terms of UNSCR 1373(2001) and will continue to pay attention to this passage in criterion two, within the discretion provided by the consolidated criteria.

    (4) The consolidated criteria already state that, when considering export licence applications, the Government will take account of the record of the buyer country with regard to
    "its support or encouragement of terrorism and international organised crime"

    (criterion six (a)) and that
    "the Government will pay particular attention to the need to avoid diversion of UK exports to terrorist organisations".
    976W
    (criterion seven). This makes clear our commitment to preventing arms exported from the UK from falling into the hands of terrorists.

    (5) We are taking additional steps to strengthen our export controls. The Export Control Bill currently going through Parliament gives the Government a number of new powers which will help to improve our ability to prohibit the transfer of arms or related technology to terrorists, including new powers to control the transfer of technology by intangible means and trafficking and brokering in arms. We are aiming to sign the UN Firearms Protocol soon and will encourage others to do so, and have proposed bringing forward analysis of the OSEC' s information exchange on the marking of small arms. These steps will help us to keep small arms out of terrorists' hands by helping us to trace weapons flows and to combat the illicit manufacture and trafficking in firearms.

    (6) Finally, the new Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill includes clauses to close the gaps in our present legislation relating to chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to prevent the use, production, possession or participation in unauthorised transfers of these materials.

    Parliamentary Questions
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by his Department were the subject of a holding answer in the last three Sessions of Parliament. [22026]

    Mr. Straw
    [holding answer 10 December 2001]: My Department issued the following number of holding replies during the last three parliamentary Sessions:

    Session

    Number of holding replies

    Percentage

    1998ߝ99

    192

    34

    1999ߝ2000

    216

    15

    2000ߝ01

    127

    1n/a

    1 Due to a computer hardware problem figures in percentage form cannot be provided for parliamentary Session 2000ߝ01

    Afghanistan
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of relations between Russia and the Northern Alliance(a) before and (b) since 11 September. [22169]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    Russia has maintained close links with members of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance for some years. These have continued since 11 September.

  HEALTH

    Doctors and Nurses
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many foreign doctors and nurses have
    977W
    been recruited into the NHS in the last year; and how many British doctors and nurses are in training. [18678]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 28 November 2001]: Data collected by the Department do not record how many foreign doctors and nurses were recruited into the national health service last year.

    In order to work in the United Kingdom foreign doctors and nurses have to be registered with the appropriate regulatory body, the General Medical Council (GMC) for doctors and the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting (UKCC) for nurses. They do not necessarily work in the NHS.

    In the year to 31 March 2001 there were 1,416 admissions to the UKCC register via European Community arrangements. In the same period there were 5,988 foreign entrants from outside the European Community.

    GMC data do not distinguish between UK and European Economic Area (EEA) doctors. In 2000 there were 5,649 newly registered doctors from the UK/EEA. 3,054 new doctors with overseas qualifications (outside the EEA) registered with the GMC in 2000.

    The Department does not collect data for Britain. In England in 2000–01 there were 49,090 nurses in training. We forecast that in 2001–02 this will rise to around 53,500.

    In 2000 there were 34,660 doctors in training in the NHS. The table with data provided by the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE) for England shows the number of students entering medical school in the UK since 1997–98.

    Patients waiting for elective admission, England, position at 30 September 2001

    Over 6 month waiters

    Over 15 month waiters

    Health authority

    Total waiting

    Number

    Percentage

    Number

    Percentage

    Avon

    21,492

    6,934

    32.3

    400

    1.9

    Barking and Havering

    10,804

    3,380

    31.3

    158

    1.5

    Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

    15,076

    4,807

    31.9

    236

    1.6

    Barnsley

    4,243

    641

    15.1

    1

    0.0

    Bedfordshire

    10,304

    3,221

    31.3

    295

    2.9

    Berkshire

    14,495

    3,864

    26.7

    126

    0.9

    Birmingham

    15,197

    2,752

    18.1

    55

    0.4

    Bradford

    10,001

    2,205

    22.0

    3

    0.0

    Brent and Harrow

    8,224

    2,439

    29.6

    141

    1.7

    Bromley, Bexley and Greenwich

    13,817

    4,558

    33.0

    217

    1.6

    Buckinghamshire

    13,221

    3,743

    28.3

    209

    1.6

    Bury and Rochdale

    9,523

    2,261

    23.7

    72

    0.8

    Calderdale and Kirklees

    10,564

    1,617

    15.3

    20

    0.2

    Cambridgeshire

    14,616

    3,689

    25.2

    160

    1.1

    Camden and Islington

    6,083

    1,317

    21.7

    31

    0.5

    Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    12,004

    3,814

    31.8

    93

    0.8

    County Durham and Darlington

    11,508

    2,631

    22.9

    0

    0.0

    Coventry

    4,807

    1,000

    20.8

    15

    0.3

    Croydon

    6,561

    2,089

    31.8

    200

    3.0

    Doncaster

    4,111

    561

    13.6

    1

    0.0

    Dorset

    8,736

    64

    0.7

    1

    0.0

    Dudley

    4,792

    836

    17.4

    20

    0.4

    Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

    13,734

    3,453

    25.1

    135

    1.0

    East Kent

    16,414

    5,462

    33.3

    239

    1.5

    East Lancashire

    12,441

    3,125

    25.1

    26

    0.2

    East London and City

    11,388

    2,818

    24.7

    90

    0.8

    East Riding and Hull

    11,637

    3,518

    30.2

    0

    0.0

    978W

    Actual medical school intake 1997–98 to 2001–02

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    2001–021

    England

    3,749

    3,735

    3,972

    4,300

    4,698

    Scotland

    934

    956

    925

    897

    914

    Wales

    200

    200

    226

    233

    288

    Northern Ireland

    179

    178

    179

    180

    188

    UK total

    5,062

    5,069

    5,302

    5,610

    6,088

    1 Provisional information awaiting confirmation of July 2002 figures from HEFCE in November 2002

    Waiting Lists
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the way his Department compiles tables for hospital waiting list numbers and times. [19300]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 29 November 2001]: The NHS Plan set out our objectives for reducing in-patient and out-patient waiting times by 2005. Information to monitor progress will continue to be collected and published by the Government Statistical Service.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many and what proportion of patients in each health authority on in-patient waiting lists have been waiting for over 15 months; [20863]

    (2) how many and what proportion of patients in each health authority on in-patient waiting lists have been waiting for over six months. [20859]

    Mr. Hutton
    The information requested is in the table.

    The NHS Plan Implementation Programme set out targets relating to in-patients, to implement a maximum waiting time of 15 months by March 2002. In addition, the NHS plan set a target to reduce the maximum wait for in-patient treatment to six months by the end of 2005.
    979W

    Patients waiting for elective admission, England, position at 30 September 2001

    Over 6 month waiters

    Over 15 month waiters

    Health authority

    Total waiting

    Number

    Percentage

    Number

    Percentage

    East Surrey

    8,527

    2,996

    35.1

    216

    2.5

    East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

    17,893

    6,081

    34.0

    373

    2.1

    Gateshead and South Tyneside

    7,671

    1,540

    20.1

    1

    0.0

    Gloucestershire

    8,205

    1,496

    18.2

    48

    0.6

    Herefordshire

    2,792

    824

    29.5

    16

    0.6

    Hertfordshire

    21,513

    6,284

    29.2

    342

    1.6

    Hillingdon

    4,167

    1,100

    26.4

    72

    1.7

    Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

    14,876

    4,106

    27.6

    202

    1.4

    Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

    4,477

    863

    19.3

    17

    0.4

    Kingston and Richmond

    7,122

    2,020

    28.4

    126

    1.8

    Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

    15,914

    5,120

    32.2

    406

    2.6

    Leeds

    13,675

    3,825

    28.0

    69

    0.5

    Leicestershire

    16,056

    3,378

    21.0

    50

    0.3

    Lincolnshire

    15,717

    4,038

    25.7

    132

    0.8

    Liverpool

    10,596

    2,580

    24.3

    86

    0.8

    Manchester

    12,189

    3,137

    25.7

    226

    1.9

    Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

    10.084

    2,674

    26.5

    155

    1.5

    Morecambe Bay

    6,789

    1,783

    26.3

    19

    0.3

    Newcastle and North Tyneside

    6,945

    1,422

    20.5

    4

    0.1

    Norfolk

    18,493

    4,832

    26.1

    306

    1.7

    North and East Devon

    10,991

    3,277

    29.8

    127

    1.2

    North and Mid Hampshire

    10,508

    2,715

    25.8

    134

    1.3

    North Cheshire

    8,747

    2,894

    33.1

    147

    1.7

    North Cumbria

    7,497

    2,060

    27.5

    13

    0.2

    North Derbyshire

    8,202

    2,101

    25.6

    2

    0.0

    North Essex

    20,872

    6,466

    31.0

    221

    1.1

    North Nottinghamshire

    7,976

    1,963

    24.6

    13

    0.2

    North Staffordshire

    6,473

    1,373

    21.2

    10

    0.2

    North West Lancashire

    11,350

    2,296

    20.2

    31

    0.3

    North Yorkshire

    13,795

    3,406

    24.7

    14

    0.1

    Northamptonshire

    13,728

    3,916

    28.5

    120

    0.9

    Northumberland

    5,177

    1,046

    20.2

    0

    0.0

    Nottingham

    11,365

    2,564

    22.6

    50

    0.4

    Oxfordshire

    10,942

    2,982

    27.3

    74

    0.7

    Redbridge and Waltham Forest

    10.349

    3,666

    35.4

    231

    2.2

    Rotherham

    3,819

    535

    14.0

    1

    0.0

    Salford and Trafford

    12,828

    3,712

    28.9

    250

    1.9

    Sandwell

    4,601

    559

    12.1

    9

    0.2

    Sefton

    7,430

    1,850

    24.9

    57

    0.8

    Sheffield

    11,287

    3,020

    26.8

    5

    0.0

    Shropshire

    7,012

    1,586

    22.6

    40

    0.6

    Solihull

    3,487

    823

    23.6

    8

    0.2

    Somerset

    11,623

    3,065

    26.4

    80

    0.7

    South and West Devon

    13,771

    4,322

    31.4

    128

    0.9

    South Cheshire

    14,148

    4,222

    29.8

    158

    1.1

    South Essex

    17,546

    5,161

    29.4

    83

    0.5

    South Humber

    7,848

    2,080

    26.5

    2

    0.0

    South Lancashire

    7,936

    2,003

    25.2

    40

    0.5

    South Staffordshire

    12,667

    3,369

    26.6

    69

    0.5

    Southampton and South West Hampshire

    13,564

    3,628

    26.7

    247

    1.8

    Southern Derbyshire

    12,470

    2,951

    23.7

    48

    0.4

    St. Helens and Knowsley

    9,514

    1,972

    20.7

    57

    0.6

    Stockport

    7,249

    2,106

    29.1

    35

    0.5

    Suffolk

    15,255

    4,776

    31.3

    147

    1.0

    Sunderland

    6,095

    1,352

    22.2

    0

    0.0

    Tees

    10,952

    2,721

    24.8

    0

    0.0

    Wakefield

    6,721

    1,813

    27.0

    5

    0.1

    Walsall

    2,741

    385

    14.0

    4

    0.1

    Warwickshire

    10,345

    2,249

    21.7

    9

    0.1

    West Kent

    24,236

    7,882

    32.5

    234

    1.0

    West Pennine

    11,663

    2,295

    19.7

    57

    0.5

    West Surrey

    14,644

    5,562

    38.0

    534

    3.6

    West Sussex

    18,714

    6,928

    37.0

    500

    2.7

    Wigan and Bolton

    13,540

    3,350

    24.7

    116

    0.9

    Wiltshire

    12,397

    3,678

    29.7

    193

    1.6

    Wirral

    5,602

    1,240

    22.1

    47

    0.8

    Wolverhampton

    3,730

    742

    19.9

    3

    0.1

    Worcestershire

    9,517

    2,635

    27.7

    109

    1.1

    Source:

    Department of Health form QF01
    980W 981W

    Departmental Expenditure Limits
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the increase in the departmental expenditure limit from 2001–02 to 2002–03 will be accounted for by wage costs. [20604]

    Mr. Hutton
    The planned expenditure for the national health service in 2001–02 is £48,832 million. The corresponding figure for 2002–03 is £53,478 million—an increase of 9.5 per cent. in cash terms.

    Pay increases for NHS staff for 2002–03, including those subject to the recommendations of pay review bodies, have yet to be agreed.

    Blood Products
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether products are derived from blood donations from outside(a) the United Kingdom and (b) western Europe. [20295]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 6 December 2001]: No plasma from United Kingdom donors is used in the manufacture of fractionated blood products. All blood products manufactured by the national health service-owned Bio Products Laboratory are made from plasma sourced in the United States of America. Some commercially manufactured blood products used by the NHS are derived from blood donations collected in western Europe. However, all licensed blood products must comply with European Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products requirements on selection and testing of blood donors.

    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths have occurred as a result of the supply of contaminated blood products to haemophiliacs in the past 10 years; and how many of these deaths were from(a) AIDS alone, (b) hepatitis C alone and (c) from co-infection. [20294]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 5 December 2001]: All haemophilia patients registered with the Macfarlane Trust are co-infected with HIV and hepatitis C. 588 of these have died in the past 10 years.

    Information from the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctor's Organisation shows that since 1969, 212 people with haemophilia have died from liver disease which may be related to hepatitis C infection (figures for the last 10 years are not available).

    Patient Numbers
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients have been treated by the NHS for each six month reporting period since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [18883]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 5 December 2001]: The number of admissions to national health service trusts since 1990–91 is given in the table. This does not represent the number of patients as a person may be admitted on more than one occasion.
    982W

    Admissions to NHS hospitals 1990–91 to 2000–01

    Year

    April to September

    October to March

    Total

    1990–91

    4,245,512

    3,942,575

    8,188,087

    1991–92

    4,364,105

    4,360,223

    8,724,328

    1992–93

    4,570,565

    4,508,298

    9,078,863

    1993–94

    4,730,660

    4,761,992

    9,492,652

    1994–95

    4,909,917

    4,947,403

    9,857,320

    1995–96

    5,102,088

    5,144,912

    10,247,000

    1996–97

    5,152,980

    5,037,709

    10,190,689

    1997–98

    5,363,519

    5,174,016

    10,537,535

    1998–99

    5,248,399

    5,460,573

    10,708,972

    1999–2000

    5,521,349

    5,504,595

    11,025,944

    2000–01

    5,540,970

    5,460,125

    11,001,095

    The following table shows the number of people seen as out-patients—and the total attendance in out-patient—sas some people will attend more than once—since 1990–91. It is not possible to provide a six monthly breakdown as data on all out-patient episodes are only collected annually.

    Out-patient attendance at NHS hospitals 1990–91 to 2000–01

    Year

    Number of out-patients

    Number of out-patient episodes

    1990–91

    8,501,760

    36,111,504

    1991–92

    8,941,526

    36,893,710

    1992–93

    9,342,280

    37,527,038

    1993–94

    9,680,593

    38,202,391

    1994–95

    10,362,877

    39,305,800

    1995–96

    10,989,334

    40,117,691

    1996–97

    11,294069

    40,872,769

    1997–98

    11,529,432

    41,635,269

    1998–99

    11,777,780

    42,154,397

    1999–2000

    12,136,405

    43,040,699

    2000–01

    12,466,233

    43,569,340

    These figures show a significant increase in the number of admissions to hospitals and the number of people seen as out-patients since 1990–91.

    The NHS Plan commitment is that by 2005 the maximum waiting time for in-patient treatment will be cut from 18 months now to six months, the maximum waiting time for a routine out-patient appointment will be halved from over six months now to three months and traditional waiting lists will be replaced with booking systems. By the end of 2008 we aim to treat all out-patients and in-patients within three months, subject to recruitment and reform.

    Expedited Out-patient Opinions
    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given to clinicians for the purposes of determining which patients receive expedited out-patient opinions within the NHS. [18241]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 5 December 2001]: The decision on how quickly a patient should be referred to out-patients is a clinical matter and it is for general practitioners to decide this on a case by case basis. To assist GPs in referring, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is developing referral guidance for certain conditions including benign prostate disease, osteoarthritis of the hip, and lower back pain. The Department has issued guidance to the national health service that priority treatment should be given to war pensioners, both as in-patients and as out-patients, for

    983W
    examination or treatment relating to the condition for which the patient receives a pension, unless in emergencies or if another case demands clinical priority.

    The process of booking appointments should be patient focused. The national booked admissions programme, launched in 1998, is putting in place systems that allow patients to pre-book appointments for a time that is convenient for them, and by the end of 2005 we are committed to all out-patient and in-patient elective admissions being pre-booked.

    Ward Housekeepers
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by date of publication, guidance he has given on the role and duties of the ward housekeeper(a) internally and (b) externally; and if he will place the guidance in the Library. [21789]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 10 December 2001]: Housekeeper information and guidance was first published and distributed as a leaflet in March 2001. More detailed draft guidance was made available to trusts from June 2001 with a request for comments and best practice examples suitable for inclusion in the completed guidance. The approved guidance on the role and duties of the ward housekeeper—"Housekeeping, a first guide to new, modern and dependable ward housekeeping services in the NHS"—was placed on the national health service estates website in November 2001 for public access. A short video film and complementing leaflet, "Ward Housekeepers, getting the basics right", showing how the housekeeper works within the ward team, were also produced and distributed in November 2001 to interested NHS trusts. Further copies of both the video and leaflet are available upon request.

    Copies of the guidance and a copy of the video film have been placed in the Library.

    Housekeeping guidance, best practice advice and information has also been given at a number of workshops held throughout the regions:

    17 November 2000—London

    31 January to 1 February 2001—Leeds

    17 May—London

    22 May—Leeds

    6 June—Trent

    8 June—North-west

    12 June—West midlands

    15 June—South-west

    20 June—Eastern

    21 June—Northern and Yorkshire

    24 July—London

    25 July—South-east

    6 September—South-west

    3 December—North-west.

    Two further workshops are scheduled for January 2002 in London and Leeds.

    Out-of-Area Treatment
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out by NHS region, health authority and 984W
    NHS trust the (a) number of out-of-area patients treated and (b) cost of out-of-area treatments in each of the last four years for which information is available. [21005]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 10 December 2001]: Information on the cost of out-of-area treatments has been placed in the Library. The information on patient numbers is not available centrally.

    The out-of-area treatment adjustment was introduced in 1999–2000. Information is therefore available only for the three years 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

    Nurses
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average(a) salary and (b) other related cost of a nurse, by region. [22212]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 11 December 2001]: The average annual salary and other earnings of a full time qualified nurse employed by the national health service, by region, are estimated to be:

    £

    Basic salary

    Other earnings

    Northern and Yorkshire

    20,100

    3,100

    Trent

    20,200

    2,700

    West Midlands

    20,100

    3,000

    North West

    20,300

    2,900

    Eastern

    20,400

    2,900

    London

    20,200

    5,300

    South East

    20,400

    3,000

    South West

    20,300

    3,100

    England

    20,200

    3,300

    Cannabis
    Helen Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government will publish their response to the Second Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology on the Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis. [23251]

    Ms Blears
    The Government's response to the Second Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology on the Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis has been published today and copies will be placed in the Library.

    Diabetes
    Mr. Pollard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the Diabetes National Service Framework standards document. [23388]

    Jacqui Smith
    We shall be publishing the Diabetes National Service Framework standards tomorrow. Copies will be placed in the Library.

    Coronary Patients
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to health authorities and NHS healthcare trusts in respect of the provision of adequate post-discharge care for coronary patients; what budget has been allocated for this service in the current three year spending programme; and if he will make a statement. [21452]
    985W
    Jacqui Smith
    The National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) was published on 6 March 2000 setting out national standards for the care of patients with CHD. This includes guidance on appropriate care on discharge from hospital following a heart attack, on secondary prevention of CHD to prevent further events, and on the provision of cardiac rehabilitation. In addition, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has produced a clinical guideline on secondary prevention for patients who have had a heart attack which covers appropriate drug treatment and the role of rehabilitation.

    Spending on national health service services generally comes from a unified allocation to health authorities and it is not possible to identify the total spend on a particular area of care. We have provided substantial increased funding and by 2003 we will be investing an extra £230 million a year in heart services. Money has also been made available from Her Majesty's Treasury capital modernisation fund to provide equipment for rehabilitation (£10 million) and primary care services (£15 million).

    Haemodialysis
    Sandra Gidley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many haemodialysis units treating NHS patients within the United Kingdom there were for each year since 1999, broken down by regional health authority, indicating which are(a) privately managed and (b) NHS managed; [22674]

    (2) if he will estimate the average annual full treatment cost of haemodialysis for haemodialysis NHS patients through (a) a privately managed and (b) an NHS managed unit. [22676]

    Jacqui Smith
    The United Kingdom renal survey, commissioned by the Department and using 1998 data, shows that there were 52 'main' renal haemodialysis units in England. Fifty of these were managed by the national health service and two by private sector providers. In the same year there were 73 satellite haemodialysis units.

    A recent Departmental survey of regional commissioners suggests that in 2001 there are now 55 main renal units and 96 satellite units, 24 of which are managed by private sector providers.

    A study by the Department in 1996 estimated the cost of main unit based haemodialysis as £31,520 per patient per year. The cost of haemodialysis treatment in satellite units, where most private sector involvement rests, is not available in published literature because of the variation in structure, process and patient case-mix in these units.

    Sandra Gidley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many haemodialysis patients' usual treatment was administered in haemodialysis units in a different health authority region to where they reside in each year since 1990, broken down by regional health authority. [22677]

    Jacqui Smith
    Data for the number of patients receiving haemodialysis in one of the eight national health service regions other than the one in which they reside are not readily available.
    986W
    Where patients are treated outside of their 'home' health authority, service agreements are made between commissioners and providers in the respective health authorities. This may provide better access to geographically closer haemodialysis facilities.

    Sandra Gidley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many haemodialysis patients were receiving treatment at haemodialysis units for each year since 1990, broken down by regional health authority [22675]

    Jacqui Smith
    Figures for the number of patients receiving hospital and satellite unit based haemodialysis are available from United Kingdom renal survey data. However, these figures are collected on a unit centred basis and not on a regional basis. Surveys have been undertaken in 1993, 1995 and 1998.

    Hospital haemodialysis patients in England

    Year of UK renal survey

    Number

    1993

    3,899

    1995

    5,383

    1998

    7,788

    Tilt Report
    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to implement the Tilt report. [22088]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Tilt report was published on 22 May 2000. All 86 recommendations in the report were accepted by the Government and the implementation process is on-going. Some of the report's recommendations, for example the upgrading of the perimeter security of the hospitals, have a lengthy implementation time scale. Progress is being monitored by three of the Department's regional offices with a high security hospital in their area (North-West, London and Trent), and by the high security psychiatric services commissioning national oversight group.

    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the expenditure provided in 2001–02 to implement the Tilt report has been spent. [22087]

    Jacqui Smith
    £5 million of current expenditure funding and £38 million of capital expenditure funding has been provided centrally for 2001–02 to support the implementation of Tilt report recommendations.

    The £5 million of current expenditure funding is to support the process of moving inappropriately placed patients out of the high security hospitals to more suitable accommodation. Agreement has been reached with the regional commissioners of high and medium secure psychiatric services about the split of the £5 million between regions, and an allocation will shortly be made to the lead commissioning health authority for each region.

    The £38 million of capital expenditure relates to improvements to the physical security of the high security hospitals, particularly the upgrading of perimeter security that Sir Richard Tilt saw as being necessary in the interests of maintaining public safety. The funding was split, in line with estimated need, between the three Department of Health regional offices with performance management responsibility for a high security hospital.
    987W
    Actual spend across the three hospitals as at the end of November 2001 was £8.4 million. It is estimated that financial year-end spending will be significantly greater than this amount but that there will be a carry over of spending planned for 2001–02 into 2002–03, particularly due to a delay in the perimeter security upgrading at Ashworth hospital arising from complications in obtaining planning permission.

    Children's National Service Framework
    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is of the planned Children's National Service Framework. [22090]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Children's National Service Framework will have a broad remit encompassing social care and maternity services as well as health services for children. The standards that will be developed first, in response to the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry report, are those relating to acute/hospital care. These will be published in 2002. The timetable for the publication of the rest of NSF has not yet been finalised.

    Prescription Charges
    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce exemption from prescription charges for those persons who suffer from severe mental illness. [22095]

    Jacqui Smith
    Our policy is to give priority to helping those who may have difficulty in paying charges, rather than extending the exemption arrangements to people with other medical conditions.

    Podiatrists
    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations took place with non-state registered podiatrists prior to appointment of the podiatry representative to the Shadow Health Professions Council. [22097]

    Mr. Hutton
    None. There is scope on the Health Professions Council for one registrant member and one alternate for each profession regulated by the Council. The registrant and alternate members of the Shadow Council were appointed on the nomination of the relevant professional bodies.

    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the time which it will take to process applications by non-state registered podiatrists for entry to the register of the Health Professions Council. [22098]

    Mr. Hutton
    This is a matter for the Health Professions Council. Decisions on applications must be given subject to the time limits mentioned for dealing with applications in Article 9(5) of the Draft Health Professions Order 2001.

    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what titles and descriptions non-state registered podiatrists will be able to practice after the transition period under the Health Professions Order has expired. [22096]

    Mr. Hutton
    Any title or titles which are not protected under the order.
    988W

    Mental Health
    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 567W, if he will place in the Library the report from the Mental Health Act Commission and others on ethnic monitoring, racial harassment and training. [22100]

    Jacqui Smith
    Copies of the report, entitled "National Visit 2, Improving Care for Detained Patients from Black and Minority Ethnic Communities" are available in the Library.

    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when it is planned to launch the toolkit to support mental health services in promoting mental health for people of ethnic minority communities. [22084]

    Jacqui Smith
    We hope to make the toolkit available in autumn 2002.

    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to ensure equality of treatment for those who are(a) black and (b) of ethnic minority backgrounds who are suffering from severe mental illness and are detained in special hospitals. [22094]

    Jacqui Smith
    The principle of equality of treatment for all lies at the heart of our modernisation programme and we are taking steps to ensure that equality, diversity and inclusiveness is built into all national health service and social care service delivery.

    In regard to high security (special) hospitals, each has undertaken a range of initiatives to improve the situation of black and minority ethnic patients. In the longer term the hospitals will be guided by a national strategy, currently being drafted, which will address issues surrounding black and minority ethnic mental health more widely.

    Social Services
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to progress towards a population-based distribution formula for social services expenditure by county councils. [22268]

    Jacqui Smith
    The distribution formula for personal social services already takes account of the population base by local authority, (for example the children's formula takes account of the resident population aged 0–17), as well as relative levels of need.

    The formulae are currently being reviewed in time for 2003–04 allocations. Local government representatives are being actively involved in this process, and we will be consulting widely before making final decisions.

    Wanless Report
    Mr. Swire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he first discussed(a) the interim Wanless report and (b) the conclusions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the interim Wanless report, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [22245]

    Mr. Milburn
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I meet regularly and discuss a range of issues.
    989W

    NHS Expenditure
    Mr. Swire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list per capita spending on the NHS for each region of England in the last 12 months. [22243]

    Mr. Hutton
    The expenditure by weighted head of population for each English region for 2000–01 is shown in the table.

    Expenditure by health authorities and primary care trusts

    Region

    Per capita spending (£)

    Northern and Yorkshire

    803.52

    Trent

    810.12

    Eastern

    803.44

    London

    886.12

    South East

    810.94

    South West

    849.78

    West Midlands

    794.52

    North Western

    826.84

    England

    825.38

    Notes:

    1. Expenditure is taken from health authority and primary care trust summarisation forms which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in the year. The expenditure is the total spent by the health authority and by the primary care trusts within each region. The majority of General Dental Services expenditure is not included in the health authority or primary care trust accounts and is separately accounted for by the Dental Practice Board.

    2. Health authorities and primary care trusts should account for their expenditure on a gross basis. This results in an element of double counting where one body acts as the main commissioner and is then reimbursed by other bodies. The effect of this double counting within the answer cannot be identified.

    3. Some health authorities act as lead commissioners for particular specialties which inflates their figures when compared with others and also causes differences between years. Other factors may also distort the figures so the results are therefore not all directly comparable with each other and with answers to similar questions for previous years.

    Sources:

    Health authority audited summarisation forms 2000–01

    Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01

    Weighted population estimates for 2000–01

    NHS University
    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Microsoft software to supply the NHS University will be an open system which will allow other suppliers to participate. [22608]

    Mr. Hutton
    The operating systems for the national health service University, including software, are yet to be decided upon and no purchase has been made from any particular supplier. One of the main considerations for any e-learning component of the NHS University will be its ability to reach the largest number of staff in the widest range of organisations. This will enable the NHS to utilise investments in hardware and software, from a number of suppliers, to the full.

    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the tender document for the national health service University will be put into the public domain. [22607]

    Mr. Hutton
    The national health service University is at an early stage of development. Established tendering procedures will be followed when the NHS University is in a position to let contracts to suppliers.
    990W
    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will validate and check the new software system for the NHS University. [22609]

    Mr. Hutton
    The national health service University is a new initiative and is still in its early stages of development. Decisions about software systems have not yet been taken.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Ministerial Court Representation
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Solicitor-General on how many occasions she has appeared in court for the Government since her appointment; and if she will make a statement. [22283]

    The Solicitor-General
    I have not appeared in court for the Government on any occasion since my appointment.

    The Attorney-General has since his appointment appeared for the Government on three occasions: once in the Court of Appeal; once at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg; and once at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg. The last Attorney-General did not appear in court for the Government of any occasion. The last Solicitor-General appeared in court for the Government on eight occasions.

  SCOTLAND

    Tax Burden
    Mr. Swire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement about Scotland's share of the tax burden in the last financial year. [10380]

    Mrs. Liddell
    The Scottish Executive estimate tax receipts raised in Scotland in their publication "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland". The latest edition published by the Scottish Executive in December 2000 was for the financial year 1998–99, a copy of which is available in the House Library.

    BAE Systems
    Mr. Sarwar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when(a) she and (b) the Minister of State next plan to visit BAE Systems shipyards on the Clyde. [10752]

    Mrs. Liddell
    My hon. Friend the Minister of State participates on the Clyde Shipyards Task Force and therefore maintains strong links with the upper Clyde yards. He last visited the Goven yard on 19 November to co-sign the contract to award two alternative landing support logistics ships (ALSLs) to BAE Systems Marine and plans to visit Scotstoun in the near future. I hope to visit the yards soon.

    Concessionary Coach Fares
    Mr. Lazarowicz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will bring forward measures to provide for half-price fares for older and disabled people on long-distance coach journeys between Scotland and England. [21876]
    991W
    Mr. Foulkes
    The Government, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales are all consulting on proposals entitling coach operators to fuel duty rebates in return for them offering half-price fares to older and disabled passengers on scheduled long-distance coach journeys. The Government will hold discussions with the devolved Administrations on how best to co-ordinate arrangements across Britain.

  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Habitual Residence Test
    Mr. Mudie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claimants have been refused benefit under the habitual residence test, indicating what proportion of them were British citizens in each year of its operation. [8654]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The available information is in the tables:

    Claims for income support/jobseeker's allowance (income based) subject to the habitual residence test

    Year

    Total claims

    Total claims disallowed

    Claims from UK citizens disallowed

    Claims from UK citizens disallowed as a percentage of all claims disallowed

    1994–95

    59,677

    19,961

    3,764

    19

    1995–96

    103,828

    19,614

    6,006

    31

    1996–97

    99,534

    17,565

    8,596

    49

    1997–98

    117,653

    18,131

    9,857

    54

    1998–99

    112,976

    18,461

    10,603

    57

    1999–2000

    98,227

    11,698

    5,546

    47

    2000–01

    84,147

    9,601

    4,246

    44

    Note:

    The habitual residence test was introduced in August 1994

    Source:

    Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based) Management Information System Programme.

    Claims for housing benefit and council tax benefit subject to the habitual residence test

    Year

    Housing benefit claims disallowed

    Council tax benefit claims disallowed

    1996

    1,100

    300

    1997

    1,300

    540

    1998

    620

    360

    1999

    930

    470

    2000

    600

    290

    Notes:

    1. The data refer to households, which may be a family, a single person or a couple.

    2. The totals for Great Britain have been rated up to account for local authorities that have not responded. This is standard practice in reporting totals where there have been non-respondents.

    3. The figures in the table will show some double counting as some households that have claimed one benefit will also have claimed the other.

    4 The figures exclude cases where the household has claimed income support or jobseeker's allowance (income based).

    5. Data are not collected separately on claims from UK citizens, so no proportionate figures can be given.

    6. Data were not collected prior to 1996.

    Source:

    Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Policy Monitoring Returns 1996 to 2000
    992W

    Benefit Fraud
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many suspected benefit frauds have been(a) investigated and (b) resulted in a successful prosecution as a result of (i) submissions to the Targeting Fraud website and (ii) calls to the National Benefit Fraud
    Hotline. [11257]

    Malcolm Wicks
    Information on the last financial year and this year to date is in the table:

    Period

    Investigations completed

    Fraud established/corrective action taken

    Successful prosecutions

    Targeting Fraud website1

    1 May 2000 to 31 March 2001

    184

    28

    0

    1 April 2001 to 30 September 2001

    302

    68

    1

    National Benefit Fraud Hotline

    1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

    33,318

    7,917

    492

    1 April 2001 to 30 September 2001

    15,977

    4,061

    344

    1 Launched May 2000

    Benefits Agencies (Access)
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what impact the heightened security measures in place in Government and civil service offices since 11 September have had on the operation and accessibility of benefits agencies for claimants; and if he will make a
    statement. [14298]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    [holding answer 13 November 2001]: This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of me Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 12 December 2001:

    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked me to respond to your Parliamentary Question asking what impact the heightened security measures in place in Government and Civil Service offices since 11th September have had on the operation and accessibility of benefits agencies for claimants; and if he will make a statement.
    Following the attacks of 11 September, security was heightened in Benefits Agency (BA) offices. Security guards were instructed to search all baggage when customers visited BA sites. There have been no formal or informal complaints from customers about this action.
    There has been no disruption to service to customers in Employment Services offices.
    There have been 12 incidents that have disrupted the operation of BA public caller areas. These have been for varying lengths of time, but on average the disruption lasted 2–3 hours. One of these incidents resulted in the public caller area being closed all day and customers were diverted to anomer nearby BA office. Feedback from Group 4, who provide security services for the BA, is that they have not been notified of any incidents or complaints, and generally BA customers have been very understanding and co-operative.
    Although BA offices implemented the search process, customers should not have received any disruption to normal service because of this. This search process has now reduced with security guards now checking baggage on a random basis.
    I hope this is helpful.
    993W

    Household Incomes
    Chris Ruane
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average household income was for the poorest 10 per cent. of the population(a) in real terms and (b) as percentage increase in each year of the last 15 years. [16101]

    Malcolm Wicks
    [holding answer 19 November 2001]: Such information as is available is in the table.

    Money value of bottom decile median (£ per week) in December 2000 prices

    Year

    Before housing costs

    After housing costs

    Family expenditure survey (FES)

    1987

    109

    82

    1988–89

    107

    79

    1990–91

    103

    73

    1991–92

    104

    70

    1992–93

    105

    69

    1993–94

    110

    74

    1994–95

    115

    78

    1995–96

    117

    77

    Family resources survey (FRS)

    1994–95

    112

    67

    1995–96

    112

    72

    1996–97

    115

    74

    1997–98

    113

    72

    1998–99

    116

    79

    1999–2000

    118

    79

    Notes:

    1. The derivation of year on year percentage change in income levels from the above data is not recommended due to the fact that sampling variation for any individual year is large in relation to year on year change.

    2. All figures are estimates. There is evidence to suggest that the poorest 10 per cent. of the population as defined by their income may not be the poorest 10 per cent. in terms of living standards.

    3. Data are not available for each year of the period requested-with the financial year 1999–2000 being the latest data available.

    4. Results from the Family Resources Survey have been available only since 1994–95. Prior to that the Family Expenditure Survey was used as the data source for the Households Below Average Incomes (HBAI) series. Due to differences in the methodology employed in both the collection and analysis of data from both surveys, the figures presented above are not directly comparable across the two surveys.

    5. FRS data are presented on a financial year basis. FES data for 1987 are presented on a single calendar year basis, that for 1988–89 to 1992–93 on a two-year combined calendar year basis and 1993–94 to 1995–96 on a two-year combined financial year basis where, for example, "1995–96" denotes the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97 combined. The coverage of the FRS is Great Britain only, as it excludes Northern Ireland, while that of the FES is the whole of the United Kingdom.

    6. The monetary values presented are rounded to the nearest pound and are equivalised. That is to say that incomes are adjusted to take into account both the size and composition of the household to allow fair comparisons between different family types. The incomes presented above relate to the actual incomes of a couple with no children, which is used as the benchmark for equivalisation in HBAI.

    7. As is standard HBAI convention, figures are presented on both a Before and After Housing Costs basis, in order to take into account variations in housing costs between households that do not necessarily reflect equivalent variations in the quality of housing.

    ONE Pilot
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had regarding the 994W
    introduction of a uniform housing benefit and council tax benefit form for the Basic Model ONE Pilot; and if he will make a statement. [18000]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The option of having a uniform housing and council tax benefit (HB/CTB) claim form has been available to local authorities (LAs) participating in the ONE pilots. None of the Basic Model Pilot LAs has chosen to do so, but the North Nottinghamshire Private and Voluntary Sector Pilot has introduced such a form.

    The introduction of the new Customer Management System, being rolled out from 2002, will mean that working age HB/CTB applicants who are also claiming a benefit administered through this Department, will see a uniform, single claims process.

    New Deal for Disabled People
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) record is kept and (b) assessment is made of the destinations of people who leave the new deal for disabled people for employment. [18054]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The new deal for disabled people (NDDP) keeps records of the number of people moving into work. In the first three months operation of the NDDP extension, to the end of September, 492 people have found employment. An assessment of the destinations of people who leave the programme will be made through evaluation of the programme.

    Child Support Agency
    Norman Lamb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints about the work of the Child Support Agency have been made to the agency by hon. Members on behalf of constituents, in each of the past five years. [18175]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Norman Lamb, dated 12 December 2001:
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency, promised a substantive reply from me.
    You asked how many complaints about the work of the Child Support Agency have been made in each of the last five years by honourable Members on behalf of their constituents.
    Unfortunately we have only counted this since July 2000. Since that date until 30th September 2001 we received 6,640 complaints from Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents.
    I hope this is helpful.

    Working Age Agency
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the cost in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 of work undertaken on the development of a new working age agency. [19006]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The Departments of Social Security and for Education and Employment absorbed all development costs in 2000–01.

    Our plans for introducing Jobcentre Plus are still developing. For this reason the information requested on costs for 2001–02 is not yet available.
    995W

    Welfare to Work
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what was the capital budget welfare to work figure for 1998–99 that was not specified in Table 11 on page 102 of the 2001 departmental report. [18906]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The capital budget welfare to work figure for the 1998–99 financial year that was not specified in Table 11 on page 102 of the 2001 departmental report was £27,000.

    Benefits Agency/Employment Service (Merger)
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the expected saving from the proposed merger of the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service. [18978]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 28 June 2001,Official Report, column 160W.

    Departmental Report
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the costs and functions of the Model Office referred to on page 70 of the 2001 departmental report. [19122]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. John Bercow, dated 12 December 2001:
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from me.
    You asked for a statement on the costs and functions of the Model Office referred to on page 70 of the 2001 Departmental Report.
    Since the Model Office was established and up to the end of October 2001 the running costs have been just over £700,000.
    The main role of the Model Office is to support the introduction of the Child Support Reforms. Its functions include: the final testing from a user perspective of the new computer system, assessment of new and existing business processes, testing training material, examining organisational design and associated business products (i.e. procedures, customer materials).
    I hope this is helpful.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the costs and functions of the process learning centres referred to on page 70 of the 2001 departmental report. [19123]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. John Bercow, dated 12 December 2001:
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from me.
    996W
    You asked for a statement on the costs and functions of the process learning centres referred to on page 70 of the 2001 Departmental Report.
    Two Process Learning Centres were put into operation. The cost was £1.2 million. Their aims were to:
    Assist the design of the business process flowing from Child Support Reform and thereby inform the design of the new computer system required to support the reforms.
    Permit us to evaluate the business changes to help us plan for national implementation.
    Identify opportunities to implement some business improvements in advance of the legislative changes.
    Demonstrate the new delivery model to key stakeholders.
    I hope this is helpful.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a list of the sums which are not included in the 2001 Departmental report and are indicated by the symbol. [19419]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The information has been placed in the Library.

    Long-term Unemployed
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his statement of 28 November, what estimate he has made of the cost of (1) administering his proposals for the long-term unemployed; [20274]

    (2) the implementation of his proposals for the long-term unemployed. [20276]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    We estimate that our proposals for the long-term unemployed will cost £40 million to implement and administer in 2002–03 and 2003–04.

    Post Office Charges
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the transaction charges agreed with the Post Office are for handling a benefit payment at a post office counter; and how these charges have changed since 1997. [20300]

    Malcolm Wicks
    [holding answer 5 December 2001]: The average transaction fee payable by this Department to the Post Office for order book foil encashment since 1997 are as follows:

    Year

    Average encashment cost per foil

    1997–98

    44p

    1998–99

    47p

    1999–2000

    53p

    2000–01

    60p

    The Post Office have a contract with Girobank for girocheque encashment services at post office counters, and these transaction charges are not known to the Department.

    Social Security Spending
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the level of social security spending for each year from 1996–97 to 2003–04; and if he will make a
    statement. [20308]
    997W
    Malcolm Wicks
    [holding answer 6 December 2001]: Social security spending is under control. The rate of growth under this Government is around half that under the previous Government. Indeed, without the extra spending of around £3 billion on families and £7.5 billion on pensioners, forecast spending in 2003–04 would be lower in real terms than it was in 1996–97. We can spend more on priority groups because we have reduced the costs of social and economic failure. For example, spending on benefits for unemployed people this year will be around £4 billion less than in 1996–97.

    Expenditure on social security benefits in Great Britain is shown in the table1.

    Expenditure on social security benefits in Great Britain

    £ billion

    Year

    2001–02 prices2

    1996–97

    104.5

    1997–98

    102.6

    1998–99

    102.2

    1999–2000

    103.5

    2000–01

    103.5

    2001–02

    107.2

    2002–03

    108.4

    2003–04

    110.9

    1 Figures show total expenditure on social security benefits. This includes all spending on housing and council tax benefits funded by

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    20011

    Total

    Cabinet Office

    9

    4

    13

    6

    32

    Privy Council Office

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    Charity Commission

    5

    13

    13

    7

    38

    Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    1

    1

    2

    0

    4

    Ministry of Defence

    7

    88

    43

    8

    146

    Department for Education and Skills2,3

    12

    77

    51

    6

    146

    Office for Standards in Education

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs4

    5

    33

    35

    24

    97

    Intervention Board

    2

    1

    1

    0

    4

    Export Credits Guarantee Department

    4

    0

    0

    0

    4

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    3

    1

    5

    2

    11

    Government Communications Headquarters

    0

    0

    2

    0

    2

    Department of Health

    8

    19

    30

    15

    72

    Home Office2

    1

    72

    26

    21

    120

    Department for International Development

    0

    1

    6

    0

    7

    Law Officers' Departments

    0

    10

    11

    2

    23

    Lord Chancellor's Department

    0

    21

    34

    9

    64

    National Assembly for Wales

    5

    28

    3

    3

    39

    Northern Ireland Office

    0

    11

    3

    0

    14

    Scottish Executive (includes Scottish Office)

    12

    19

    33

    34

    98

    Registers of Scotland

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Department of Trade and Industry

    22

    21

    26

    3

    72

    Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions4

    6

    5

    57

    44

    112

    Health and Safety Executive

    0

    6

    12

    10

    28

    Office of the Rail Regulator

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    Office of Water Services (OFWAT)

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    Ordnance Survey

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    Shadow Strategic Rail Authority (NDPB with effect from 1 February 2001)

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    HM Treasury

    2

    0

    2

    3

    7

    Office of Government Commerce

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1

    HM Customs and Excise

    1

    34

    77

    17

    129

    Inland Revenue (includes NICO and Valuation Office Agency)

    4

    252

    145

    62

    463

    Office for National Statistics

    0

    10

    1

    0

    11

    Royal Mint

    3

    0

    0

    0

    3

    Department for Work and Pensions3

    356

    1,758

    1,177

    397

    3,688

    Total

    471

    2,486

    1,811

    674

    5,442

    1 To 1 October 2001

    2 One New Dealer transferred from DfES to the Home Office

    3 Five New Dealers transferred from DfES to DWP

    4 Four New Dealers transferred from DTLR to DEFRA

    Note:

    This table monitors the number of starts and does not reflect transfer of staff under recent machinery of government changes (see 2,3,4 above)
    998W
    central and local Government. The figures do not include spending on tax credits, which are the responsibility of Inland Revenue. Spending on family credit and disability working allowance, which are superseded by tax credits, is included: £2.4 billion in 1996–97, £2.6 billion in 1997–98, £2.6 billion in 1998–99 and £2.0 billion in 1999–2000 (2001–02 prices).

    2 Real terms figures in 2001–02 prices are calculated using the GDP deflator published by the Office for National Statistics on 24 September 2001.

    New Deal
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 901W, on the new deal, to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw), if he will give a breakdown by year of the new deal starts in the Government Departments and agencies concerned and indicate what proportion of total recruitment was represented by New Deal starts (a) in each case and (b) for all Government Departments and agencies. [21266]

    Mr. Leslie
    I have been asked to reply.

    The table sets out the number of new deal starts by Government Department (including their agencies) by financial year. Information on the proportion this represents of the total number of employees recruited by Departments over the relevant period is not held centrally. It could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
    999W

  TREASURY

    Child Poverty
    Mrs. Lawrence
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's strategy for tackling child poverty. [23530]

    Mr. Gordon Brown
    As I said at the Treasury Committee hearing on 11 December, I am today publishing a pre-Budget report document on child poverty, "Tackling Child Poverty—giving every child the best possible start in life", which will inform next year's Budget and Spending Review 2002.

    The Government's strategy involves:

    helping to ensuring a decent family income, with work for those who can and support for those who cannot;

    delivering excellent public services for all neighbourhoods and targeted interventions for those with additional needs;

    supporting parents so that they can provide better support for their children; and

    harnessing the power and expertise of the voluntary and community sectors, providing support for innovation and good practice and building strategic partnerships with these sectors to fight child poverty.

    Copies of the document have been deposited in the Library of the House and are also available in the Vote Office.

    London Underground
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 54W, on London Underground, for what reason he is unable to state what involvement officials from HM Treasury have had in the value for money assessment of the London Underground PPP; and for what reason the Office of National Statistics has not made an assessment of the accounting treatment of the London Underground PPP; and if he will make a statement. [22288]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    The value for money assessment of the London Underground PPP will be carried out by London Transport in line with the relevant guidance produced by HM Treasury and the Treasury Taskforce. Treasury, DTLR and London Underground officials are in regular contact about various aspects of the PPP.

    The accounting treatment of the London Underground PPP is a matter for London Underground's own auditors.

    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what involvement members of the Council of Economic Advisers have had in the value for money assessment of the London Underground PPP; and if he will make a statement. [22255]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    The Council of Economic Advisers has had no involvement in the value for money assessment of the London Underground PPP. The value for money assessment of the London Underground PPP will be carried out by London Transport in line with the relevant guidance produced by HM Treasury and the Treasury Taskforce.
    1000W

    Departmental Budgets
    Mrs. May
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis loans may be made for a departmental budget to a private company in administration; on how many occasions this has occurred in the last four years; and how such loans would be treated in the national accounts. [22062]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The basis on which loans may be made from a departmental budget to a private company in administration is as for any other expenditure. Departments must take account of the guidance in Government Accounting, in particular, Chapter 2, on the powers to incur expenditure.

    Information on the number of occasions that such loans have been made in the last four years is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    In national accounts such loans are treated as loans from the government sector to the private sector. There is no impact on the public sector current surplus, public sector net borrowing, or Total Managed Expenditure (TME).

    Investment
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the real growth rate of net investment, as used to produce the estimates of future public borrowing set out in Table B2, page 165, of the pre-Budget report, November 2001. [20304]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The forecast for public sector net investment is set out in Table B5, page 171, of the pre-Budget report.

    Diesel
    Mr. Blunt
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the duty points for diesel in the United Kingdom. [21764]

    Mr. Boateng
    In the UK, duty on hydrocarbon oils, including diesel, is payable upon removal from either:

    1. A refinery (warehouse) for delivery to home use, or

    2. An import warehouse for delivery to home use.

    By "home use" we mean consumption in the UK, as opposed to export.

    HM Customs and Excise must approve such warehouses. A full list of Mineral Oil Premises (the warehouses and producers' premises) is available to the public in notice 179B.

    Barnett Formula
    Mr. Swire
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he will take of the 2001 census in Scotland in assessing funding under the Barnett formula. [22237]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    The Barnett formula uses the latest available mid-year population estimates. The outcome of the 2001 census will be taken into account when available.
    1001W

    Private Health Care
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the percentage of GDP spent on private health care. [16994]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    None.

    Public Finance Forecasts
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason he does not assume recent changes in(a) equity prices, (b) oil prices and (c) financial corporation (i) profits and (ii) bonuses to be cyclical for the purposes of his public finance forecasts. [22190]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    The Treasury's methodology for estimating the impact of the economic cycle on the public finances is set out in the publication "Fiscal policy: public finances and the cycle", HM Treasury, March 1999. The impact of equity prices, oil prices and financial corporations on the forecast is described in detail in paragraphs B34-B49 of the pre-Budget report (pages 174–178).

    Business Start-ups (Buckingham)
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many business start-ups there were in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997. [22646]

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

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Bercow, dated 13 December 2001:
    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the number of business start-ups in the Buckinghamshire Constituency since 1997 (22646).
    The information requested is given in the table:

    Business start-ups (VAT registrations) in each year since 1997

    Year

    Number

    2000

    680

    1999

    690

    1998

    705

    1997

    655

    Source:

    Office for National Statistics Inter Departmental Business Register (IDBR)

    Strikes (Buckingham)
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many working days were lost through(a) official and (b) unofficial strike action in the constituency of Buckingham in each year since 1997. [22643]

    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. John Bercow, dated 13 December 2001:
    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question about the number of working days lost due to strike action in the Buckingham constituency since 1997. (22643)
    The information requested is not available because Labour dispute statistics are not published below Government Office Region level.
    1002W
    Since 1981 the available figures have not distinguished between official and unofficial strikes due to the practical difficulties, in deciding if a strike is official or otherwise.

    Business (Buckingham)
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses there were in the Buckingham constituency with(a) 0 to five, (b) five to 20, (c) 20 to 49 and (d) more than 50 employees in each year since 1997. [22611]

    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. John Bercow, dated 13 December 2001:
    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question concerning the number of businesses Buckingham parliamentary constituency by employee sizeband in each year since 1997. (22641)
    The information requested is shown in the table.

    Number of VAT based enterprises in Buckingham parliamentary) constituency by employee sizebands by year (J 1996–2001)

    Employees sizebands

    Year

    0–4

    5–19

    20–49

    50+

    Total,

    2001

    3,720

    465

    45

    35

    4,265

    2000

    3,690

    450

    45

    35

    4,225

    1999

    3,585

    440

    50

    35

    4,110

    1998

    3,475

    430

    40

    35

    3,980

    1997

    3,245

    400

    35

    25

    3,710

    Note:

    All figures have been rounded to the nearest 5 to avoid disclosure

    Source:

    Office for National Statistics Inter Departmental Business Register

    Financial Services Authority
    Ian Stewart
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are in place to ensure that the Financial Services Authority is held accountable following the implementation of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. [23531]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Financial Services and Markets Act set out a comprehensive new framework to ensure that the FSA and its board, while independent of Government, would be properly accountable to Ministers, Parliament and the wider public. The Chancellor has today written to Howard Davies, Chairman of the Financial Services Authority, setting out how the Government propose to use their powers under the new arrangements to ensure that the accountability process works as effectively as possible.

    A copy of the letter, and the reply from the Chairman of the FSA, will today be deposited in the Library of the House and on the Treasury's website at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.

    Investment Capital Appraisal
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 55W, on Treasury investment capital appraisal, when he expects the review to conclude;

    1003W
    if he will place the terms of reference in the Library; what representations he has received; and if he will make a statement. [22264]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    The review is on-going. It needs to cover a range of complex issues and will conclude once the necessary work has been done. Its terms of reference are as per the objectives set out in paragraph 61 of the HM Treasury document—"Planning Sustainable Spending—Lessons from Previous Policy Experience", published in November 2000.

    Beer Duty
    Mr. Prisk
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations his Department has received on his proposals on progressive beer duty; and if the sliding scale of relief will apply to local brewers who produce up to 200,000 hectolitres per annum. [22611]

    Mr. Boateng
    The Government have announced that they are minded to introduce a reduced rate of duty on the beer produced by small breweries and has had a number of representations. A decision will be announced in Budget 2002.

    Stamp Duty
    Hugh Robertson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money HM Treasury has made from stamp duty on property sales in each of the past five years. [22610]

    Mr. Boateng
    Receipts from stamp duty charged on sales of land and property, for the last five financial years for which figures are available, from the Inland Revenue Statistics website http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Police (Early Retirement)
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he will take to assist(a) North Yorkshire police and (b) other forces to tackle the impact of early retirement on officer levels. [10185]

    Mr. Denham
    The Home Office has asked the Police Negotiating Board to explore and agree ways to deliver a fair and more consistent approach towards early retirement due to ill health, so that forces, including North Yorkshire police, can match the performance of the best quartile by 2005. We also hope to introduce a national Occupational Health strategy for the police service, which should assist forces to manage cases of ill-health more effectively at the outset.

    Antisocial Behaviour Orders
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders there have been in each magistrates court committee area since 1 June 2000. [20766]

    Mr. Denham
    Official statistics on the number of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) issued are based on quarterly returns received from magistrates courts committees (MCC). A review identified an under-count and my Department therefore undertook an exercise with 1004W
    the police to obtain more reliable figures. As a result of this reconciliation exercise the total number of ASBOs issued up until the end of September this year was 466, 184 more than previously reported. A breakdown by MCC area is given in the table.

    Number of antisocial behaviour orders1 issued up to 30 September 2001 by magistrates court committee area

    MCC area

    Up to 31 May 2000

    1 June 2000 to 30 September 2001

    Total

    Avon and Somerset

    9

    19

    28

    Bedfordshire

    —

    2

    2

    Cambridgeshire

    5

    3

    8

    Cheshire

    —

    —

    —

    Cleveland

    1

    9

    10

    Cumbria

    1

    1

    2

    Derbyshire

    3

    9

    12

    Devon and Cornwall

    1

    9

    10

    Dorset

    —

    4

    4

    Durham

    —

    10

    10

    Essex

    —

    —

    —

    Gloucestershire

    —

    4

    4

    GLMCA2

    9

    31

    40

    Great Manchester

    10

    14

    24

    Hampshire

    1

    3

    4

    Hertfordshire

    1

    8

    9

    Humberside

    —

    11

    11

    Kent

    —

    15

    15

    Lancashire

    5

    11

    16

    Leicestershire

    1

    4

    5

    Lincolnshire

    —

    1

    1

    Merseyside

    8

    9

    17

    Norfolk

    6

    11

    17

    Northamptonshire

    —

    3

    3

    Northumbria

    8

    7

    15

    North Yorkshire

    4

    6

    10

    Nottinghamshire

    1

    15

    16

    South Yorkshire

    3

    3

    6

    Staffordshire

    10

    10

    Suffolk

    3

    2

    5

    Surrey

    —

    4

    4

    Sussex

    3

    4

    7

    Thames Valley

    1

    6

    7

    Warwickshire

    —

    3

    3

    West Mercia

    5

    42

    47

    West Midlands

    11

    54

    65

    West Yorkshire

    4

    11

    15

    Wiltshire

    —

    —

    —

    Dyfed Powys

    —

    —

    —

    Gwent

    —

    1

    1

    North Wales

    —

    1

    1

    South Wales

    —

    2

    2

    England and Wales

    104

    466

    466

    1 Implemented from 1 April 1999 and data collected centrally from 1 June 2000 (including data from reconciliation exercise)

    2 Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority

    Antisocial Behaviour Orders

      National Black Police Association
      Peter Bottomley
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legally privileged information has been seized or obtained by surveillance of Dr. Ali Dizaei. [13710]

      Mr. Denham
      I would refer the hon. Member to my letter to him of 9 November, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

      Peter Bottomley
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the standards of promptness and diligence he expects in
      1005W
      the investigation of the National Black Police Association complaints against DAC Hayman and Superintendent Norman. [13712]

      Mr. Denham
      I am assured by the Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner that both the authority and the Metropolitan police service have taken all necessary and appropriate action as outlined in the relevant police regulations and legislation to deal with matters with due promptness and diligence.

      Peter Bottomley
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action will be taken in relation to the investigating officer who authorised the interception of legally privileged conversations of Dr. Ali Dizaei in his role as the legal adviser to the National Black Police Association. [13707]

      Mr. Denham
      I understand from the Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority that the authority has received a complaint into which it is making preliminary inquiries under the provisions of the Police (Conduct) (Senior Officers) Regulations 1999.

      Peter Bottomley
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the impact on black staff in the Police Service who sought legal advice from Dr. Ali Dizaei by the recording, transcription or use of privileged conversations of the legal adviser to the National Black Police Association. [13709]

      Mr. Denham
      I have no plans at present to institute a review. I would refer the hon. Member to my letter to him of 9 November, which clarifies the position regarding the telephone calls that Superintendent Dizaei made in connection with his National. Black Police Association business. A copy of this letter is in the Library.

      Speed Cameras
      Mr. Clapham
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of accuracy is, on average, of speed cameras over the calibrated distance marked on the road. [22229]

      Mr. Denham
      [holding answer 12 December 2001]: There is no average figure for the accuracy of speed cameras. In order to ensure their accuracy and reliability all speed cameras have to be of a type approved by the Secretary of State, after rigorous testing, before evidence from them can be used in proceedings.

      Measurements of vehicle speed are made by radar or by sensors in the road. Radar displays a primary speed using several hundred measurements taken during the passage of the vehicle through its beam. It requires most of these to be within two kilometres per hour. Devices using sensors on or in the road show a primary speed which is the lower of two measurements taken between different sensor pairs. The speed is only shown when they agree within two miles per hour.

      The calibrated distance marked on the road is used only to provide an independent secondary check of the primary speed measurement. The two measurements should be within 10 per cent.

      Mr. Clapham
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been raised by fines on drivers caught speeding by speed cameras;1006W
      and how the money is apportioned between (a) local police forces, (b) local authorities and (c) the Home Office. [22230]

      Mr. Denham
      [holding answer 12 December 2001]: The table gives information on the number of fixed penalties for speeding offences over the last five years where cameras have provided the evidence and the estimated revenue from fines. All the money has been paid to Her Majesty's (HM) Treasury.

      Fixed penalties

      Estimated revenue (£ million)

      1995

      170,000

      6.8

      1996

      212,600

      8.8

      1997

      288,600

      11.5

      1998

      338,800

      13.6

      1999

      423,000

      16.9

      Notes:

      1. Automatic cameras from 1995 until 1998, all camera types for 1999.

      2. Estimate based on number of fixed penalty notices accepted for payment at £40 each from 1995 to 1999 for England and Wales.

      3. Figures for 2000 not yet available.

      From April 2000 eight partnerships, comprising local police forces, local authorities, highways authorities and magistrates courts have been piloting a new 'netting off' scheme. This allows the fixed penalty revenue from speed and red-light traffic cameras to be re-invested to fund additional camera enforcement.

      Under the scheme, local magistrates courts within a partnership collect all fixed-penalty notice and fine revenue from offenders. The element to be netted off goes to the partnership's Local Authority, which acts as treasurer for the scheme, and distributes the funds to each of the partners on the basis of invoiced spend. Any revenue not used for camera enforcement goes to HM Treasury. The Home Office receives no money.

      In August the Government announced the national roll-out of the netting off scheme, and a further seven partnership areas joined the scheme in October 2001.

      Mr. Clapham
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what degree of tolerance to speed is allowed by the speed cameras; and whether this differs between counties. [22228]

      Mr. Denham
      [holding answer 12 December 2001]: Speed cameras indicate whether or not a driver may be exceeding the speed limit. The enforcement of speed limits is an operational matter for chief officers of police. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) published guidelines on speed enforcement thresholds in February 2000 to support a transparent and consistent approach, while recognising that not all speeding offences are the same. The police retain discretion to take account of the particular circumstances of any individual speeding incident.

      The thresholds guidelines are available on the ACPO website, at www.acpo.police.uk.

      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 for the reduction in residential burglary. [17057]
      1007W
      Mr. Denham
      Our target is that, by March 2005, there will be:a reduction in recorded domestic burglary of 25 per cent. (compared to the 12 months to March 1999)—ie down from 473,349 at least to 355,011;
      no local authority area having a domestic burglary rate (measured in burglaries per thousand households) more than three times the national average.

      In the 12 months to March 2001, there were 402,984 recorded burglaries; a reduction of 14.9 per cent. compared to March 1999.

      Firearms
      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken since October 1997 to establish a central register of persons who have(a) applied for a licence and (b) to whom a licence to carry a firearm has been granted; what consideration he has given to extending the register (i) to Northern Ireland and (ii) to Scotland; and what information will be retained on this register. [21307]

      Mr. Denham
      The central register is being developed by the Police Information Technology Organisation as part of the PHOENIX database on the Police National Computer (PNC). Following receipt of an agreed user requirement, a detailed impact assessment was carried out of the work which needed to be done to link the PNC to existing firearms systems in forces. Work is planned for completion in November 2002.

      Section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 which requires the establishment of a register, does not apply to Northern Ireland, which has separate firearms controls.

      Scottish forces already have a centralized database which is likely to meet the requirements of section 39, except that it is only accessible on-line to Scottish forces. Work is in hand to determine the detailed technical issues involved in making the necessary links with PNC.

      The register will record full details of all persons whose applications for grant or renewal of a firearm or shot gun certificate have been accepted or refused; and also of those whose certificates have been revoked. It will also bring to notice the details of any certificate holder who is arrested/summonsed, together with details of any subsequent conviction or other disposal.

      Police Response Vehicles
      Dr. Cable
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police response vehicles are available in each London borough and to the British Transport police. [20614]

      Mr. Denham
      The number of police response vehicles available in each London borough is set out in the table. The three British Transport police operational areas covering London (which police an area larger than that covered by the London boroughs) have 25 response vehicles.
      1008W

      London borough

      Instant response vehicles

      Area vehicles

      Barking and Dagenham

      4

      2

      Barnet

      17

      4

      Bexley

      6

      2

      Brent

      13

      2

      Bromley

      10

      3

      Camden

      9

      4

      Croydon

      10

      5

      Ealing

      9

      3

      Enfield

      6

      3

      Greenwich

      11

      5

      Hackney

      10

      2

      Hammersmith and Fulham

      8

      2

      Haringey

      9

      2

      Harrow

      6

      2

      Havering

      8

      2

      Hillingdon

      8

      4

      Hounslow

      12

      2

      Islington

      11

      2

      Kensington and Chelsea

      4

      2

      Kingston

      9

      1

      Lambeth

      20

      4

      Lewisham

      9

      3

      Merton

      6

      2

      Newham

      9

      3

      Redbridge

      12

      3

      Richmond

      7

      2

      Southwark

      15

      3

      Sutton

      4

      2

      Tower Hamlets

      9

      2

      Waltham Forest

      8

      3

      Wandsworth

      14

      2

      Westminster

      18

      3

      Total

      311

      86

      Note:

      The vehicles are classed by the Metropolitan police as 'response vehicles'. However, there are many other vehicles used in boroughs that respond to calls e.g. vans, panda cars, CID cars.

      Police Corruption
      John McDonnell
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were charged with corruption in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000; and how many have been convicted of corruption offences. [20496]

      Mr. Denham
      The following numbers of officers were convicted of corruption in England and Wales:

      Year

      Number

      1996–97

      5

      1997–98

      1

      1998–99

      2

      1999–2000

      3

      2000–01

      3

      The information required to provide the number of officers charged with corruption is not held centrally and to seek this information from all police forces would involve a disproportionate cost.

      John McDonnell
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in the Metropolitan police are allocated to the investigation of corruption within the police service. [20500]
      1009W
      Mr. Denham
      The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that currently there are 376 police officers and 130 civilian support staff allocated to the investigation of corruption.

      John McDonnell
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's strategy to tackle corruption in the police service. [20497]

      Mr. Denham
      Prevention and detection of corruption in the police is the responsibility of the chief officer of the police force concerned.

      The Standards Unit and the refocused Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) will support the work of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the guidance it has issued on the prevention and detection of corruption in the police.

      The Government will assist the police service in its fight against corruption by making changes to the complaints system. We will bring forward in the Police Bill proposals which will enable the Independent Police Complaints Commission (the replacement body for the Police Complaints Authority) to manage police investigations and to conduct its own independent investigations into alleged corruption.

      Metropolitan Police
      Mrs. May
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the additional Metropolitan police officers pledged by the MPA last year were to be funded by resources from the crime fighting fund; and what was the(a) level of central Government funding and (b) amount that was left to be funded by the GLA precept. [20375]

      Mr. Denham
      In order to achieve a net increase in strength of 1,050 officers over the year to 31 March 2001, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) expects to have to recruit about 2,500 officers in 2001.

      Of the total number of recruits, 807 will be funded through the crime fighting fund (CFF) for whom the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) will receive about £25.5 million of CFF funding. It will also receive about £17.5 million to meet the cost of 555 CFF officers appointed in 2000–01.

      The cost of the remaining recruits will be met by the Metropolitan police authority from its budget. The budget provision for 2001–02 for the additional 1,050 officers was £23 million.

      Home Office police grant to the Metropolitan police for 2001–02 is £1,007.5 million and the total of revenue support grant and national non domestic rates is £658.7 million. Specific grants, including the crime fighting fund, are expected to total £60 million giving a total for central Government funding of £1,726 million.

      The total MPA precept for 2001–02 was £314 million.

      Anti-terrorism Measures
      Mr. Austin Mitchell
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason he has registered the Terrorism (UN Measures) (Channel Islands) Order 1010W
      2001 of 9 October 2001 in advance of the provisions of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill being passed by Parliament. [22253]

      Mr. Wills
      I have been asked to reply.

      The Terrorism (United Nations Measures) (Channel Islands) Order 2001 implemented, in the Channel Islands, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373/2001, which contains provisions to suppress terrorist financing. The Order was made under the United Nations Act 1946. Orders implementing the Resolution in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Overseas Territories were also made on 9 October.

      Overseas Recruitment
      Mrs. Ellman
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to enable highly skilled individuals to come to the United Kingdom to seek employment. [23252]

      Angela Eagle
      Currently, it is not possible for individuals, other than those with ancestral ties to the United Kingdom, to come to this country to seek and take up work in the absence of a job offer. This makes it difficult to attract highly mobile people with the special talents that are required in a modern economy. We are therefore introducing a programme specifically for highly skilled migrants which will enable them to come to the United Kingdom and seek work.

      This programme is designed to allow highly skilled people to migrate to the United Kingdom in order to seek and take up work. It differs from the work permit scheme, as it does not require an employer to obtain a permit for the individual, and from the existing business routes (for example, the Innovators scheme or other business categories) in that it does not require a detailed business plan or investment in the United Kingdom. It will initially be run as a concession outside the current immigration rules.

      In order to qualify, applicants will need to demonstrate that they score 75 points or more. Points can be scored in five areas: educational qualifications, work experience, past earnings, achievement in chosen field and "Highly Skilled Migrant Programme priority applications". This final area has been specifically designed to facilitate the recruitment and retention of suitably qualified overseas doctors who wish to work as general practitioners for the national health service.

      I am today placing in the Library a draft version of the guidance to applicants. This includes full details on how an individual can score sufficient points to meet the standard required to qualify under this programme. Applicants will also have to demonstrate that they can continue their chosen careers and that they will be able to maintain and accommodate themselves and any family while in the United Kingdom.

      Those already in the United Kingdom in a capacity leading to settlement may apply directly to the Home Office to obtain this status. We will also allow those graduating from a United Kingdom university, or completing their post-graduate medical studies, to apply while remaining in the United Kingdom, provided they have not been sponsored by their home governments.
      1011W
      The Highly Skilled Migrant Programme will run for an initial period of 12 months and will come into force in January 2002. Application forms will be available from the Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office websites at www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk and www.fco.gov.uk respectively. Applications will be accepted by diplomatic posts overseas from 28 January 2002.

      This programme represents a further step in developing our immigration system to maximise the benefits to the United Kingdom of highly skilled workers who have the qualifications and skills required by United Kingdom businesses to compete in the global marketplace. It will allow eminent scientists to base their research projects here, should encourage the movement of business and financial experts to the City of London and give those at the top of their chosen profession the choice of making the United Kingdom their home.

      Crime (Coventry)
      Mr. Jim Cunningham
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the most frequent types of crime in Coventry are; what the level is of violent crime; and how many reports of these crimes there were(a) in 1998 and (b) at the last date for which figures are available. [20956]

      Mr. Denham
      [holding answer 10 December 2001]: Over the West Midlands as a whole, the most common category of crime is theft (including handling of stolen goods), which comprises about 38 per cent. of crime recorded by the police. This category is also the most common over England and Wales as a whole. Figures for all theft are not collected centrally below police force area level.

      Totals of offences of violence against the person, sexual offences, and robbery, which comprise violent crime, have been collected at the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) level since 1 April 1999. The total numbers of violent offences recorded in the Coventry CDRP area in the years ending March 2000 and March 2001 were 5,986 and 6,912 respectively.

      It should be noted that recorded violent crime is subject to changes in reporting and recording. The 2001 British Crime Survey found that, over England and Wales as a whole, reporting to the police of violent offences comparable to those in recorded crime rose from 35 per cent. in 1999 to 45 per cent. in 2000.

      Also, the British Crime Survey has shown that, in England and Wales as a whole, victimisation for the violent crime in the survey which is comparable to recorded crime decreased by 19 per cent. between the 1999 and 2000 calendar years, whereas comparable violent crime recorded by the police increased by nine per cent. Violent crime recorded by the police may therefore not necessarily be a reflection of real changes in the level of victimisation.

      Police Retention
      Dr. Kumar
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of police officers(a) taking sustained sick leave and (b) who retire early on the grounds of ill health. [16880]
      1012W
      Mr. Denham
      [holding answer 22 November 2001]: Information from forces collected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary shows that in 2000–01 2,591 officers in England and Wales (excluding the Metropolitan police and South Wales police, for which figures are not available) took long term sick leave (defined as continuous sick absence of 28 days or more).

      The Home Office plans to introduce a national occupational health strategy for the police service in England and Wales. The strategy will identify positive steps that forces can take to help officers who suffer illness or injury to make the speediest possible return to duty.

      The number of ill-health retirements has declined from 2,012 in 1996–97 (45 per cent. of retiring officers) to 1,209 in 2000–01 (31 per cent.). (The figures collected centrally do not distinguish whether ill-health retirement took place either before or after the officer concerned was eligible for a maximum 30-year pension.)

      The downward trend is encouraging but more work needs to be done. The Home Office has therefore asked the Police Negotiating Board to explore and agree ways to deliver a fair and more consistent approach towards early retirement due to ill health, so that forces can achieve the best quartile baseline by 2005.

      DI John Redgrave
      Andrew Mackinlay
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 230W, when the solicitor was changed; and for whom he was acting. [21748]

      Mr. Denham
      [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the solicitors previously referred to are from his Directorate of Legal Services and act on his behalf. The change of lawyers took place on 24 August 2001, as a consequence of the retirement of the original lawyer.

      Resource Allocation
      Mr. Syms
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the transfer of £22 million from the criminal justice system reserve to the Crown Prosecution Service set out in the Winter Supplementary Estimate 2001–02. [22137]

      Mr. Keith Bradley
      [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The transfer of £22 million from the Criminal Justice System Reserve to the Crown Prosecution Service represents a payment towards the cost of approved initiatives that have the joint agreement of the Home Secretary, Lord Chancellor and Attorney-General. The initiatives support joined-up criminal justice priorities.

      Ministerial Meetings
      Chris Grayling
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Chief Constable of Surrey. [20934]

      Mr. Denham
      The Home Secretary regularly meets Chief Constables on both formal and informal occasions, and most recently met Mr. Des O'Conner, in his capacity as Vice-President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, on 3 December.
      1013W

      Correspondence
      Mr. Keetch
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 11 September from Mr. John Slough, a constituent; and if he will make a statement. [21221]

      Mr. Denham
      Mr. Slough's letter of 11 September was one of several regarding his claim for compensation under the terms of the Firearms Compensation Scheme. An offer was made to him on 5 October and this formed the basis of a subsequent payment in respect of certain outstanding items. A letter was sent to him on 17 October in respect of all outstanding correspondence, explaining that since these letters had been written an offer had been made and an explanation given as to why remaining items were considered ineligible.

      Flooding (Ilford)
      Linda Perham
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the impact on civil defence procedures in Ilford, North of the flooding of the River Roding; and what improvements have been made in the last 12 months in the event of further flooding. [15530]

      Mr. Denham
      [holding answer 16 November 2001]: As part of its responsibility for servicing the Civil Contingencies Committee, which is chaired by the Home Secretary, the Cabinet Office makes grants to local authorities under regulations made under the Civil Defence Act 1948. These cover the costs of emergency planning, liaison, training and exercising. They do not cover risk mitigation, prevention or response and it has not therefore made an assessment of the impact of specific emergencies upon any local authority.

    TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

      British Airlines
      Mr. Hoyle
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what Government support is being given to British airlines. [16728]

      Mr. Byers
      I have decided to provide up to £40 million of financial assistance to compensate airlines for losses arising directly from the 11 September terrorist attacks in the United States. Qualifying airlines will now be invited to submit claims under this scheme. I have placed a copy of the scheme conditions in the Library.

      Compensation under the scheme will cover lost revenue over the period during which airspace was closed. It will also compensate for additional costs incurred during that period, such as (but not limited to) airport and airspace charges, costs incurred in transporting passengers from their diverted destination to their intended destination, additional operating costs of diverted aircraft and additional crew costs.

      In making this decision I have had regard to the views of many hon. Members who have written to me, of their constituents, of the airlines and of the trade unions. I accept that the circumstances, which are consequent both
      1014W
      on the terrorist attacks and on the subsequent decisions affecting airspace, are indeed exceptional and therefore merit exceptional assistance.

      The Government have worked with their European partners to minimise distortions to the single market, and have therefore supported guidelines which limit airline compensation to cover these exceptional circumstances.

      The assistance I am offering will help airlines at a time when passenger numbers on services between the UK and US, and therefore revenues, are still significantly below their pre-11 September levels, but without distorting competition or relieving airlines of the need to take appropriate measures to meet the changed conditions in the market. The UK is giving a lead in the EU in announcing a scheme of financial assistance in respect of the closure of US airspace, just as it was the first to provide third-party war risk insurance when the market failed.

      Assistance under this package is in conformity with Commission guidelines on state aid, and I have notified the Commission of my intention accordingly.

      Railtack
      Chris Grayling
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what payments have been made to Railtrack in administration since 7 October by(a) the Treasury, (b) his Department, (c) the SRA and (d) the Rail Regulator; [18944]

      (2) if he will make a statement on the payment of £162 million by the SRA to Railtrack in administration subsequent to the abandoning of Renewco. [18952]

      Mr. Jamieson
      Since 7 October 2001, no payments have been made to Railtrack in administration by the Treasury or the Rail Regulator. Up to 7 December 2001, the SRA had paid £162 million of network grant and some £5 million for project development. My Department had made repayable cash advances of £1,228 million to Railtrack in administration under the Loan Agreement, copies of which were placed in the House Library on 17 October. Those advances, most of which are being used to repay existing Railtrack debt, are to be recouped from the realisation of assets of the company (or new debt) when it is brought out of administration.

      Mr. Redwood
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much Government money was paid to Railtrack plc(a) directly and (b) via the Strategic Rail Authority in 2001–02 before the Administration Order; and how much was planned for the rest of the financial year. [19427]

      Mr. Spellar
      Between 1 April and 5 October 2001, the SRA paid £360.2 million to Railtrack. Between 5 October 2001 and 31 March 2002, the SRA is scheduled to pay £162 million to Railtrack. Apart from repayable cash advances made since 7 October to Railtrack in administration under the loan agreement, no payments have been made, or are planned to be made, direct to Railtrack in 2001–02 by my Department. Details of those cash advances were set out in the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 13 December 2001,Official Report, column 1014W
      1015W
      Chris Grayling
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what dates requests for advances were received from the Railtrack administrator under section 5 of the commercial loan agreement; and if these were(a) trust and (b) working capital advances. [21480]

      Mr. Jamieson
      Requests for advances are received on a weekly basis. All such requests to date have been in respect of the trust accounts.

      Chris Grayling
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what variations in budget have been recorded in management accounts provided by the Railtrack administrator under section 8.1.6(a) of the commercial loan agreement. [21486]

      Mr. Jamieson
      The management accounts are produced by Railtrack and not the administrator, who has no involvement in their computation.

      Chris Grayling
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what limitations will restrict the amount the Railtrack Administrator may borrow. [21497]

      Mr. Jamieson
      The amount that the Administrator may borrow is restricted by the terms of the commercial loan agreement.

      Mr. Wray
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of the railways; what operations are under consideration for changes to their structure; and what funds will be allocated to Railtrack(a) during the period of its administration and (b) in the event that it is bought by a private company. [22080]

      Mr. Jamieson
      [holding answer 12 December 2001]: The Government want Railtrack plc' s role as Network Operator transferred to a robust successor company capable of delivering the quality of service its customers deserve as soon as possible. The structure of the successor company will depend on which bid is approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

      As far as the Government's proposal for a private sector company limited by guarantee is concerned, the broad structure was outlined in the answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 23 October 2001, Official Report, columns 195–97W. But it will be for the bid team, under the leadership of Ian McAllister, to present a detailed proposal to the Administrators.

      All potential bidders will need to take account of the guidelines published by my right hon. Friend in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on 31 October 2001, Official Report, columns 669–71W. The guidelines require them to address very clearly the basis, extent and nature of support that will be required from the Government.

      The amount the Administrator needs to borrow to support the company will depend on how long administration lasts. All borrowing from the Department will be repaid at the point the network transfers to a successful company, if not before. The rail regulator's October 2000 periodic review and the April 2001
      1016W
      agreement on the timing of direct grants from the SRA set the level of Railtrack's income for the current control period (2001–06).

      Rail Regulator
      Miss McIntosh
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on intervening to give directions to the Rail Regulator; and if he will make a statement. [20270]

      Mr. Jamieson
      The Government have said that they wish to review the regulatory regime applying to the railways. The Government believe that any reviewed regime should contain an element of independent regulation.

      Homelessness
      Mr. Jim Cunningham
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the estimated number of homeless people above the age of(a) 50, (b) 60 and (c) 70 years. [19361]

      Ms Keeble
      [holding answer 3 December 2001]: This information is not collected centrally.

      The Department collects summary information on the number of households accepted by local authorities in England under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Acts 1985 and 1996, as being eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need by main category of priority need. One of these categories is those households deemed vulnerable because of old age.

      Some 4,000 households were accepted under this category in 2000–01, 4 per cent. of the total.

      Age information on rough sleepers is not recorded in the format requested but information collected during counts of people sleeping rough and in homelessness agencies' client monitoring consistently shows that most rough sleepers are men, aged between 26 and 49.

      In its 1998 report on rough sleeping, the Social Exclusion Unit reported that 6 per cent. of rough sleepers were over 60 years of age.

      Mr. Hancock
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many homeless people there are in the Portsmouth, South constituency. [21796]

      Ms Keeble
      The latest available information reported to the Department by Portsmouth city council on the number of household accepted under the homelessness provisions of the Housing 1985 and 1996 Acts as being eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need, and the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation is as follows:

      Number of households

      Accepted as eligible, unintentionally homeless and in priority need during July to September 2001

      162

      Resident in temporary accommodation on 31 September 2001

      70

      Source:

      DTLR P1(E) housing activity return (quaterly)
      1017W

      Train Delays
      Miss McIntosh
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received on the delays on trains over the last two months; and if he will make a statement. [20748]

      Mr. Jamieson
      I am aware of 184 written representations received in the past two months by this Department and the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) about the performance of rail services.

      External Consultants
      Mr. Bercow
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the cost was to his Department of the use of external consultants in each of the last four years. [21246]

      Dr. Whitehead
      Figures for the spend in 2000–01 is £98.7 million and in the year to date is £79.5 million. These figures include spend by the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Figures for the previous two years can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

      Stocking Farm Scheme
      Mr. Clappison
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions further to his answer of 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 182W, on the Beaumont Leys Stocking Farm Scheme, if he will indicate (a) how many of the jobs were taken by residents of the area covered by the single regeneration budget (SRB) scheme and (b) how many of the jobs were sustained jobs; and if he will give a sectoral breakdown of the jobs. [21213]

      Ms Keeble
      Seven of the 29 jobs created in the Leicester North West SRB programme have been taken by residents from the SRB area. All seven jobs have been sustained for at least six months. Six of the jobs are in the education sector and one in the creative industries sector.

      Rail Safety
      Mr. Don Foster
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what steps have been taken to revise the railway safety group standard for crashworthiness with reference to(a) the design requirements for more realistic scenarios, (b) high speed accidents and (c) dynamic verification testing; [21172]

      (2) whether the group standard on signal sighting requires that explicit consideration be given to the readability of a signal. [21097]

      Mr. Jamieson
      I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report, columns 568–93W.

      Millennium Dome
      Nick Harvey
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will state, on a monthly basis, from the date for which the most recent figures are available until December 2002, the(a) amount and (b) nature of any debts likely to be
      1018W
      incurred by the Millennium Dome if by that time no arrangements have been made and put into effect for its lease or sale. [21211]

      Ms Keeble
      After assuming the ownership of the Dome from the New Millennium Experience Company, on 1 July 2001, English Partnerships has not incurred any debts and is not expecting to do so in future. However, it has been incurring costs in relation to the Dome, as reported to both Houses recently. All such costs are to be recovered from eventual sale proceeds.

      Mr. Clifton-Brown
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish a full prospectus of sale for the Dome site; and if housing built on the Dome site will meet the Government's 10-year target for house building on brownfield sites in London. [22760]

      Ms Keeble
      At present, we do not intend to publish a prospectus of sale for the Dome site, given the continuation of market testing. As previously stated, and on the basis of professional advice, we are in discussion with a small number of serious contenders. Information on the Dome and associated land is made available to interested parties as necessary, in the course of confidential discussions.

      The building of houses on the Dome site is not proposed.

      Mr. Yeo
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many staff English Partnerships will have on duty at the Ministry of Sound's new year's eve party at the Millennium Dome, broken down by the nature and purpose of their duty; [22861]

      (2) how many staff from the emergency services will be on duty at the Ministry of Sound's new year's eve party at the Millennium Dome; [22862]

      Ms Keeble
      Arrangements with the emergency services are a matter for the Ministry of Sound and the relevant services and authorities. I understand that discussions are on-going.

      English Partnerships—as owner of the site—will have seven personnel on duty to supervise the Ministry of Sound's operations, including English Partnership's security in relation to those parts of the peninsula which will not be Ministry of Sound's responsibility. But prime responsibility for organisation of all aspects of the night's activities lies contractually with the Ministry of Sound.

      Mr. Yeo
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 448W, on the Millennium Dome, for what reason the three holes in the internal lining of the roof of the Millennium Dome do not need repair; and if he will make a statement. [22798]

      Ms Keeble
      It is understood that the holes to the internal lining of the two skin roof were created during the construction and fitting out period for the Dome, and during the operational year of the Dome. These do not need repairing at present as they do not affect the operation and effectiveness of the roof and the inner lining.
      1019W
      Mr. Yeo
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many staff of English Partnerships are working(a) full time and (b) part time on the (i) sale, (ii) leasing and (iii) maintenance of the Millennium Dome. [22853]

      Ms Keeble
      The numbers of staff directly employed by English Partnerships in relation to the Dome are:

      Full-time

      Part-time

      Sale

      1

      8

      Leasing

      0

      4

      Maintenance

      4

      8

      Mr. Yeo
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many staff were employed at the Millennium Dome in each month of this year, indicating for each member of staff(a) the length of their contract and (b) their responsibilities. [22854]

      Ms Keeble
      The information is not available centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

      Mr. Yeo
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information is given to those people and undertakings who have expressed an interest in(a) bidding for and (b) leasing the Millennium Dome; and if he will place a copy of this information in the Library. [22859]

      Ms Keeble
      The information supplied has varied depending upon the nature of the inquiry.

      Mr. Yeo
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Ministry of Sound's period of hire of the Millennium Dome for their New Year's Eve party will(a) start and (b) finish; and if he will make a statement. [22860]

      Ms Keeble
      The Ministry of Sound commences setting up for the event on 17 December 2001, and has planning consent for the event to run from 7.00 pm on 31 December 2001 until 9.00 am on 1 January 2002. They are due to have removed all their equipment by 9 January 2002.

      Rate Relief (Buckinghamshire)
      Mr. Bercow
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) village pubs, (b) post offices and (c) petrol stations in the Buckingham constituency have received rate relief in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [220331

      Dr. Whitehead
      To qualify for village shop rate relief properties must be located in a qualifying settlement. That is one that is located in a designated rural area and has a population of less than 3,000. Although qualifying rural areas are designated centrally it is the responsibility of the local authorities to identify qualifying settlements of less than 3,000 persons in these rural areas. They are not required to notify us of these settlements. Therefore, we do not know where or how many properties in a particular area are in qualifying rural settlements.

      Neither do we know how many properties have been granted relief. Although local authorities provide the Department with the amount of rate relief granted in any year this is not broken down into the different types of property that are eligible to receive it. Neither are they
      1020W
      required to say how many properties have received relief. However, from next year we will be asking local authorities to provide such breakdowns in their returns.

      In 2000–01 Aylesbury Vale district council granted £18,095 in mandatory rate relief to qualifying village premises and for 2001–02 they estimate the figure to be £20,535.

      Railways
      Mr. Drew
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with(a) the Rail Regulator and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority on redefining their roles. [21711]

      Mr. Jamieson
      [holding answer 10 December 2001]: We are considering options for streamlining the regulatory regime. This has involved discussions with the Rail Regulator and the new Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority.

      Chris Grayling
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the total number of timetabled rail services in the United Kingdom in(a) 1993, (b) 1997 and (c) 2001. [21945]

      Mr. Jamieson
      In 1993–94 217 million train miles were operated on the UK railway network, in 1997–98 240 million and in 2000–01 268 million. Information on the number of specific services timetabled in each year is dependent upon the definition of 'service' and would be available from the National Rail timetable for the particular year, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

      Rail Franchises
      Chris Grayling
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received about the financial implications of delay to the completion of the new South West trains and South Central franchises. [21851]

      Mr. Jamieson
      Apart from comments made by hon. Members in recent Adjournment debates, I have received no such representations.

      West Coast Main Line
      Chris Grayling
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with Virgin trains since 7 October about the West Coast main line. [21849]

      Mr. Jamieson
      Officials from my Department and the Strategic Rail Authority have met with Virgin trains on a number of occasions since 7 October to discuss options for taking forward the West Coast Main Line upgrade. Discussions have also been held with Railtrack and other users and stakeholders.

      London Underground
      Chris Grayling
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the rate of(a) track and (b) signal failures has been on suburban routes into (i) Waterloo and (ii) London Victoria in each of the past six months. [21949]
      1021W
      Mr. Jamieson
      This information is not held centrally in the form requested. The Strategic Rail Authority publish performance statistics in their quarterly "On Track" publication. A new edition will be published shortly.

      Mr. Syms
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how the increased provision of money as set out on page 5 of the 2001–02 Winter Supplementary Estimates to the Supply Estimates for London Underground PPP advisers and rail consultants is to be spent. [22251]

      Mr. Jamieson
      The proposed increased provision is primarily for work related to Railtrack. The proposed provision for London Underground allows the Department to employ independent advisers where necessary, including Ernst and Young who are currently carrying out a review of London Underground's value for money evaluation of the tube modernisation plans.

      Tom Brake
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the costs(a) incurred to date and (b) that will be incurred if he decides not to proceed with PPP for the London Underground. [22267]

      Mr. Jamieson
      [holding answer 11 December 2001]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) on 4 December 2001, Official Report, column 296W, for part (a) of this question. For part (b) I refer him to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on 19 November 2001, Official Report, column 32W. It is not possible to estimate what cost might be involved.

      Pneumoconiosis Compensation Grant
      Mr. Syms
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people have received a contribution from the pneumoconiosis compensation grant each year since 1979. [22247]

      Dr. Whitehead
      Since the Act came into force in 1980 and up until 31 March 2001, 9,396 claimants have received a payment. The yearly breakdown of figures is as follows:

      Year

      Claims paid

      1979–83

      4,293

      1983–84

      133

      1984–85

      55

      1985–86

      75

      1986–87

      61

      1987–88

      67

      1988–89

      55

      1989–90

      105

      1990–91

      147

      1991–92

      149

      1992–93

      162

      1993–94

      202

      1994–95

      307

      1995–96

      363

      1996–97

      453

      1997–98

      391

      1998–99

      651

      1999–2000

      799

      2000–01

      928

      1022W

      Council Tax
      David Wright
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the arrangements for council tax benefit subsidy limitation for 2002–03 revenue support grant settlements. [21846]

      Dr. Whitehead
      We have announced the abolition of the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme with effect from 2002–03 in the White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services".

      Business Rates
      Matthew Taylor
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the reason for the change in the seasonal pattern of business rates receipts in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2000–01. [22194]

      Dr. Whitehead
      No detailed assessment has been made of the reason for the change in the seasonal pattern of business rate receipts in England in(a) 2001–02 and(b) 2000–01. However, a comparison of the overall business rates receipts for the first two quarters of 2000–01 compared with the same quarters in 2001–02 is given in the table:

      Business rate receipts

      April to June

      July to September

      2000–01 (£ million)

      4,357

      4,040

      2001–02 (£ million)

      5,023

      4,407

      Percentage increase

      15

      9

      The figures cover both receipts from the central list (collected by central Government) and from local lists (collected by local authorities). There are several factors that can influence the amount of business rates received from one year to the next. Some of them are likely to have led to overall increases in amounts received between 2000–01 and 2001–02, and others are likely to have led to overall decreases. Factors that are known to have influenced the pattern of business rates received in 2000–01 compared with so far in 2001–02 are described as follows:

      (a) The total rateable value increased from £39,169 million in April 2000 to £41,807 million in April 2001;

      (b) The multiplier increased from 41.6p in 2000–01 and to 43.0p in 2001–02. This increase was in line with changes in the Retail Prices Index, as required by legislation;

      (c) The transfer of Crown properties to local lists in 2000–01 caused some delay to the issue of bills in that year. Consequently, in 2001–02 there has been a change in the pattern of business rate receipts as result of some Crown properties paying their bill in full at the start of the financial year;

      (d) Similarly, the transfer of power stations from the central list to local lists from 2000–01 caused some delay to the issue of bills in that year. Consequently, business rate receipts for power stations are spread more evenly across the financial year in 2001–02 than they were in 2000–01, with a higher proportion being received in the first half of the year;

      (e) The effects of foot and mouth disease, resulting in an increase in the amount of hardship relief granted, deferment of payment by business rate payers to help overcome short-term cash-flow difficulties and, on a slightly longer timescale, a reduction in rateable values.

      1023W
      Other general factors that can influence business rate receipt levels in any year include:

      (f) addition of new assessments to the rating list as a result, for example, of the opening of new large retail premises;

      (g) other local difficulties, such as the closure of significant businesses in the area;

      (h) late dispatch of bills; and difficulties faced by the introduction of new computer systems; and

      (i) successful appeals on the rateable value, with refunds going back several years.

      Emissions
      Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he next plans to meet motor industry leaders to discuss the Government's policy on fuel emissions. [20564]

      Mr. Jamieson
      [holding answer 11 December 2001]: DTLR Ministers regularly meet motor industry leaders to discuss fuel emissions and have a number of upcoming meetings including a seminar on the Powering Future Vehicles consultation paper on 30 January 2002. The Department's officials are also in regular contact with representatives of both the motor and oil industries in developing policy in relation to motor vehicle emissions and fuel quality.

      Abandoned Vehicles
      Dr. Murrison
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish an impact assessment of the Statutory Off Road Notification Scheme on the number of abandoned vehicles in England. [22469]

      Mr. Jamieson
      The reasons for the increase in abandoned vehicles are largely economic with the significant fall in the price of scrap metal, and the price of second-hand vehicles has been falling steadily. The SORN regulations are not the reason behind the increase in the number of abandoned vehicles and there are no plans to publish an impact assessment.

      Local Government Finance
      Mr. Kidney
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his oral statement of 4 December 2001,Official Report, columns 167–70, what measures of price increases he took into account in assessing the real-terms increases to which he referred. [22748]

      Dr. Whitehead
      The gross domestic product (GDP) deflator was used to assess the real-terms increase in grant since the Government took office referred to in the statement on the proposals for the funding of local government revenue expenditure next year. A series for the GDP deflator in index form is produced by the Treasury from data provided by the Office for National Statistics. This series is extended to future years by applying Treasury forecasts of the inflation rate. The series allows for the effects of changes in price (inflation) to be removed from a time series.

      Mr. Salter
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will announce details of the capital allocations to local authorities through the single capital pot for 2002–03. [23034]
      1024W
      Mr. Raynsford
      I am today announcing the first all-purpose capital allocations to local authorities through the single capital pot for 2002–03. A total of £2.3 billion will be provided in this first year of the pot. This is more than double the amount authorities received last year in basic credit approvals (BCAs).

      Today's announcement reflects the substantial increases in public resources provided for local government investment in Spending Review 2000 and demonstrates our real commitment to delivering first rate public services.

      These funds will not be ring-fenced for any particular capital investment. While the pot is made up of allocations from housing, transport, education and health budgets, councils will be free to make their own decisions about investing their capital funds locally. This delivers to councils more autonomy and flexibility to invest according to the priorities of the local community.

      The single capital pot also includes a new discretionary element. Five per cent. of the total resources available through the pot have been distributed to authorities on the basis of their performance in delivering the relevant services and the quality of their strategic asset management planning. Its purpose is to encourage and reward the effective use of a council's physical assets and new capital investment in supporting delivery of quality services and achieving better value for local people.

      Detailed tables, showing the total service allocations and the discretionary allocations for each authority, have been placed in the Library of the House. These include allocations that form part of the local transport capital settlement announced today. In parallel, housing authorities will today receive details of their housing allocations and a copy of these has also been placed in the Library.

      Regional Assembly (South-east)
      Dr. Julian Lewis
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many written representations he has received from people in the New Forest, East constituency expressing support for an elected regional assembly in the south-east of England in the past 12 months. [22801]

      Dr. Whitehead
      None.

      Social Exclusion
      Andrew Selous
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list the competitive grant scheme, administered by the Department and its agencies, open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion and, for each scheme in each year(a) the number of applicants,(b) the number of successful applicants, (c) the total of grants awarded, (d) the number of pages in the application form and (e) if the grant can be used to fund the core costs of the applicant organisation; [22426]

      (2) what estimate has been made of the administrative cost to the (a) state, (b) unsuccessful applicants and(c) successful applicants of the competitive grant schemes, provided by his Department and its agencies

      1025W
      open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion; [22405]

      (3) if he will provide a list of the grants made under the competitive grant schemes administered by his Department and its agencies open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion; [22422]

      (4) how many different competitive grant schemes administered by his Department and its agencies were open in each of the last 10 years to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion; [22432]

      (5) if he will place in the Library a copy of the application form for each of the competitive grant schemes administered by his Department and its agencies open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion. [22411]

      Ms Keeble
      [holding answer 12 December 2001.]: The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

      Local Transport Capital Settlement
      Mrs. Humble
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will announce details of the local transport capital settlement for 2002–03. [22869]

      Mr. Spellar
      Local Transport Plans (LTPs) are the cornerstone of our integrated transport policy at local level. They require authorities to take a longer term, more strategic view than was previously the case. In return we provide greater certainty over the funding authorities can expect for the next five years.

      Last December we announced an £8.4 billion package over five years for schemes to help deliver integrated transport at the local level. As part of this, we gave authorities an indication of the funding they could expect to receive in 2002–03. The total funding available for 2002–03 is £1.58 billion, compared with the £1.36 billion available for 2001–02. As announced last year, annual funding is projected to rise further to reach £1.9 billion per year in 2004–05 and 2005–06.

      Today we are announcing the firm allocations each authority will receive for 2002–03. We are providing more for each authority than we had previously indicated which will allow them to take forward more of the smaller scale improvements that can make a big difference at local level. These include improvements to public transport, schemes to make local roads safer, less congested and better maintained, and measures to encourage cycling and walking. In addition we are accepting for funding a further 23 major local transport schemes, to add to the 69 major schemes accepted last year.

      Copies of the press notice incorporating a list of allocations for individual local transport plans have been placed in the Library of the House. Details have also been sent to hon. Members.
      1026W

      Transport (East England)
      Helen Jones
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has considered the recommendations of the East of England Local Government Conference following completion of the Cambridge to Huntingdon multi-modal study; and if he will make a statement. [22870]

      Ms Keeble
      My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport has today written to the Head of Planning and Transportation at the East of England Local Government Conference and has placed a copy of his letter in the House of Commons Library.

      The multi-modal studies programme is a key element of our policies for integrated transport. It applies rigorously the principles which underpin our 10 Year Plan, matching solutions to severe transport problems by assessing all the options across different transport modes.

      The Cambridge to Huntingdon multi-modal study has looked in depth at the problems caused by the congested A14. These include unreliable journey times, affecting freight and public transport, as well as motorists, and accidents and congestion on other unsuitable local roads.

      The study, recommended in full by the East of England Local Government Conference, called for:

      A guided bus system utilising the former Cambridge to St Ives rail corridor as its core;

      Complementary measures to encourage public transport, cycling and walking;

      The widening and partial realignment of the A14 in the corridor to form a three-lane carriageway, including a southern bypass of Huntingdon;

      Associated junction and local road improvements, including parallel local roads between the M11 and east of Fenstanton.

      We welcome the solutions proposed by the study. They present an integrated package of measures to improve conditions for travel in the corridor between Huntingdon and Cambridge. I am particularly encouraged that many local transport elements, such as a new guided bus system, park and ride, bus priority and improved walking and cycling facilities have been included in the recommendations. These offer the prospect of great benefits to the city of Cambridge and the surrounding area.

      Some concerns have been expressed about the potential environmental impacts of the proposed road improvements. The provision of additional road capacity should only be considered after measures for making better use of existing capacity have been fully explored. In this case, however, we believe that public transport investment alone could not meet the objectives of the study. We are satisfied that a new alignment for the A 14 south of Huntingdon would secure balancing environmental benefits by taking through traffic off the highly intrusive viaducts through Huntingdon.

      The multi-modal study process does not pre-empt any of the other statutory processes. More detailed work is now required to develop and appraise individual proposals. We are inviting Cambridgeshire County Council to come forward with a full appraisal of the early phases of the guided bus project within six months and to explore further with the Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack and the train operators the viability of the third phase alongside an existing railway line.
      1027W
      We have also asked the County Council to develop, in consultation with district councils and others, local transport proposals for measures to support public transport, cycling and walking. The proposals will need to be developed in consultation with local people whose commitment to reducing congestion and pollution in the area will be essential to the success of the Preferred Plan.

      In addition, the Highways Agency will commence preparatory work on the trunk road elements in the Preferred Plan with a view to adding the scheme to the Targeted Programme of Improvements in the near future. I am also aware that the recently published Cambridge Implementation Study has set out ideas for substantial public and private investment in transport and other infrastructure and I envisage that the partnership which supports that study should be a good foundation for further co-ordinated working to implement CHUMMS.

      Planning (North-West)
      Mr. Chaytor
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many planning applications were considered by planning authorities in the north-west region during 2000–01 in respect of land designated by the appropriate unitary development plan as green belt which were(a) approved and (b) refused by the local authority but subsequently approved at appeal. [20738]

      Ms Keeble
      The DTLR does not hold information on the number of planning applications in the green belt.

      The number of planning applications in the green belt, which were refused by local planning authorities and subsequently approved on appeal in the north-west in the financial year 2000–01, was 41.

      Formula Rents
      Mr. Dismore
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions after the introduction of formula rents in spring 2002, if vacant properties will be re-let at the full formula rent or at the lower figure then applying to similar property; and if he will make a statement. [22678]

      Ms Keeble
      Our approach to vacant properties is set out in "Guide to Social Rent Reforms" published at the same time as the December 2000 housing policy statement "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all—the way forward for housing". Social landlords will have discretion over whether to use re-lets as a means of moving more quickly towards the target rents given by the formula, or whether to keep the rents on re-lets in line with their general progress towards target rents for similar properties.

      Waterloo to Exeter Railway Line
      Mr. Swire
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the(a) total investment.(b) total passenger numbers and (c) average daily number of trains were in each of the last 10 years for the Waterloo to Exeter railway line. [22242]

      Mr. Jamieson
      Not all of the information is available in the form requested. The annual number of passenger journeys on the Waterloo-Exeter route were 4,297,000 in 1998–99; 4,468,000 in 1999–2000 and; 4,749,000 in 1028W
      2000–01. Information on the number of services operated each year is available from the National Rail Timetable, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

      Speed Cameras
      Mr. Clapham
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many speed cameras are positioned on roads in the United Kingdom; and which county has the most. [22227]

      Mr. Jamieson
      [holding answer 12 December 2001]: This information is not collected centrally. It is for local highway authorities, in conjunction with the police, to decide where speed cameras are deployed. Guidance on deployment is available to local authorities in
      Circular Roads 1/92.

    CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

      Picketts Lock
      Harry Cohen
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 757W, on Picketts Lock, if she will place the letter from Ann Roberts and her reply in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [20611]

      Mr. Caborn
      Ann Roberts, chair of the Lee Valley regional park authority, wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 12 October. A copy of this letter and my right hon. Friend's reply is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

      Departmental Expenditure Limit
      Mr. Bercow
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of the increase in the departmental expenditure limit from 2001–02 to 2002–03 will be accounted for by wage costs. [21240]

      Dr. Howells
      The level of wage costs within my departmental budget this year and in future years will be dependent upon negotiations. My Department's departmental report to be published next spring will give retrospective costs.

      Millennium Dome
      Nick Harvey
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the(a) amount and (b) nature of debts incurred by the Millennium Dome; and what is the timetable for repayment. [21397]

      Dr. Howells
      The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), which built and operated the Dome, handed it over to English Partnerships on 30 June 2001. NMEC has no long-term debt. At the end of November 2001, NMEC held invoices totalling £297,000. NMEC intends to pay all these prior to or shortly after the appointment of a liquidator, expected to be by the end of the year.

      New Opportunities Fund
      Nick Harvey
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how much money has been allocated for each of the programmes provided by the New
      1029W
      Opportunities Fund (a) in total and (b) in each financial quarter since the date for which the first grant was awarded; [22262]

      (2) how much money has been allocated for each of the programmes provided by the New Opportunities Fund broken down by local authority district, in rank order according to the index of multiple deprivation, in each financial quarter since the date for which the first grant was awarded until the most recent date for which details are available. [22339]

      Mr. Caborn
      It is not possible to provide the information on New Opportunities Fund spend by individual local authority district for each financial quarter. I have however placed the other information requested in the Libraries of both Houses.

      Sports Clubs (Charity Status)
      Mr. Lidington
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the number of sports clubs likely to be eligible for charitable status following the Charity Commission's announcement of 27 November. [21715]

      Mr. Caborn
      [holding answer 10 December 2001]: I welcome the Charity Commission's announcement of 30 November which will benefit sport and local communities. The Central Council of Physical Recreation estimates that there are over 110,000 community amateur sports clubs across the UK. Any of these clubs that are concerned with encouraging the community to participate in active sports will be able to apply for charitable status once they have made suitable minor amendments to their club constitutions and membership rules.

      The Government are currently consulting on their assessment that the Charity Commission's decision on charitability would appear to offer better prospects for community amateur sports clubs than a tax relief package the Government had been considering. Responses to that consultation are requested by the Treasury by 1 February 2002.

      I intend to meet representatives of the Charity Commission early in the new year to discuss the extent of applications from sport for charitable status and the fuller guidance the Commission intends to issue on this subject in due course.

      Bingo
      Mr. Laxton
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she will take to implement the recommendations by the Gaming Board for Great Britain to increase the monetary limits for prize bingo. [23389]

      Mr. Caborn
      I have considered the Board's recommendations and will shortly be laying before Parliament an Order under the Gaming Act 1968 to increase the maximum cash prize in a bingo game played in a bingo club from £15 to £25 and an Order under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 which will increase the maximum cash prize that may be offered in a prize bingo game played in an amusement arcade from £15 to £25 and which will increase the maximum aggregate amount that may be taken by way of the sale of chances in any one prize bingo game played at an arcade from £60 to £90.
      1030W

      Holding Answers
      Annabelle Ewing
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by her Department were the subject of a holding answer in the last three Sessions of Parliament. [22013]

      Dr. Howells
      [holding answer 10 December 2001]: In the 1998–99 Parliamentary Session, the Department gave holding replies to 63 per cent. of the 512 named day questions received. In the 1999–2000 Session, holding replies were given to 69 per cent. of the 839 named day questions received and in the 2000–01 Session, 52 per cent. of the 289 named day questions tabled to the Department received holding replies.

    LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

      Magistrates Courts (Essex)
      Mr. Hurst
      To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates courts were operating in the(a) county of Essex and (b) unitary boroughs of Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea in (i) 1971, (ii) 1981, (iii) 1991, (iv) 1999 and (v) 2001. [R] [21753]

      Mr. Wills
      Responsibility for providing magistrates courthouses falls to local authorities in England and Wales. Neither the Home Office which had responsibility for the magistrates courts service up to 1992, nor the Lord Chancellor's Department which took responsibility over at that time has a central record of courthouses provided locally prior to 1995. I am informed that Essex magistrates courts committee has no records prior to 1995. In 1999 and 2001 there were 10 magistrates courts operating in Essex, with one in each of the unitary boroughs of Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea.

    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

      Capital Assets
      Matthew Taylor
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 270W, on capital assets, what guidelines the (a) National Audit Office and (b) Treasury issue on how to classify who bears the risks and rewards associated with an asset. [19189]

      Mr. Alan Williams
      I have been asked to reply in so far as the hon. Member's question refers to the National Audit Office.

      As financial auditors, the National Audit Office do not themselves issue guidelines on how to classify who bears the risks and rewards associated with an asset. This is the job of HM Treasury, as described in the Chief Secretary's written answer of 29 November 2001, Official Report, column 1122W.

      The National Audit Office as part of its financial audit work would consider whether, for the purposes of the published annual accounts of the body in question, the body's assessment with regard to who bears the risk and rewards associated with an asset has been properly carried out in compliance with the standards and guidance set down by the Treasury.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Heathrow: Take-off and Landing Slots
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the proposed BA/AA alliance holding 70 per cent of the peak hours take-off and landing slots at Heathrow complies with their competition policy.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, data from Airport Co-ordination Limited, which is responsible for slot allocation, show that BA and AA together currently hold no more than 51 per cent of the slots during any one hour. Their average over the peak period is about 40 per cent. However, the competition authorities are considering the proposed BA/AA alliance. They will determine whether the alliance should be approved and, if so, which competition remedies are appropriate.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that detailed Answer. If his figures are different from mine, that just shows how easy it is to massage figures one way or another. Either way, how will the Government decide whether the BA/AA alliance is in the national interest? What conditions could they put on that if it goes ahead? Could they require the alliance to give up slots, and could they require, for example, fifth freedom rights for other airlines in the US as a trade-off?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I should be happy to give a reconciliation of the difference between my figures and those of my noble friend, but it might bore him and the House if I did it now, so I shall write to him with it.
Two separate processes are involved. BA and AA—and British Midland International and, I believe, United Airlines—have proposed airline alliances. Those alliances are being considered by the competition authorities on each side of the Atlantic—in our case, by the Office of Fair Trading. As noble Lords know, that body is completely separate from the Government and it will make its decisions and recommendations about what increased competition would be necessary, were it to support such a proposal. As one would expect, that is almost bound to require the release of slots at Heathrow for other airlines to increase competition. If the competition authorities are prepared to support the alliance on the specified terms and the airlines are prepared to agree to them, the United Kingdom Government would be prepared to move forward to a new agreement that was based on "open skies" and, effectively, on opening up the US
1412
domestic market to such of our airlines as were prepared to form alliances. That is the system. I hope it is clear that two separate processes are involved, rather than one conglomerate.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the success of our national flag-carrying airline mean more to us than some narrow interpretation of competition policy? That seems to be the view in many other countries and it is strange that we take a different approach.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not think that we do. The Government have several perfectly proper objectives. A fundamental objective is to increase competition in relation to the North Atlantic. That will benefit passengers and UK industry, which may he paying higher freight charges than would otherwise be the case. Just to agree to the United States proposal—the open skies approach would give US carriers access to Heathrow without getting access to domestic opportunities in the United States, arid that would be very much against the interests of United Kingdom carriers. We have to crack that nut. The problem, as noble Lords know, is that there are very strong domestic pressures in the United States against liberalising their domestic market. That is why several airlines and competition authorities have realised that the way to break in there is through airline alliances. That has been done by six other countries.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, would the Minister be kind enough to tell me when responsibility will devolve from this country to the European Union for negotiations on transatlantic services?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the short answer is that we will have to wait and see whether that comes about at all. I am sure that the noble Viscount is aware that we are currently awaiting a judgment from the European Court of Justice on whether other such airline alliances infringe EU competition policy. The Attorney-General's judgment is, I believe, expected towards the end of January and I should not wish to second-guess what it might be. It is possible that it might be held that such alliances infringe competition policy and that therefore negotiations between European countries and the United States would have to be done collectively. There would no doubt be benefits from that but one would hardly expect the process to be quick.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the Minister rightly pointed out the independence of the competition authorities in this country—and, for that matter. in the United States—from government. Bearing in mind the UK Government's strong views, which the Minister mentioned, does he propose to give evidence on behalf of the Government to those authorities, particularly to the competition authorities in the United States? As he said, it is most important, in relation to competition,

1413
for British domestic airlines to have access and to be able to compete with United States airlines in the use of airports in the United States.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I have no doubt that, if required, the Government will give such evidence. We are certainly making strong representations to the United States Government about the need to move forward and increase effective competition in relation to the North Atlantic route. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made those points in his discussions with the President of the United States in November and asserted the importance of moving forward on this agenda. Having said that, it is right and proper that the OFT deals with these matters impartially and without political interference—that is in the interest of competition and consumers.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should declare an interest as the president of BALPA. Is my noble friend aware that the Americans are behaving with a very anti-competitive attitude by offering huge subsidies to American airlines, which, quite rightly, are not matched in Europe? Are the Government doing anything about that?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am not certain that I have put my finger exactly on the subsidy to which my noble friend refers. I suspect that he refers to the situation post-September 11th, when there was indeed strong support from the US Government, in an effort to get the internal domestic flights of US carriers started again. As noble Lords know, our Government also rapidly gave support to try to protect our industry when it could not get insurance cover and would therefore otherwise have been grounded. That arrangement continues until, I believe, 23rd January. I do not want to go into a detailed defence of the US position, but noble Lords will be aware that almost all of the US airline industry was grounded, whereas we were hit just in relation to the North Atlantic route. Nevertheless, that issue will be closely tracked by the UK Government.

Broadcasting: Scrutiny by Peers
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote Baroness Howe of Idlicote asked the Leader of the House:
Whether he will propose the establishment of a Select Committee on broadcasting.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it is the role of the Liaison Committee of this House to consider proposals for Select Committees. I would not propose the establishment of any Select Committee without first seeking the views of the Liaison Committee.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. I suggest that he asks the Liaison Committee to take soundings. I am sure that he is well aware of the cultural importance of broadcasting and communications generally to United Kingdom citizens and consumers and, equally, of the growing significance of this industry to the economy. I believe that it is rising faster than any other part of the economy—by some £61 million or 6 per cent per annum growth in GDP. I wonder also whether he is aware of the expertise and experience in your Lordships' House—far greater, I would argue, than in the other place—which could form the basis of a very knowledgeable Select Committee. In view of the number of times—some 21 occasions when your Lordships have met to discuss communications issues over the past five years, not counting the Ofcom Bill. I would ask for a reconsideration.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords. I share the noble Baroness's view about the public and economic interests relating to broadcasting. It is true that there is expertise in your Lordships' House on that subject: there is expertise in your Lordships' House on all conceivable topics known to the mind of man. That is why, rightly, a procedure is in place for an individual Peer to write, usually to the Chairman of Committees, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, making a case and setting out the proposed terms of reference and the benefits that might inure.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that overshadowing all other aspects of broadcasting at present is the date of the switchover from analogue to digital? Before that date is known, or before anyone can hazard a guess as to a date that might be appropriate, any Select Committee which met to discuss broadcasting without that knowledge would be in a very weak position.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount makes an important point, but I do not believe that it derogates from the observation that I have made. It is for an individual Peer to make his or her application and to justify it.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, would not such a Select Committee be able to address the issue of the broadcasting of Parliament? My noble and learned friend will know that channel 508 on satellite transmits a direct feed of actuality from the Floor of the House of Commons. Why cannot we take over channels 509 or 511? In my view, that would greatly enhance this House in the minds of the public outside and would lead to a far greater and better understanding of what we do in this Chamber.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sure that these are all excellent ideas. If your Lordships wanted a larger audience, 95.8 might be a better waveband. I believe that that is Capital Radio. These are all excellent ideas but, alas, they are not within my gift.

Electoral Register: Disclosure Ruling
3.13 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they will respond to the recent ruling in the High Court that the sale of personal details on the electoral register to commercial interests is a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, following the court ruling, electoral registration officers must continue to sell electoral registers in accordance with the law. However, when selling to commercial concerns, they must exclude the particulars of electors who have objected to their details being included in such cases. The Government had always intended to provide for such an opt-out and for edited registers in the regulations which, subject to parliamentary approval, we were planning to make in time for the 2002 canvass. We are now considering how best to progress those proposed regulations in the light of the court ruling and we shall consult widely.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Can one assume that, in the light of the Robertson v. City of Wakefield decision, the Government now accept that the sale of the register for commercial purposes without consent contravenes Articles 8 and 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights and that it will be necessary to make an amendment to the Data Protection Act 1998? Can the House assume that the Government accept that position? In the context of the sale of the register, is the noble Lord aware that the Government relied on a flawed certificate of compatibility with the ECHR and that, at all three stages of the progress of the Bill, they refused to give a reason or an answer for doing so? Does the Minister agree that this raises a wider question?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as the noble Lord points out, the current situation arises from an appeal by an individual against the publication of a register containing his name by an electoral registration officer. To my knowledge, the Government do not intend to appeal against that judgment. Therefore, we are left in the position that electoral registration officers cannot sell registers unless and until they have ensured that people have been given an effective opt-out.
The process for addressing the current anomaly is that, by the end of January, the Government will publish their paper setting out proposals on how to move forward on this matter. That paper will go out for widespread consultation with individual electors and with the credit data agencies which rely substantially on the registers. In short, the result is likely to be that in future individuals will he required to be given an opt-out. Only a register without the names of those who have chosen an opt-out can be published. The thrust of the noble Lord's question was about what happened
1416
when the Bill was before our House. I regret that I must plead ignorance on that, but I shall consider his question and write to him accordingly.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the concern and difficulty that this matter is causing in a number of commercial companies throughout the country? In certain cases, people who can no longer carry out what they considered to be a legitimate act are being laid off. Perhaps I may press the Government not to wait until the end of January but to make a statement before the end of the year so that people know exactly where they stand.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, we shall certainly publish as soon as possible what we consider to be sensible proposals for moving forward on this matter. I am well aware of the considerable concern expressed by the data protection industries and by a number of charities which rely on electoral registers for publication purposes. However, we are where we are, and it appears that past practices will not be able to continue in the future.
One should note that the electoral register has never been a perfectly reliable database, with regard to both inclusions and exclusions. For obvious reasons, it is certainly not a reliable record of identity because people can add their names to the register without validation. Over the past few months the Government have been hoping to find a consensus that will move the matter forward. In a sense, the court action has kiboshed that and forced us on to different routes, but we shall come forward with proposals relatively soon.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that we had lengthy discussions on exactly this subject during the passage of the Representation of the People Act 2000 in this House? Does he recall that on that occasion the Act enabled the Representation of the People Act 1983 to be amended so as to make it possible to publish an edited register for sale to commercial interests? Why did the Government not see this problem coming and deal with it when they made the Representation of the People Act regulations earlier this year?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, there is some truth in what the noble Lord says. From 1983 it became obligatory on all electoral registration officers to sell electoral registers, whereas previously it had been discretionary. As the noble Lord said, the 2000 Act recognised on the face of the Bill that that appeared potentially to conflict with data protection rights. The delay has been caused fundamentally by the Government trying to find a way to reconcile what may well be reconcilable: the interest of data protection and human rights and the interest of the commercial organisations which have relied on these registers in the past. Therefore, the plan had been to lay regulations by the spring in time for the 2002 register in order to allow that to proceed. As I said, the court judgment has effectively put an end to some of that detail. It is hoped that we shall find the best way forward in the circumstances in the next few weeks.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, presumably the Government are not contemplating making it illegal for electoral registers to be available to political parties and, for example, to parish councils which make widespread and essential use of them? Is it really conceivable that there will be only an edited version published with as many people who wish to remain anonymous having been taken off the register? Is that practical?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord need have no fear in that respect. The court judgment does not put at risk the right of political parties, crime prevention agencies, the British Library and a number of others to have access to the full register. Similarly, individual citizens will still be able to go into their town hall, or wherever, and inspect the register. However, those of your Lordships who are more au fait than I am with the Representation of the People Act 2000 will recollect that Section 9 made clear that one could not photocopy the register and take it away. That would clearly circumvent the thrust of the legislation.

Extradition of Terrorists
3.21 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria they will apply when deciding whether suspected terrorists can be handed over or extradited to a jurisdiction where the death penalty can be imposed.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, our policy is in accordance with the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and with the provisions of the Extradition Act 1989. We refuse to extradite any persons to a jurisdiction where the offence for which they could be tried, or for which they have been tried, carries the death penalty, unless sufficient assurances are provided by a requesting state that the death penalty will not be imposed, or if imposed, will not be carried out.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister why our troops can, quite rightly, hand over to the Americans bin Laden or his accomplices if captured in Afghanistan, but if captured in this country, they will not be handed over unconditionally? Our American friends find that hard to understand. Where is the logic?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall not answer hypothetical questions. I refer noble Lords to the Answer I gave to the same Question on 15th November at cols. 678 and 679. I shall not have a razor blade put between myself and the Secretary of State for Defence, or anybody else. If I am really pressed I shall read into the record the same Answers as I gave on that day when I was specifically asked about the position of
1418
bin Laden if he ended up in this country as an illegal immigrant. The position has not changed since 15th November.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, can the Minister explain to our American friends, of whom I am one, and perhaps to Mr Ashcroft, their Attorney-General, if this is raised, that the criteria applied are those that were laid down by the European Court of Human Rights in 1989? The government of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, honourably gave effect to those criteria. Now, as a matter of European public policy, the framework decision on Eurowarrants makes sure that within Europe, at any rate, the policy of the European Convention on Human Rights will prevent anybody being extradited to face the death penalty, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or torture. That policy is observed by the 41 member states of the Council of Europe.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I refer noble Lords to the original Answer I gave; that is, that our policy is in accordance with the Extradition Act 1989. I shall leave it there. I am sure that in a moment the penny will drop.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister find, as I do, that it is at least inconsistent if not illogical that we can send our troops out to a situation where they might have to kill suspect terrorists or be killed by them, yet we are not prepared to put suspect terrorists in danger after due process of law? I find that inconsistent.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is nothing inconsistent as regards what happens under fire in enemy action under the rules of war as opposed to judicial execution. If the noble Lord cannot understand the difference between the two, we have a problem in debating the issue. There is a difficulty. I repeat that our extradition treaty with the United States does not cause any problems with the United States. We extradite people back to the United States even for offences which carry the death penalty there. That is done on the basis that if such persons are found guilty and the death penalty is imposed, it will not be carried out. That is a perfectly satisfactory arrangement that has worked well for years under both governments.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that perhaps the Prime Minister's statement earlier this week caused a little confusion in some minds? Does he also agree that the safest thing that Osama bin Laden can now do is to smuggle himself into this country?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, if, having put thousands of people to death he wants to save his own skin, that is absolutely right. That would show the kind of coward he is. My noble friend Lord Stoddart asked that question on 15th November during an exchange at

1419
col. 679. The position I gave then has not changed to date. That is clear. Perhaps I may add that no one, inside or outside Westminster, inside or outside the Government or the media, has questioned any of the Answers I gave on that day.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does not the Minister realise that if a person were apprehended or convicted as a terrorist, some people would think that the best thing would be for him to be extradited to a country which carries out the death penalty as soon as possible?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have been concentrating on the United States. Most of our partners do not have the death penalty; the United States does. It is still in force in 38 states. That implies that there are many states where it is not in force. When explained calmly to members of the public, I believe that they understand the difference between what happens during enemy action and acts of war and our general policy of not having execution. That has been settled on free votes in this Parliament year after year, and there has been no change.

Business of the House: Standing Order 46
3.28 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before I move my Motion, I welcome hack to your Lordships' House our friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I am told—I do not know how reliably—that she has been determined to come back today just to support the Government!
I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, in the event of the Consolidated Fund Bill being brought from the Commons, Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the Bill to be taken through all its stages on Monday next.—(Lord Williams of. Mostyn.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

Christmas Day (Trading) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Consolidated Fund Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill, and read a first time.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, before we commence consideration of the Commons amendments on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, it may be for the convenience of the House if I explain that a
1420
supplementary Marshalled List of amendments has recently been placed in the Printed Paper Office and in other places around the House.
The supplementary list contains only two amendments. The first relates to Amendment No. 48. It has been tabled in the name of all three Front Benches, so I hope that the House will find it acceptable. The second relates to the last group of amendments on our list. It relates to an amendment proposed by the Government in respect of review of the Act by a committee of Privy Counsellors.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
3.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons reasons and amendments be considered forthwith. —(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS INSTEAD OF WORDS LEFT OUT OF THE BILL BY CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THOSE LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO WORDS RESTORED TO THE BILL BY A COMMONS DISAGREEMENT TO A LORDS AMENDMENT, COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO A LORDS AMENDMENT AND COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT TO THE BILL
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 29 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 17, page 7, line 7, after "authority" insert "to a relevant public authority"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
5A Because it is not appropriate to limit the power conferred by this clause in the manner proposed by the amendment.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 5A, but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
5B Page 7, line 23, at end insert—"
"( ) No disclosure of information shall be made by virtue of this section unless public authority by which the disclosure is made is satisfied that the making of the disclosure is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. We believe that the way in which the Bill was left after your Lordships had dealt with Part 3 would have been counter-productive. We all want to prevent terrorism and to catch the

1421
terrorists. The amendments would have made it more difficult for public authorities to disclose potentially vital information. Public authorities, by definition, are rarely experts in terrorism. They often will not be able to satisfy themselves that information is linked, even indirectly, to terrorism.
With our original drafting they could disclose for any crime. Therefore, vital information would reach the police. However, we are not giving a blanket disclosure power just for information relating to crime. Our new amendment will, we hope, clarify the position on the face of the Bill to your Lordships' satisfaction. The public authorities will have to take into account, before disclosing, the proportionality of their disclosures. Bulk disclosure of information without regard to the seriousness of the offence in question would not be proportionate and would therefore not be permitted by these provisions.
In the example offered in the other place by the Shadow Home Secretary a public authority would not be able to disclose vast swathes of tax information to the Baltimore Police Department if it had stopped someone in respect of a driving offence. In the unlikely event that a UK public authority had information that related to specific driving offences, it could disclose only that information which directly related to the offence. If there was a suspicion that the individual was involved in more serious crime, it could disclose information to the investigatory authorities.
Under your Lordships' amendment it could only do so if it believed that the crimes were terrorist or national security related. It may be that drugs are found in the car. Under our drafting a public authority could pass relevant information to the individual. That could help to show a connection with the funding of terrorism.
I shall give a couple of examples which I do not think have been given before. I hope that they will clarify the position. It has been said previously that the complex task of operating a terrorist cell may involve the smuggling of drugs into the UK which are not obviously linked to terrorism. Customs do not know that they are for a terrorist cell and information does not therefore reach the police. The police would ask only if they already have some evidence. So far as concerns the Customs, they have what has been smuggled but they do not have any connection.
The Inland Revenue has previously been unable to disclose to the police that a drug dealer was citing drug dealing on his tax returns. I read that slowly because I gulped this morning when I read it. If a drug dealer is arguing for taxation purposes and he puts "drug dealing" on his tax return the Inland Revenue is unable to disclose that to the police. We know that drugs are used to finance terrorism because that crook bin Laden was selling drugs to finance his terrorist activities, bringing not just death but misery to millions of people. That could prove to be a vital piece of intelligence but it cannot be passed over under your Lordships' amendment because the Inland Revenue has no idea that the drugs are linked to terrorism.
1422
Terrorist groups rely on work in the construction industry—that is to say, mobile industry without any factories—to provide income and a cover while in the UK. While monitoring that industry for national insurance contributions evasion—in which the industry has a good record, but a bad record so far as concerns the Inland Revenue—it may obtain information which points to the operations of a terrorist cell but it has no idea that they are terrorists so the information never reaches the police. We think that that goes too far.
Frankly, I do not think that that was in the minds of noble Lords when the original amendments were passed to the Bill as presented. I hope therefore that, bearing in mind the debates in this House and indeed the other place and the fact that we want to put on the face of the Bill a test of proportionality, the new operation of Part 3, in terms of disclosure, will meet with your Lordships' favour.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 5A but do proposed Amendment No. 5B in lieu thereof.—(Lord Rooker.)
5C Lord Thomas of Gresford rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed and do propose Amendment No. 5B in lieu thereof, leave out the words after "House" and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 5".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. The amendment restores the position to when the Bill went to the Commons.
It may be helpful if I remind your Lordships very briefly why we passed the amendment. Clause 17 of the Bill provides that a public authority—some 40 plus are listed in Schedule 4—may be required to disclose information in its possession about an individual or a company—medical records, bank records or company records—to anyone considering initiating any criminal investigation whatever anywhere in the world. It is not limited to the United Kingdom; it is not limited to the United Kingdom law enforcement agencies; and it is not limited of course to terrorism or suspicion of terrorism.
Many people will say, "Well, I have nothing to hide. People can look into my affairs if they want. It is a price worth paying for security. In times of danger security comes before privacy". We on these Benches entirely agree with that sentiment. Our amendment ensured that these unprecedented powers were given to the agencies in this country and abroad simply for the purposes of the Bill: namely, information believed—or even just suspected to be—related directly or indirectly to a risk to national security or to the existence of terrorism.
A further restriction was put on: that the information should not be released to anyone, which is what the clause stated as originally drafted, but a relevant public authority. Therefore, the effect of the

1423
amendment was to give to the clause that focus which the Bill should have in dealing with anti-terrorism measures.
Clause 19 concerns the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise and provides that they may release their files and records,
"for the purposes of any criminal investigation",
anywhere, to anyone in the world.
The addition of subsection (2)(a) was quite significant because it was an addition to the Bill as originally drafted and brought before your Lordships and withdrawn before the general election. This Bill, unlike the original Bill, gives power to the commissioners of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise to make disclosure,
"for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by any of the intelligence services of any of that service's functions".
So the Bill widens the provision from the ordinary police investigating authorities to the intelligence services for any of their purposes.
The amendment passed by your Lordships' House simply restricted the scope of such disclosures to the disclosure of information believed or suspected to relate to a risk to national security or to a terrorist. I emphasise the word "suspected". All that is required is that a person carrying out an investigation should say to the public authority, "I am investigating terrorism"—or the possibility of terrorism, or the existence of a possible terrorist—"and I should like your co-operation". We have no objection to that. We and, I am sure, all of your Lordships think it essential for the security of this country that such powers be granted in that limited way.
However, the Government have not listened in the other place and have returned the Bill to us seeking to reverse our decisions. All that has been added is a proposal that,
"No disclosure of information shall be made by virtue of this section unless I he public authority by which the disclosure is made is satisfied that the making of the disclosure is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it".
That merely restates the existing duty under the Human Rights Act 1998, because proportionality is a basic principle of that Act. If there is an invasion of privacy, it should be permitted only by means proportionate to the need that requires it.
We must ask: what is meant by the words,
"proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it"?
If an investigating authority comes to this country from overseas and says, "I am investigating a drugs matter. Please release all your records", is it proportionate if the public authority releases information to that agency? Let us take the example given a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, of drugs being found in a car. That information should be passed to the police, but it is for the police to make the connections when they receive the information.
When it comes to income tax and Customs and Excise authorities, it is unlikely that a person will write down "terrorist" as his occupation. Consequently, it is for the police or other investigating authority—that is,
1424
the security services—to go to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or Inland Revenue to say, "We are investigating X because we suspect that he is a terrorist or engaged in terrorist activities. Can we see his files?" In other words, the initiative should come from the police to the public authority.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is just window dressing. It adds nothing to the previous provision and does not assist your Lordships. The purpose of my amendment is that the position on which we decided after a great deal of debate should be maintained.
Moved, That, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed and do propose Amendment No. 5B in lieu thereof, leave out the words after "House" and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 5".— (Lord Thomas of Gresford.)
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, in rising to speak to this group of amendments, I should say straightaway that Her Majesty's Official Opposition take a different approach from that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We are grateful to the Government for, as we see it, responding to our concerns—concerns that we expressed during each stage of consideration of the Bill in your Lordships' House. Indeed, it is fair to say that we have worked hard to persuade the Government that there is a fundamental problem with Part 3 as drafted. Their proposals for disclosure of information go way beyond the agenda that we all want to support. That agenda is the fight against terrorism.
Part 3 as drafted is draconian, not measured, and the question of proportionality would in practice only arise, and possibly bite, in the event that an individual or class of person felt aggrieved and acted on that grievance after disclosure had been made and the damage done. The government amendment recognises that thought must be given by the relevant investigatory authorities, such as the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad and the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue or the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, as to whether the request for information is proportionate—in other words, in comparative ratio—to the investigation at hand before that request is made.
Time will tell whether that works in practice. We shall wait and see. On that basis, we shall support the government amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, this particular Member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition tends to agree with the other part of the opposition. The government amendment does not go far enough. It is rather sad that we on these Benches have been seen to cave in to what I would describe as waffle. There are many ways to beef up the amendment a little. If someone puts "drug dealer" on his tax return, it is always possible that he is actually a manager of' Boots the Chemists, but he probably is not. It strikes me as

1425
hard to believe that the Inland Revenue could not say to the police, "We have someone admitting a crime. Why do you not investigate?" I am sure that that happens now.
I am afraid to say that if the Liberal Democrats push this to a Division, I shall be trotting through the Lobby with them. I believe that it is the duty of your Lordships' House to protect, as much as we humanly can, the individual rights and liberties of the subject. This is a minor blip—that is all—on the otherwise impeccable behaviour of those on my Front Bench. They have conceded too much on this matter.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I wish to say one or two words in support of the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. The government amendment is indeed a piece of window dressing. If the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will forgive my saying so, I find it a bit pathetic that a piece of window dressing should wholly satisfy the Official Opposition.
If we penetrate the true legal position and the government amendment, it is much more complicated than appears at first sight. I want to explain the position because public authorities may be liable as a result of the legal uncertainty that will remain if the Government have their way.
My noble friend is completely right when he says that the government amendment begs the question when it says,
"proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it".
If the Liberal Democrat amendment is not passed, the answer to the question is partly given in Clause 17(2). In other words, without any link with terrorism on the face of this part of the Bill, if the disclosure of information is for the purposes of any criminal investigation, criminal proceedings and so forth, the question will be whether the disclosure is proportionate to those matters and not to any link to terrorism.
I recognise that under Article 8.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights it is permissible to invade personal privacy not only to protect national security but also to prevent or detect crime. I therefore recognise that a power of the width which is being conferred by Clause 17 is capable of falling within a legitimate aim in terms of the ECHR and that then a test of proportionality necessarily comes into place not because of the government amendment but because of the various provisions of the Human Rights Act, to which this amendment adds nothing of substance.
However, in practice it means that if anyone discloses information acting under Clause 17 in a way that breaches Article 8 of the human rights convention—the guarantee of personal privacy—for any of the aims stated in Clause 17(2), although he may be pursuing a legitimate aim he must do so only in a proportionate way.
The word "proportionate" is not defined in the amendment but it means that the means used to accomplish one of those aims must be necessary—and
1426
no more than necessary—to achieve that legitimate aim. They must involve the least sacrifice compatible with human rights, as the House of Lords recently held in the case of Daly. That is what proportionality means.
Therefore, there is quite a strict test, but the problem is that the poor old public authority or other body which makes the disclosure will be potentially liable under a Bill conferring powers which are broad and not well defined. If we reject the link with terrorism which the Liberal Democrat Benches have sought to make and leave it to the window dressing of the amendment about proportionality moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, all we shall be doing is dumping the problem on the public authorities and in the end on the courts. There will be great legal uncertainty and it will be unsatisfactory.
However, I concede that ultimately when people are properly advised and can afford to bring their cases and sue, the courts will provide effective protection. For those who understand their legal rights that will be so. But I regard the position as a mess—and an unsatisfactory mess. Therefore, I very much hope that even at this late stage the Official Opposition will join with the rest of us on these Benches in standing firm to clarify the position so that we can avoid lawyers such as myself earning far too much money, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, would say, in arguing such cases.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am perhaps a little more easily persuaded by the Government than noble Lords who sit to my right. That is partly because we still anticipate that the Bill will have a short life and that it will be on the statute book for an experimental period; and partly because, seeing my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley in the Chamber reminds me that in the Church of England marriage service those entering into the state of matrimony are advised not to do so wantonly or ill advisedly. A similar caution appears to be pointed at the public authorities in question.
I have only one question to ask the Minister and if he will answer it satisfactorily, he will greatly increase my comfort in what he proposes. It is a question I asked when the Bill was previously in this Chamber. What connection can there be between terrorism and information given under Section 9 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1983?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I absolve the Front Bench of the Official Opposition from what I am about to say. I feel that this House is behaving like the Grand Old Duke of York. It was but a week ago that we went into the Lobbies in great and convincing numbers to introduce into the Bill the provision which is now to be struck out of it. We did so for extremely good reasons. First, because this Bill will extend the right of state surveillance of citizens' confidential information in an unprecedented way; secondly, because we felt it went beyond the purview and intention of the Bill, which is to deal with emergency terrorism and risks to national security; thirdly, because we considered that the issues involved run

1427
very deep in our tradition of civil liberty and that it was unsafe and unwise to give such vastly extended powers to non-terrorist situations, as the Bill provides.
I agree with other noble Lords that this is a real sop to Cerberus. Perhaps I may remind the House that the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord McIntosh, said on no fewer than six occasions during debates on the Bill that it was quite unnecessary to have reference to proportionality on the face of the Bill because it was absolutely inherent in the Bill; it was inherent in the European Convention on Human Rights; and it was inherent in the Human Rights Act. They said that such reference was wholly unnecessary. Yet today, apparently the Official Opposition are content with the single change to the Bill as originally drafted; namely, to bring on to the face of it that which was inherent in any event.
l want quickly to refer to the extent to which I believe the Government spokesmen have never understood either their Bill or the amendment we passed a week ago. Only on Monday this week, David Blunkett stated in an article in The Times that the amendment we passed a week ago would prevent the police and security services investigating terrorist networks if,
"they are forbidden to look at anything that cannot immediately be proven to he linked to terrorist activity".
As your Lordships well know, the amendment we passed was of the mildest kind. Far from requiring immediate proof of linkage with terrorism, our amendment provides that the information can be requested or disclosed only if there is a suspicion that it may indirectly relate to a risk to national security. That is a vastly different proposition.
I ask the House why the Home Secretary would so misrepresent an amendment passed by the House. "Why?", I ask. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in responding to the speech I made in proposing the amendment last Thursday, referred to information that was related to a terrorist threat. Again, our amendment does not limit disclosure to information related to a terrorist threat; it is information which may relate indirectly to the risk of a terrorist threat.
It is not good enough for this House to sit down under a Bill which goes way beyond its scope and exposes, I believe, well established civil rights to such a risk. We have had a lot of soft soap about public authorities acting responsibly and not engaging in bulk disclosure. Clause 17 of the Bill goes way beyond the public authorities which we normally associate with that phrase, which is why we tried to restrict the measure to the police and intelligence services. It goes way beyond that. As my noble friend Lord Thomas said, it goes to foreign public bodies which may operate in countries which may have standards vastly different from those to which we adhere in this country.
I shall not repeat all that was said but a week ago, but I believe that we should continue to resist the proposal and uphold the amendment which we passed last Thursday.
4 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall be brief. First, I turn to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, about the Inland Revenue. It may come as a surprise to the noble Earl to learn just how restricted the Revenue is—and rightly so. The current statutory position is that the Inland Revenue is able to pass on of its own volition information only where it relates to murder or treason. I can tell the House that there have been cases where a heroin dealer has declared heroin dealing to be the source of his income. The Inland Revenue is not able to pass on that information. Consider that position: from where does heroin originate? The vast majority of the drug comes from Afghanistan and a link could be made. That is the fact of the matter at the present time. I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in a moment, if he insists.
We are unnecessarily fettering ourselves in dealing with the management of information which ordinary people may think is already passed on. Members of the public believe that one part of government would obviously pass on information concerning the tax affairs of a drug dealer to another part of government if the dealer chose to put that information on his tax return. But the fact is that we do not. That is the way that the rules operate at the present time.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. Surely he has been advised that the amendment that was passed last Thursday would allow the Inland Revenue to release exactly such information, along with a great deal more.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have been advised to the contrary. The amendments passed last Thursday make the Bill worse than it was when it came to this House from the other place.
Perhaps I may address a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, with regard to the final words of the amendment. Those words are,
"the making of the disclosure is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it".
What is sought to be achieved here certainly relates to investigations and criminal proceedings. It also means that there would be no disclosure of information on the off-chance. In other words, the wording offers a protection on the face of the Bill. I know that in court the lawyers might argue about exactly what is meant by the wording, but it means that there will be less opportunity and less possibility of information being disclosed on the off-chance. The information must have a purpose and that purpose is to be measured in a proportionate way as regards the inquiries being made.
I do not think that the wording constitutes soft soap or window dressing.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, if the wording is not window dressing, can I ask the Minister whether the purpose is to be terrorist-related or is it to be wider?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that takes us back to first principles: we do not know. That is the whole point.

1429
When investigations are taking place, no linkages may have been made. That is the point where, I believe, there can be no meeting of minds between myself and the Liberal Democrat Peers. I cannot argue on their level simply because there is a lack of acceptance—from beliefs genuinely held; I accept that—of the fact that we cannot initially argue that there may be the possibility of a terrorist offence having been committed.
When stopping a vehicle or investigating a twitcher close to a military base, terrorism is a million miles away from the minds of those who make the initial investigation of what might be simply a breach of the peace or a misdemeanour. It is not possible to make the link; that is, to draft the Bill in such a way that such a possibility can be defined. I accept that there is nothing that I can say to Liberal Democrat Peers that will convince them of the case. To that extent, I admit that I have a failure on my hands.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Let us return to the case of the twitcher. The twitcher is stopped while looking at an Indian ring-necked parakeet perched on the tail of an aeroplane. He has been stopped for a speeding offence. But something leads the policeman to believe that there is more involved than looking at the Indian ring-necked parakeet sitting on the tail of the Tiger Moth, or whatever. The policeman comes to the conclusion that a terrorist investigation should be carried out. Under those circumstances, the amendment passed on the previous occasion was valid.
However, if the policeman stops a twitcher on the basis, "I just want to look at this chap's record on the off-chance that he has been involved in drug smuggling", but has no grounds for harbouring such a suspicion, then it is to that circumstance that we object. We object to the ability to trawl just for fun. If the policeman thinks that an act of terrorism is taking place, then fair enough. His actions are absolutely right and no one would argue with that. However, noble Lords are arguing over the possibility of a trawl.
It is on that point that my mind is slightly attached to those on the Liberal Democrat Benches—but only temporarily, I hasten to add—and divorced from that of the noble Lord opposite.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was reluctant to interrupt the noble Earl in full flow, but we are operating under the rules of the Report stage. Interventions should be restricted to questions on matters of fact.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, to be honest, I shall not be able to convince the noble Earl either. However, I think that he destroyed his own case when he said that the investigators would trawl for the fun of it. We are not in that business. The authorities are not in that business. It is demeaning to use that kind of term because it does not strike at the heart of the seriousness of these matters.
1430
The Bill is a very precise piece of legislation. We are keeping as tight a control over the authorities as is possible. Noble Lords must understand that most of the information that can be exchanged under the terms of the clause is already disclosable in other circumstances. All the Bill seeks to do is to harmonise the circumstances under which disclosure can be made. It is not the case that the information cannot be disclosed. It can be disclosed, but in the Bill we seek to harmonise the situation.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, from memory I had thought that the question of the Diseases of Fish Act had been dealt with, but clearly not. That looked to the barriers to investigations in terms of legislation. We seek to ensure that the statutory barriers to disclosure do not prevent the authorities from the proper exercise of their functions.
It is not the case that all the gateways will be used, but we have looked at the statutory barriers to disclosure which, it should be pointed out, are not in place once criminal investigation proceedings are under way. We seek to marry the two. No new powers have been introduced in terms of disclosure; rather it is a question of harmonisation. Having listened to the debates in both Houses and having considered the concerns expressed, I do not think that it is either window dressing or soft soap to put on to the face of the Bill, so that it is in place in primary legislation—an Act of Parliament—that the disclosure must be proportionate. That is an important point.
It is no good to say that it would be taken for granted because it is in place under other legislation. Many elements that noble Lords have argued against could attract the counter argument that in any event the safeguards are already in place. Here I refer specifically to other parts of the Bill such as the retention of data. I have referred repeatedly to data protection legislation and human rights legislation. However, noble Lords have responded by saying, "Oh, that doesn't matter. We still want our amendment". I am dismissed when I put those arguments.
Here we are putting a form of words on to the face of the Bill to concrete the intention, made up-front for all to see, but it is dismissed as soft soap. I do not accept that.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I may say that you are being provocative.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I beg the pardon of the House. Twice the noble Lord has said that this is a harmonisation measure. However, is it not the case that the clause is entitled, "Extension of existing disclosure powers"? There is no reference to harmonisation.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is the case that many of the Acts listed under Schedule 4—we could have a further debate on the schedule if noble Lords so desired,

1431
although I suspect that that might be out of order—already allow for disclosure at the investigation stage. The point is that we are discussing the stage prior to investigation. To that end I cite the Utilities Act 2000, the Chemical Weapons Act 1996 and the Water Resources Act 1991.
The Bill seeks to harmonise the circumstances under which disclosures can be made. For that reason, I rest my case and ask noble Lords to accept the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the Minister probably did not intend to do so, but he gave the game away by referring to the current restrictions on the powers of the Inland Revenue to disclose information. The noble Lord commented, "and rightly so", to the fact that disclosure is restricted at the present time. Having made that concession, he proceeded to argue that the doors of the Inland Revenue should be thrown wide, that tax offices throughout the country and the Cumbernauld centre should be opened so that anyone will be able to walk in. When the Minister said, "I have been advised that these amendments make the Bill worse", noble Lords may have thought that he was referring to the gentleman in the Box. But yesterday, Mr Blunkett said:
"Our law enforcement agencies, the services that provide support to them and our security services have given us a clear understanding that if the Lords amendments are approved by the two Houses, they will simply not be able to do their job".—[Official Report. Commons, 12/12/01; col. 896.]
Later, at col. 921, in relation to another amendment, he said:
"The security services made it absolutely clear to me…that they would bring no cases forward if we used the normal court system and attempted to use public interest immunity".
Who is running this country? It looks as though the security services are advising the Minister, not the Home Office officials behind him.
My noble friend Lord Lester was right when he pointed out that, under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, it will be for the public authorities to make a judgment as to what is proportionate. Is disclosure to be made wantonly or ill advisedly, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said? How on earth are they to judge? When he introduced his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that public authorities are not experts in terrorism. As they are not experts in terrorism, why, without any guidance from Parliament, is this burden of determining what is proportionate to what is asked of them being thrust upon them?
We regret on these Benches that the Conservative Front Bench has taken the meagre size 14 fly which has been whisked past their nose, but we are swimming on. I beg to seek the opinion of the House.
4.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 157.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Monson, L.

Avebury, L.

Newby, L.

Barker, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B,

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Northover, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Oakeshott of Sieagrove Bay, L.

Bridges, L.

Onslow, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cobbold, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Dholakia, L.

Plumb, L.

Dundee, E.

Razzall, L.

Ezra, L.

Reay, L.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale, L.

Geraint, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rennard, L.

Greaves, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hamwee, B.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sharman, L.

Hooson, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Jacobs, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Stoddart of Swondon, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Taverne, L.

Lucas, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Thomas of Walliswoocl, B.

McNally, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Maddock, B.

Wallace of Saliaire, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Walmsley, B.

Methuen, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mishcon, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Christopher, L.

Ahmed, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Alli, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Amos, B.

Condon, L.

Andrews, B.

Cooke of lslandreagh, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Crawley, B.

Attenborough, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L

Bach, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Barnett, L.

David, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Bhatia, L.

Desai, L.

Billingham, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dubs, L.

Blackwell, L.

Elder, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Emerton, B.

Borrie, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Brennan, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Brett, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Brightman, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Brookman, L.

Filkin, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gale, B.

Burlison, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen. B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Gilbert, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Golding,B.

Chalfont, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Chandos, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Chorley, L.

Goudie, B.

1433

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Patel, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Paul, L.

Greengross, B.

Pendry, L.

Grenfell, L.

Peston, L.

Grocott. L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hattersley, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hayman, B.

Radice, L.

Healey, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rea, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Hoyle. L.

Richard, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rooker, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Cliancelhr)

Sewel, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Sheldon, L.

Jones, L.

Simon, V.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Slim, V.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Stallard, L.

Levy, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Lipsey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Listowel, E.

Strange, B.

Lockwood, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Tenby, V.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

[Teller]

Varley, L.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Wakefield, Bp.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Weatherill, L.

Marsh. L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Whitaker, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Whitty, L.

Merlyn-Rees. L.

Wilkins, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mitchell, L.

Williams of Mosty n, L. (Lord

Morgan, L.

Privy Seat)

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Nicol, B.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.22 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): The Question is that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree Amendment No. 5B in lieu thereof.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 17, 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.
1434
( ) "Terrorist" has the same meaning as in Part 4 of this Act."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
6A Because it is not appropriate to limit the power conferred by this clause in the manner proposed by the amendment.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 6A. I spoke to that when I spoke to Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 6A.— (Lord Rooker.)
[Amendment No. 6B, as an amendment to the Motion, not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 19, 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 Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
8A Because it is not appropriate to limit the power conferred by this clause in the manner proposed by the amendment.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 8A, but do propose Amendment No. 8B in lieu thereof—
8B Page 9, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) No disclosure of information to which this section applies shall be made by virtue of this section unless the person by whom the disclosure is made is satisfied that the making of the disclosure is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 8A, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8B in lieu thereof.—(Lord Rooker.)
[Amendment No. 8C, as an amendment to the Motion, not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
21 Leave out Clause 30.
22 Clause 31. page 16, line 21. leave out subsection (2).
The Commons agreed to these amendments, but have made the following amendment instead of the words so left out of the Bill:
22A After Clause 35, insert the following new Clause—
"SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSION
At the end of section 1 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (c. 68) insert—
"(3) The Commission shall be a superior court of record.
(4) A decision of the Commission shall be questioned in legal proceedings only in accordance with—
(a) section 7, or
(b) section 31(6)(a) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (derogation).""
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22A.
Two amendments were made on Report relating to judicial scrutiny of actions by the Secretary of State and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in connection with the certification and detention powers. The clause on "exclusion of legal proceedings" was omitted, as was subsection (2) of the next clause, which confined an initial challenge to a derogation matter to SIAC.
These amendments—Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 on the Marshalled List were accepted by another place yesterday, but in their place the Commons have substituted their own amendments, Amendment No. 22A and Amendments Nos. 22B to 22F on the Marshalled List.
We have had many detailed debates in this House about the appropriate form of judicial scrutiny for the powers in Part 4 of the Bill, during which we in the Government explained our position at some length. Before turning to the amendments presented to this House by another place, I ask the House to recall why SIAC was set up in 1997; namely, to deal with national security cases of the kind it will be considering under the Bill.
In its judgment on the Chahal case in 1996, the European Court of Human Rights stated in clear terms that the traditional remedies of judicial review and habeas corpus did not provide an individual with adequate protection in national security cases. SIAC was constructed specifically to remove those inadequacies. It does this as follows.
First, and most importantly, the legislation creating SIAC provides a mechanism by which both SIAC and a person working on behalf of the appellant—called a "special advocate"—can have full access to the security information which the Secretary of State has seen and relied on in forming his view about the national threat posed by the appellant. That is something that is not possible under traditional judicial review.
1436
Secondly, the membership of SIAC includes a High Court judge to give it the appropriate judicial standing. It also has a senior immigration judge and a lay member. It thus brings a range of relevant expertise to bear on any case.
Thirdly, the Bill provides that when hearing an appeal or review, SIAC will be required to take account of all relevant information, including information which comes to light after the date of the Secretary of State's decision. This ability to take account of new information does not apply to judicial review.
For all the above reasons we have consistently argued that SIAC is a more than adequate body to determine matters under Part 4. And since there is an existing route of challenge to SIAC's decisions on a point of law to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords, we have argued that those existing routes of challenge should be used for SIAC's decisions under the Bill.
As is clear from what I have said on previous occasions, I believe that there are, therefore, powerful arguments in support of our position that providing for traditional judicial review of decisions of SIAC would bring no benefits. I indicated my view that it would simply cause confusion as well as adding costs and delay for no good reason. So I am convinced that the policy intention reflected in the Bill as originally drafted was correct—that is, to confine legal challenges to a tried and tested bespoke system of justice which SIAC and the higher Appeal Courts provide. However, I accept that we should do more in the Bill, as we have in debate, to emphasise why this is the case.
That is what the amendments in lieu do. They have been devised following discussions that we have had with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington—for whose assistance I want to express my thanks—and some discussions with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden.
Under these amendments, the routes for judicial challenge of decisions under Part 4 would be channelled in the same way as set out in the Bill as introduced to Parliament, but in addition the amendments make SIAC a superior court of record. The title of "superior court of record" has previously been bestowed on certain bodies, such as the National Industrial Relations Council and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Having that status means that the decisions of such a body are a matter of public record and they are binding on any inferior courts. In those respects it puts them on a par with the Administrative Court.
Noble Lords will recall that when I last dealt with this matter, I indicated that by virtue of agreement between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice the judges who would be able to hear SIAC cases would be the same judges as those who sit in the Administrative Court—indeed all of them. That puts SIAC on a par with the Administrative Court.

1437
Given the high quality of membership of SIAC, which includes a High Court judge, it is entirely right that SIAC should be conferred with that status as well. It helps to underline the point that a traditional judicial review of decisions of SIAC would simply be inappropriate. It would be a case of one High Court judge sitting in judgment on a body which has three members, including a High Court judge from exactly the same court. I suggest that what is important is that if there is to be an appeal it should be to more senior judges who sit in the Court of Appeal.
The amendments in lieu also describe what we are doing in more accurate terms. It states the manner in which decisions may be challenged—namely, a decision of the Secretary of State may be challenged only in SIAC, and a decision of SIAC may be challenged only by an appeal to the Court of Appeal—rather than referring to the exclusion of legal proceedings. The Bill does not exclude legal proceedings; it does not exclude judicial scrutiny. It sets out where the judicial scrutiny is to take place. I accept that it may be that the terminology previously used in the Bill has confused the picture, so we are grateful for suggestions on how to put that right and to make the position clearer.
I hope that your Lordships will find these amendments to be an acceptable response to the concerns expressed in earlier debates in this House, and will adopt them on that basis.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22A.—[Lord Goldsmith.]
4.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 22A, Amendment No. 22AA:
222A At end insert—
"(5) Rules made under section 5 shall make provision for access to such advice, assistance and representation (including the provision of translation and interpretation services) as the interests of justice requires in connection with proceeding before the Commission, to be funded as part of the Criminal Defence Service established by the Access to Justice Act 1999 (c. 22)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 22AA, I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 22A and 22B to 22F.
Amendment No. 22AA has been tabled largely for reassurance. I hope and indeed expect that the Attorney-General will confirm that legal aid and interpretation services will be made available to detainees on appeals and reviews before SIAC and on subsequent appeals.
The matter of substance is what is in the government amendments. A week ago today, your Lordships' House, by a large majority, which included several Members of the Government Benches, rejected the government proposals that were to exclude the right of detainees to apply to the High Court for judicial review of decisions of the Home Secretary and SIAC itself under Part 4 of the Bill. Now the Government have put
1438
forward a new amendment that makes SIAC a superior court of record, but continues in effect to exclude judicial review.
I believe that these amendments are mere window-dressing. The distinction between courts of record and other courts is obscure. It seems to me that historically courts of record were those whose orders were inscribed on parchment after they had been made. At present the only effective difference is that courts of record can sentence people for contempt and other courts cannot.
The effect of being a superior court of record, as opposed to a mere court of record, is a little more significant. The law recognises the principle that one superior court of record cannot review the acts of another. By making SIAC a superior court of record, the powers of the High Court to review its activities are necessarily excluded. The provisions of Amendment No. 22B, relating to the questioning of the actions of the Secretary of State only in proceedings before SIAC or on appeal from SIAC, therefore are superfluous because that is the automatic effect of making SIAC a superior court of record.
Amendment No. 22C declares that the derogation matters are the exclusive reserve of SIAC and cannot be questioned by judicial review. Therefore, it restores in that respect the exclusion of judicial review. In the real world the government amendments contain nothing that improves the position of the Bill as it was when it first came to your Lordships' House. Yesterday in the other place the Home Secretary was asked by Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews what was the point of making SIAC a court of record. He replied:
"It establishes … the position, the status and the record, which can be carried forward".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/01; col. 919.]
I regard that as a fairly accurate summary of the effect of Amendment No. 22A in that it is essentially meaningless.
In fact, it makes matters a little worse because the effect of Amendment No. 22A is to exclude judicial review, not only from proceedings under this Bill, but also from the existing jurisdiction of SIAC. SIAC will be a superior court of record for the whole of its jurisdiction, which, as already explained, will prevent a review of its decisions by the High Court, whether they are in reference to its existing jurisdiction or to its new jurisdiction under this Bill.
I shall not go into the reasons why judicial review should be retained. Last Thursday they were fully argued, notably by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mayhew of Twysden and Lord Donaldson of Lymington. Those arguments persuaded your Lordships to vote to retain judicial review over the proceedings of SIAC. I believe that there is no reason to go through those arguments again because they have not changed. Nothing in this amendment represents a real concession or changes the force of the argument that your Lordships heard a week ago. I regret that the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Donaldson, and the Conservative

1439
Front Bench have accepted what I believe is an entirely illusory olive branch offered to them by the Government. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 22A, Amendment No. 22AA.—(Lord Goodlicirt.)
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the original Question was that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22A inserted into the Bill in place of words left out of the Bill by Amendment Nos. 21 and 22 to which the Commons have agreed. Since when an amendment has been moved to insert the words as printed. The Question is that Amendment No. 22AA be agreed to.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, what appears to be so daft about these procedures is that they apply only to people who come to this country without a right of abode and without any right of entry. So these provisions do not apply to citizens of the Irish Republic, nor do they apply to citizens of other countries who have a right of abode in this country. That means that if any such persons are suspected of being terrorists they will not be dealt with under this immigration procedure; the only way in which they can be dealt with is through the normal court procedures of charge and trial.
As secret information will be involved, the usual procedures that take place in courts will be employed; namely, that public interest immunity will be claimed; that the proceedings will be held in camera; and that there will be screens or methods, such as videos, employed to ensure that the identity of witnesses who give evidence is not known. That will happen with anybody except that limited class of people who are in this country but who have no right of abode here.
The procedures distort the SIAC system, which was brought into being for the purposes of immigration, not for the purposes of detention without trial and the apprehension of terrorists. That is what is wrong with them. Because of that distortion, we have the ridiculous situation of the commission being bumped up to be a court of record, equivalent to the High Court, thereby preventing judicial review by a mere piece of window dressing. I respectfully submit that the provisions are a disgrace.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, in a sense I have to declare an interest in the amendments because the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General was kind enough to engage in wide ranging and long discussions on the problem that had arisen. As I saw it, the problem was that unless we could do something new, we were faced with a highly damaging conflict between the two Houses. If that conflict was necessary, we would have it, but it should be avoided if possible.
As I understand it, the background is that each House was convinced that its approach to the problem was the only way forward and that, if only the other House properly understood what it was at, it would
1440
realise that the proposals met all its legitimate aims. Neither House was prepared to compromise because any compromise, by the nature of all compromises, would involve one or both Houses giving up some aspects of the matter which they regarded as of fundamental importance.
Something different was needed—I call it an accommodation, although that may not be the right word—whereby the whole matter was re-jigged in a form that met the full requirements of both Houses.
To explain that a little more, let me outline briefly the attitude of the two Houses. This House was strongly of the opinion that there could be no ouster of the judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court, which is and has been for centuries the ultimate constitutional safeguard against the abuse of power by those in authority. It was certainly not acceptable that, for the first time in history, judicial powers of review should be conferred on a court of inferior jurisdiction. I do not use the word inferior" in any pejorative sense—I am merely referring to a court that is not a superior court of record.
Secondly, this House thought that that refusal did not conflict with the Government's aim of retaining the involvement of SIAC if the actions of the Secretary of State were called into question. If the actions of SIAC were called into question. the High Court would, without doubt, have used the special procedures contained in the 1997 Act to safeguard the interests of the security services arid of national security.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords—
4.45 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord should not get too excited. I am describing the view of the House, not his view. If SIAC overstepped the mark, it could and would be dealt with using special procedures by the High Court.
The Government's approach was different. I pardon the infelicity of what they were saying, but their approach was that no court other than SIAC could be relied on to preserve the secrecy of intelligence material provided by the security services if it became concerned with issues other than law. Secondly, they expressed the view that SIAC must be free from all supervision by the High Court, and therefore judicial review must be ousted. That relates to the security issue; the Government were not merely favouring SIAC. The Government's final point was that any other approach could cost lives. It may not be likely, but it could happen.
Against those two conflicting approaches, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and I looked to see what building blocks were available to produce an accommodation. First, there was the building block that no superior court of record can be judicially reviewed. I add anecdotally that the late Mr Justice Megarry was minded to do that when I was president of the National Industrial Relations Court. I rang him up and pointed out that the issue was rather important and he could not do it. He fully accepted that.

1441
Secondly, the High Court is not the only superior court of record. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has mentioned the NIRC and the Employment Appeals Tribunal. I think that I am right in saying that he could also have mentioned the Restrictive Practices Court.
The question then arose: why not make SIAC a superior court of record? Like the High Court, it would be subject to all rulings, in all respects of any jurisdiction that it was exercising, by the Court of Appeal. The High Court, in its ordinary jurisdiction makes rulings that the Court of Appeal can look into and overrule. There is no problem with that. So why not make SIAC a superior court of record? I should not like that to happen on a wide scale. It is an exceptional action, but it is justifiable in this case because of its similarity to the administrative division of the High Court. After all, by arrangements of which we were told earlier, it will always be presided over by not only a High Court judge, but a specialist judge appointed to the administrative court who is skilled in and familiar with judicial review.
It has to be said straightaway that a superior court of record does not automatically achieve judicial review jurisdiction, still less does it become part of the High Court, as I heard suggested on a televised programme of the proceedings of the other place.
The next building block is to confer a limited—I stress that word—judicial review jurisdiction on SIAC in order that it might exercise that jurisdiction in respect of the Secretary of State or anybody else who was concerned. That produces concurrent jurisdiction between the High Court and SIAC.
Given that situation, I see no reason why Parliament should not express the view that, of the two concurrent jurisdictions, one should be concerned with SIAC matters. That is what has been done.
Using those building blocks, we arrive at the situation in which SIAC shall be a superior court of record, given both an appellate and a judicial review jurisdiction. As between SIAC and the High Court, SIAC shall deal with matters arising within its own sphere, as judged by its constitution and the Acts relating to it. SIAC shall be answerable to the Court of Appeal under Section 7 of its own special Act and, in relation to derogation, under Section 31(6)(a) of this Act. That seems to meet the requirements of both Houses without either House having to surrender its strongly held view.
I should mention one other matter. There was some criticism in the other place about the fact that SIAC's appellate jurisdiction would he limited to questions of law. However, as all questions of judicial review on appeal involve questions of law, there will be an unfettered right of appeal in that respect. As for true fact. in my view—although perhaps not in the view of some litigants—one of the glories of the English law is that the idea of a question of law is extremely elastic. For a start, it includes the question of whether there is no evidence of fact; and it may go rather further than that if there is, for example, only a scintilla of evidence.
1442
Your Lordships see where the courts would be going if they thought that there was an injustice that they were being prevented from righting. I have no problem with that.
There is another reason why I have no problem with the proposals. Although I have not done the research that I should perhaps have done, experience teaches me that, when it is a second appeal, there are a number of statutory provisions that limit rights of appeal to questions of law. In this case, the Secretary of State will make what is essentially the original trial decision, after which there may be an appeal to SIAC. The appeal from SIAC to the Court of Appeal is a second appeal. There is nothing very remarkable about that.
I hope that the accommodation approach that I have just outlined will also help to address the point which was raised on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on satisfying the European Court of Human Rights, and the Council of Europe if it is involved, that we are not departing unnecessarily from the principles that it seeks to support.
Finally, I hope that I shall be acquitted of being a window dresser. I have never been very good at it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, on the last occasion when this matter was debated by this House, I agreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and I took the view that the Government should make material concessions. I believe that they have done so. I thank those who were responsible for achieving that. It is not the first time that I have agreed with the noble and learned Lord. He has the misfortune of knowing that I agree with him also on this occasion.
I think that it would be churlish not to thank the Home Secretary for listening very carefully to what we had to say. It is not that we want to score a success against the Government. I am concerned about the state of the law, and I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson—who speaks from a rather superior position—is concerned about that too. I thought that there was a terrible anomaly in the current position. I therefore end where I began, by thanking the Government for carefully taking note of what was said in this Chamber and acting accordingly.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I think that the whole House will be grateful for that expression of helpful opinion by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who spoke very passionately a few days ago on Report. I think that the whole House will also think, as I do. that it was very helpful of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, to try so constructively to find an accommodation. I supported him while he was engaged in the process and I am very glad to support him now, for whatever value that may have.
I am also extremely glad that, in consequence, the Government have moved on the issue of judicial review. The question is whether, in their own amendments which were passed last night in another place, they have moved far enough to satisfy the declared objections to former Clauses 30 and 31, which this House removed a few days ago.

1443
What were those objections? I can summarise them very briefly. First, SIAC was not a court but a commission. Secondly, as a commission, it did not have all the power that the High Court would usually have to submit a certification by the Home Secretary or a derogation to judicial review; on one view, it had no power to do that. Thirdly, any irregularity in the commission's procedures could not on complaint be subjected to judicial review, as it could not review itself. Fourthly, to oust judicial review from the exercise of any authority's power that is usually susceptible to judicial review was a bad precedent to set ourselves, and one that was all too likely to be followed in future. Finally, the defence of the country in the present emergency revealed no need for such provision.
How do these amendments measure up? Your Lordships have a very heavy time ahead of you today and tonight, and I do not think that it is your Lordships' wish that I should seek to improve on what has been said by the proposal's principal author and progenitor, the learned and noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I am very content to adopt, with respect, his comments on his building blocks and the accommodation that they achieve. It was a very helpful intervention and I shall not seek to diminish its beneficial effect by delaying your Lordships.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, was kind enough to mention my previous comments. The Attorney-General and the House will know that I have consistently said that I am in favour of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission as an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. I have also taken the position, which I believe is the position in law, that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission is bound by the Human Rights Act 1998 to ensure a fair procedure under Article 6 of the convention, as is the Court of Appeal.
It seems that the Home Secretary made a very important statement yesterday evening, but I should like the Attorney-General's confirmation—although I see that his mind is on another matter—that those comments represent the Government's position. The Home Secretary said:
"SIAC as a superior court of record and administrative court … will provide the equivalent of judicial review"—[Official Report, Commons. 12/12/01; col. 919]
Does that mean that SIAC will have all the powers that are held by a normal judicial review court? As I understand it, it was on that basis that the Home Secretary went on to say that Law Lords and "ex-Law Lords"—which I take to be a reference to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson—were and are satisfied with the proposal.
If it is correct that the Government accept that SIAC—which should be renamed a special immigration appeal tribunal, because that is what it is—is to have all the powers of a judicial review court, and given the Human Rights Act and all its consequences, the position has changed profoundly.
1444
As my noble friend Lord Goodhart indicated, in one respect the amendment now before us removes normal judicial review further than when we last considered the matter. It now applies to deportation orders under the 1997 Act as well as detention and certification. I understand why: it is to produce consistency which would otherwise not be there.
I shall be grateful, therefore, if the Attorney-General will confirm that what the Home Secretary states and what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, understands to be the position, really is the position. That will make a considerable difference to my attitude to these matters.
Finally, if my noble friend will forgive me, it follows from what I say that I do not now agree—nor have I agreed during these debates—with what my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said. We look at this through different eyes, perhaps because of our previous legal background. But as a public lawyer I am not as affronted as he is by SIAC; on the contrary.
5 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, first, I echo what was said by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. I thank the Attorney-General and the Minister for riot only listening to the voices throughout this Chamber on judicial review, but also for listening to the voices in the other place. And not simply listening, but also finding a way in which to respond.
Secondly, I hope noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches will think carefully about this matter. The accommodation explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, means that no one loses in either this place or the other place. It is an accommodation and an honourable accommodation. The Government should be thanked for it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, speaking from the Liberal Democrat Benches, but for the moment only for myself, I respect the principle of accommodation and I respect the need for it. The question is how far 'the accommodation will be effective.
When I spoke on this issue at Second Reading and in Committee, I had two specific concerns. One was that just expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden: that if we had an ouster of judicial review in one place, we would soon get a precedent which would be regularly repeated; in fact the Government would have set up a young lady of Spain, ready to do it not once, but again, and again and again.
On that we may possibly regard what happened as a draw, which is an honourable result. But the trouble with draws is that they tend to be followed by replays. If, when the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General replies, he can give us an assurance that this particular draw is one that is not expected to be followed by a replay, I would find that extremely helpful.

1445
My other anxiety, to which the Attorney-General has not yet fully given his mind, is the restrictive nature of the appeal allowed under SIAC procedure as limited by Clause 34(3) of the original Bill—the strict confining of the appeal to the matter of certification; the inability to look at the asylum claim in the round. I noticed in today's The Tunes Mr Ruud Lubbers, of the UN High Commission for Refugees, expressed considerable concern about the growing climate of hostility to asylum seekers throughout the world. That is something of which this country cannot be innocent. So to set up an appeal system which is not able to examine the asylum claim and is therefore unable to examine the proportionality of the certificate, may restrict justice.
I hope that the Attorney-General can tell me, before anyone has to take a decision, whether that elevation of the status of SIAC empowers it to consider material facts other than those in the certificate. I know he will say that it concerns only people who have no right to be in this country. But this is the most unreliable part of the whole of the decision-making machinery of the British Government—and that is saying something. So decisions taken about asylum should not be taken without the possibility of review, and the circumstances which give rise to the asylum claim should be looked at at the same time as the circumstances which give rise to the certificate. What conclusion that should lead to in any specific case one cannot say. But if the noble and learned Lord were able to help me on that point, I would find that very material and be extremely grateful.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, To show particular restraint as to one aspect of this Bill does not involve any lack of resolve in supporting its general objectives. The specific restraint shown by the Government on this occasion is to preserve what many lawyers will feel to be the need for the rule of law in every aspect of national life, including security.
During the course of these debates noble Lords have shown considerable patience and understanding towards lawyers. I shall continue to show that patience towards my learned friends on the Liberal Benches, but not I am afraid on this occasion any understanding. This change in the Bill is welcome for three reasons, which go beyond the rather technical analysis—important though that is—that we have—heard thus far.
The first is that judicial review, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, is the ultimate constitutional safeguard between the people and the state and should always be so. That is for our nation. Secondly, by the end of this year or early next year all member nations of the United Nations will report to the Security Council on the steps that they have taken to combat terrorism. This Bill will be looked at as an exemplar for other countries to copy. It is essential that those countries see in it and recognise the value of judicial review as a constitutional and justice safeguard in their systems.
1446
I cannot emphasise that too much. Travelling the world as we lawyers do, we see that it is to this country that countries look to produce just law. This Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be pored over by countries throughout the world.
The last reason why this matter is important beyond the current debate is that it gives protection. In the Second World War, in the United States, noble Lords will remember the internment of any Japanese citizens of America who were Japanese by ancestry rather than by birth. The Supreme Court upheld the internment. But many years later they were given justice. I should like to read a sentence from the judge who acknowledged what had gone wrong. He said,
"This case stands as a caution that in times of distress and international hostility and antagonisms, the shield of military necessity and national security must not be used to protect governmental action from close scrutiny and accountability [at all times]".
This amendment preserves that accountability. For those three reasons I commend the government amendments. Of course it is important for both our Houses to get this Bill through. That is the administrative task. But it is a much greater aspiration that it produces good law. These amendments help that aspiration.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. On behalf of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for clarifying the position and for bringing forward their Amendment No. 22A. I am also extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden for assisting the Government in developing consensus on this difficult and important matter.
Also, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, that we view this approach as an exceptional action and one that we would not wish to entertain other than on that basis. It gives me pleasure to support the government amendment.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I shall deal first with Amendment No. 22AA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which is an amendment to my Amendment No. 22A. That amendment seeks to put into the Bill particular words relating to legal assistance. Section 5 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 already provides that,
"Rules under this section shall provide that an appellant has the right to be legally represented in any proceedings before the Commission or an appeal under section 2".
So there is no difficulty. The right to legal advice and assistance is already there.
This Bill also provides that Section 81 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which relates to grants to voluntary organisations to assist persons who have rights of appeal under that Act, shall be treated as including a reference to suspected international terrorists. The Bill also provides that SIAC may adopt the rules as it considers necessary. I have referred to that before. Therefore, I can assure the

1447
noble Lord that a detained individual will have adequate access to legal advice. I can further assure him that adequate arrangements will be made to ensure that the detained individual is fully aware of the disclosable case against him, as indeed is the case in other immigration-related appeals.
I turn to the specific reference that the noble Lord proposes as regards the criminal defence service. I suggest that that is an inappropriate proposed reference for this reason. The Access to Justice Act 1999 identifies the purpose of the criminal defence service as securing that individuals involved in criminal investigations or criminal proceedings have access to such advice, assistance and representation of their interests. Criminal proceedings are defined in the Act and would not include the SIAC proceedings.
The power to fund the criminal defence service rests not with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, but with the noble and learned Lord The Lord Chancellor. I hope that the assurances that I have been able to give will at least satisfy the noble Lord as to the substance of his proposed amendment. It does not appear to us that there is need for any of it to appear on the face of the Bill.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 22A. I may have misunderstood the noble Earl, Lord Russell. There is no question of a replay in the sense of another place disagreeing with this amendment because it has already been accepted there and brought forward to us. If the amendment is now accepted, that is the end of the matter.
I am very grateful to those noble Lords who spoke in this debate, particularly my noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Corbett and Lord Brennan. I acknowledge their remarks and thanks to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I have already given—but I do so again—my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. He has clearly explained why this is a justifiable amendment to make and why it is a sensible way of achieving the ends that both Houses want.
I come now to the dissenting voices of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that he did not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I have not agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, throughout the debate on this clause. He has consistently taken the view that it is somehow possible to use the public interest immunity route in order to deal with the problem. I have consistently said that that is not a way for getting the matter before the court.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, is not that the way in which people who have a right of abode in this country or citizens of the Irish Republic will have to be dealt with because they will not come under this procedure?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, this procedure does not apply to them, so the issue does not arise. There is no
1448
point in continuing the debate with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, because we will continue to disagree. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has made clear his agreement, as he has done previously, with the fundamental position that SIAC is appropriate.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, will the Attorney-General deal with the specific question that I put to him, which will determine my attitude? Is there any difference between what is now proposed and judicial review?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord must he patient. I am coming to that. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, described it as window dressing and not of the real world. The real world is the one that we were in where it was recognised by noble Lords in this House, with very few exceptions, that separate judicial review was important for one reason only, and that is the symbolism and precedent that it would give rise to. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, and others have spoken of how that precedent is not there. I never thought that there was an issue. I always believed that we were sending a clear message that there was to be judicial scrutiny of these decisions, but I was in a minority on that matter. I am grateful to noble Lords who have made the point. I make it very clear that no precedent is being set. There is no statement by this country that we are against judicial scrutiny, but quite the opposite. We are saying that these decisions, difficult and sensitive though they are, will be subject to full review by a body which is a superior court of record.
I turn now to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I have also said in the past that I could not see areas where something could be done under judicial review which could not be done by SIAC. I invited noble Lords to point out where I was wrong. That remains my position. I believe that SIAC will be able to take everything into account which would have been considered on judicial review and more. I have made the point before that SIAC will be looking at the situation at the date of the hearing and not simply at the date of the certificate. Therefore, it is not simply a case, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked, about looking at the grounds in the certificate because SIAC is entitled to take account of matters which have taken place subsequently. Given that and the fact that there is a clear right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on a question of law, I hope that I have adequately confirmed that there is nothing that could be done on judicial review by way of dealing with the certificate of the Secretary of State that SIAC would be unable to do.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as regards our own amendment, I am happy to accept what the noble and learned Lord, the Attorney-General, has said. We shall not press it. Turning to the substantive amendment and the group of Government amendments, we are not persuaded by what the noble and learned Lord has said. I am interested and

1449
somewhat surprised to note that the Conservative Front Bench in the other place abstained on the vote last night and it is now proposing to vote with the Government. In that case we do not see any point in seeking to divide the House, but the fact that we will not do so is not to be taken as representing any agreement by us to the proposals which have been put forward. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 22AA.
Amendment No. 22AA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 22A, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
The Commons have also made the following consequential Amendments to the Bill:
22B Clause 21, page 11, line 21, at end insert—
"( ) A decision of the Secretary of State in connection with certification under this section may be questioned in legal proceedings only under section 25 or 26.
( ) An action of the Secretary of State taken wholly or partly in reliance on a certificate under this section may be questioned in legal proceedings only by or in the course of proceedings under—
(a) section 25 or 26, or
(b) section 2 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (c. 68) (appeal)."
22C Page 16, line 23, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 24 and insert—
"(3) A derogation matter may be questioned in legal proceedings only before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission;"
22D Page 16, line 28, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "this subsection"
22E Page 18, line 21, at end insert "or"
22F Page 18, line 25, leave out paragraph (d).
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 22B to 22F.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 22B to 22F.—(Lord Goldsmith.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
23 Leave out Clause 39,
The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill:
23A Clause 39, page 20, line 16, at end insert—
"( ) The Attorney General may issue guidance as to conduct in respect of which he will not institute proceedings for an offence under Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986, or consent to the institution of such proceedings, on the grounds that the conduct consists of the legitimate expression of religious belief."
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 23, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23A to the words so restored to the Bill.
We return to the issue of expanding the existing law on incitement to racial hatred to cover incitement to religious hatred. Noble Lords will recall that this House voted to remove Clause 39 from the Bill and the Commons have disagreed with that amendment and agreed an amendment to restore Clause 39 as amended by the government amendment regarding guidance.
The Government remain convinced that it is necessary to extend the law to cover incitement to religious hatred. We believe that it is necessary to do that now to ensure that those who have sought to stir up racial hatred, exploiting the tension since September 11th, are not allowed to do so. We believe that it is time to end the anomaly under which some religious groups are covered by incitement to hatred provisions when others are not. We believe that the clauses proposed by the Government are the right way to create these offences because they build on the tried and tested—and not abused—incitement to racial hatred offence. We believe that it is time for this House to send the message that it does not condone this kind of vile hatred.
I shall turn in a moment to the question of guidance. Today I have placed in the Printed Paper Office draft guidance which I intend to publish, with the agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions, as soon as this clause passes into law. Before I discuss that matter, I shall deal with the following point. We do not accept that this conduct can simply be dealt with under the law relating to other offences. Of course, some cases, depending on the facts, will involve conduct which could amount to incitement to religious hatred but could also amount to another offence. The choice of charge will be for the prosecutor. However, there is a gap. Public order and harassment offences in particular, such as using threatening or abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards another person with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate violence will be used against him, or with intent to provoke immediate violence, require conduct which is directed at a specific individual—that was the point I sought to make the other day—and, therefore, do not bite on the general distribution of literature such as on a website or by leaflets which are distributed.
It has been said that the ingredients of the offence would not criminalise legitimate freedom of expression; that is, criticism, even robust criticism, of religion or religious discussion and debate. The criminal threshold has not been abused in the Companion incitement to racial hatred cases, and it would not be for religious hatred. In order to provide some further reassurance on that, I agreed to provide guidance.
Before I turn to the guidance I make two specific preliminary points. First, the guidance is intended to clarify factors which I would consider when exercising

1451
the power that I have under statute to consent, or to decline to consent, to a prosecution under Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986. That is an existing power to consent which applies at the moment to the offence of racial hatred as it does to a number of other offences. The intention has always been that if the offence of incitement to religious hatred were included, it would be subject to the same regime; that is, a regime where there would have to be consent by the Attorney-General. But—this is important—the guidance does not alter the ingredients of the offence. It is not within my power to alter the ingredients of the offence. That is important as it was suggested in another place that this was an administrative power which allowed the Attorney-General to determine or change the law. 'The power already exists for me to consent to prosecutions. The guidance clarifies what factors I would normally consider when making that decision. However, I certainly cannot make anything criminal which is not criminal under the statute as passed by Parliament—if it is—and as interpreted by the courts.
The second important preliminary observation is one that I hope noble Lords will readily recognise. I also hope that noble Lords will readily recognise that as a prosecutor, with a responsibility to prosecute in the public interest, I cannot make sweeping or categorical statements that might apply to circumstances I cannot presently envisage. That would fetter a discretion in a way that noble Lords would not expect that any Attorney-General would want to do. The difficulty is that there is always a possibility of something that one cannot envisage at the moment occurring in the future. In looking at the guidance which I have produced in draft, I hope that noble Lords will recognise that point and kindly bear it in mind. Notwithstanding that, I hope that noble Lords will still find the draft guidance helpful and will agree that it meets at least the particular concern which has been expressed; namely, that this offence might somehow be used to stifle legitimate expression of religious belief or even criticism of religious belief.
First, the guidance sets out the procedures. It emphasises that any decision for consent would be a decision taken personally by the Attorney-General, or, in certain cases, by my deputy, the Solicitor-General. It refers to police investigations and the necessity for specialist prosecutors to be involved from the CPS central facilities. It identifies the necessary ingredients of the offence, each of which would have to be proved in order for a prosecution to succeed, and each of which must, therefore, be considered. It makes the important point, in accordance with general practice, that no prosecution would be brought unless there was a realistic prospect of conviction; that is, that the evidential test is satisfied, and also that, in my opinion, it is in the public interest to prosecute. Both those matters have to be satisfied. It seeks to give some guidance on some of the elements. I refer, for example, to hatred, which is an important ingredient. The guidance states in paragraph 5.4:
"'Hatred' is a strong word and, as a matter of common sense, it is likely to be held by the courts to mean something stronger than dislike, contempt or ridicule".
1452
The guidance also deals with the matter to which I referred earlier in relation to legitimate expression. Paragraph 5.12 states:
"Given the high threshold tests set by these offences it is not easy to foresee circumstances in which legitimate methods of religious debate will justify a prosecution. So, expressions of, or indeed criticism of, one's own or another's religious beliefs or practices, even when robustly expressed, or satirising or poking fun at or making comical representations of religion, people who are religious or who follow particular religions are unlikely to offend the statute. Legitimate expressions of religious belief which, taken within their context, time and the wider national and international arena, could not be construed as anything other than the expression of a religious tenet are, similarly, not likely to amount to an offence of incitement to religious hatred".
The guidance was produced in the hope that it would give further reassurance as regards the additional safeguard in the Act and as regards the ingredients being such that legitimate expression of religious belief, or criticism of others' religious belief, would not be criminalised.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 23, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23A to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Goldsmith.)
5.30 p.m.
23B Lord Campbell of Alloway rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 23 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23A in lieu thereof, leave out the words after "House" and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 23".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment to reaffirm that, as was decided on Report, Clause 39, which seeks to criminalise incitement to religious hatred, be left out of the Bill.
On Report, I spoke only to Amendment No. 23A. The numbers are so confusing that I shall call that the Attorney-General's guidance amendment. It was heavily criticised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, myself and many other of your Lordships. No satisfactory answer appeared to be given at the time and on reading the Official Report, none materialised. There is no justification for such an unprecedented procedure.
When I moved the amendment to omit Clause 39 and it was carried, the Attorney-General's guidance amendment had not been divided upon. That was never divided upon because it could not exist if Clause 39, which it was proposed to amend, were left out of the Bill. It was the decision of the House by a substantial majority of members of all three main political parties and of Cross-Benchers—after a long, good-humoured and constructive debate—that Clause 39 be omitted.
It is not my intention to reopen that debate but I shall make three salient points. First, what is the hurry when the sense of the House was that there is a need for further comprehensive consultation and discussion?

1453
What is the connection with terrorists in an antiterrorism Bill? What is wrong with the law as it stands, if it were enforced?
Secondly, there was a flood of opposition from all three monotheist religions; religious bodies including the Free Presbyterian Manse, eight Islamic institutions, the Christian Institute and Liberty. A veritable mountain of unsolicited correspondence expressed in one way or another the belief that Clause 39 could do more than harm than good, cause much unintended mischief and inhibit freedom of speech and religion.
The third salient point was made, inevitably, by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I wholly agree that the proposed reach across, as the noble Earl termed it, to racial hatred is dangerous and ill conceived in a single statutory framework dealing with both racial and religious hatred. Religion is a matter of opinion and freedom of expression and belief could be compromised. In that context, the anomalies to which the Attorney-General just referred are not understood.
At the end of Report stage your Lordships—by excluding religious hatred offences and retaining religiously aggravated offences—devised a new structure to resolve the essence of the problem as identified by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham and accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on 15th October. The right reverend Prelate said that in this country, Islam is generally perceived as an Asian religion. Therefore, attacks on Islam are used as a cover for incitement to religious hatred against people of Asian origin.
The House achieved a viable structure and on Third Reading, I sought in vain to persuade the Government to accept it. Such remains my respectful endeavour.
If the record of enforcement of racial hatred offences under extant law were to increase from the 47 cases over 15 years to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford referred, what would be the need for a new Bill? I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 23 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23A in lieu thereof, leave out the words after "House" and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 23".—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, we return to a theme to which we have devoted considerable time. The House will be relieved to hear that I will be suitably brief.
There is a fundamental difference of opinion between noble Lords on these Benches, Liberal Democrats, Cross-Benchers and many government Members. Even in another place last night a considerable number—I can give the precise number if need be—voted against the inclusion of this clause in the Bill.
1454
I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for taking the trouble to ensure that a copy of the guidance notes—they relate to the provisions that would come into force if the proposal were agreed to—was available to all of us. However, the difficulty is that the guidance notes and the amendment do not address the fundamental division of view between us. That division of view is not about the content of the provisions or the way in which problems should be dealt with; it is about whether such provisions should be in the Bill at all.
I do not intend to repeat the ground that we have gone over so many times in that regard. This is a piece of emergency legislation; it is an anti-terror Bill with a few connotations added to it. The inclusion of religious hatred offences is not appropriate in a Bill of that sort. So far as I am concerned, that is the beginning and the end of the argument. The mills of this House grind slowly and they grind exceeding fine. That is superb in its way. I do not propose to waste more time on this matter—much time has already been spent on it. I simply say that we for our part will support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we on this side of the House insist on the amendment that was considered on Report and which proposed leaving out Clause 39. It is for that reason that we support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. There is a fundamental difference between what the Government are proposing and what we believe is the case. The amendment to the words proposed by the Commons does not meet our concern that provisions concerning incitement to religious hatred are inappropriate as part of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.
We were aware on Report that the Attorney-General intended to issue guidance on matters on which he will not issue proceedings on the ground that the conduct consists of the legitimate expression of belief. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for supplying such guidance but it makes little difference to the arguments that we advanced previously. The chances of him succeeding on the basis of the guidelines are very limited. It will make very little difference to the cases that come before the courts. I do not for a moment doubt the wisdom and the wise counsel of the noble and learned Lord, but I question whether his department is qualified to interpret cultural and religious beliefs that are held by the many diverse religions that are part of our multi-religious society in the United Kingdom.
If it is any consolation to the Government, I make it clear that we do not dispute the purpose behind the legislation. We would argue—the number of letters and telephone calls that most of us have received confirms this—that the matter requires detailed consideration and should take into account not only incitement but also matters involving religious discrimination. Creating new offences will never on its own protect members of racial or religious groups from violence and abuse.

1455
I invite noble Lords to look at the record of incitement to racial hatred, which was cited by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. In the past 12 years, only 42 defendants have been successfully prosecuted, and in 1999 only three prosecutions succeeded. We kid ourselves if we believe that once the Bill is enacted, we will round up those who perpetrate religious hatred. Extremists have successfully circumvented the incitement to racial hatred legislation. Ask the police, the CPS and the legal profession—they will confirm that. In reality, the guidelines from the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General are not going to solve the problem. So why the hurry?
I had a quick glance at the debate in the other place last night. Again, the arguments that were advanced by the Minister in the Commons were no different from those that were advanced on Report. Of course there have been attacks on the Muslim community since September 11th, but attacks have also been perpetrated against other racial and religious groups. I congratulate our police forces, which have adopted a high-profile presence and prevented many ugly situations. But what is stopping the Minister from using the Public Order Act or harassment legislation? I know that the noble and learned Lord dealt with that matter, but he has not given a satisfactory answer. That legislation is on the statute book and could deal with many of the situations that were referred to on Report.
Let me quote one of the noble and learned Lord's colleagues—Diane Abbott, who is the Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington. In an intervention in the other place, she said: "My hon. Friend"—that is, the Minister in the other place—
"has been challenged about what the clause is doing in a Bill on terrorism and up to now she has not given us a satisfactory response".
She went on to suggest the motivation in that regard. She said:
"The clause has been tacked on as a sop to certain sections of Muslim opinion that have long wanted such protection. It is an anomaly and it should not be in the Bill; wrong clause, wrong Bill. The Lords were right to strike it down".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/01; col. 934.]
I hope that we shall do so again.
We do not doubt that there are gaps in the legislation on ethnicity and religion. Equally, fundamental gaps exclude the Muslim community from discrimination on religious grounds. Events in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham have demonstrated why it is important to look at the subject in its totality; the Government should not simply pick and mix what suits them.
We insist on what we said previously in your Lordship's House. The Government would have our full support if such legislation were separate from the anti-terrorism legislation. A law is more effective if it commands the respect of all our citizens.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, it would not be very helpful if I rehearsed once more why I
1456
believe that all of the clauses in Part 5, including Clause 39, should remain in the Bill. I simply say that I believe that the outlawing of incitement to religious hatred should be a basic protection that is given to people of all faiths, particularly those in minority groups. The draft guidance, particularly paragraph 5.3, helpfully clarifies the offence.
Noble Lords have been patient on previous occasions in listening to my arguments; the majority vote then went the other way, as it might well do this evening. I hope that noble Lords will not support Amendment No. 23B. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, quoted my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham who suggested that an attack on Islam is an attack on Asian people. That may often be the case, but it is not always so. On Report, I referred to the way in which white racist groups were using attacks on Islam—and on Sikhs and Hindus—to divide minority ethnic communities. The perception of mainline Islamic leaders is that Islamophobia is a real factor in British society, and that it has intensified since September 11th.
Many noble Lords on all sides of the House argued that religious hatred and religious discrimination should be tackled thoroughly and tackled soon. I do not hide from noble Lords the fact that those mainline faith leaders—of all faiths—who have argued long and hard for many years for just such legislation will take some convincing of the fact that refusal to support the legislation on the basis that better legislation could be produced in future might not be a way in which to avoid dealing with a difficult and delicate issue. That issue will be of increasing importance in years to come. A bird in the hand is worth many promises of innumerable and beautiful birds in future bushes.
I hope that Part 5 of the Bill, in its entirety—
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, in an earlier speech, the right reverend Prelate made those points and asserted that he speaks for what he calls mainline leaders of all faiths. I hope that since he made those assertions he has learnt from the leaders of a number of Christian Churches in Scotland that they profoundly disagree with him and do not believe that he has the right to claim such authority.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, the authority that I claim is simply my own. That applies to every Member of this House. The members of the House of Bishops may not agree with it, and that may be the case in relation to other noble Lords.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, my understanding is that this part of the legislation will not apply in Scotland.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, nevertheless this is a serious intervention and I wish to deal with the point. For the past 10 years I have represented the Church of England on the Inner Cities Religious Council. That council is a bridge body between the mainline Churches and main faiths in

1457
Britain and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I suggest that over those 10 years the people elected to those bodies have represented better than any other body the main feeling of the faiths in this country, including religious denominations. I am also the co-chair of the Inter Faith Network for Britain, including Scotland. We meet regularly with leaders from all the main faiths in this country. Before taking part in this debate, I checked with all those faith leaders to ensure that they thoroughly support the legislation before your Lordships' House. I said that in an earlier debate.
I hope that Part 5 of the Bill survives in its entirety, including Clause 39. I hope that tonight it survives the machinations of votes in this House and in the other place. If, however, at the end of the day the legislation on religiously aggravated offences alone remains as part of the Bill, that at least will be a modest gain and will provide something on which we may build in the years to come. However, I hope that Parliament will do better than that this evening and also preserve the outlawing of incitement to religious hatred.
Therefore, I shall vote against Amendment No. 23B, although I shall probably be in a minority. But noble Lords who intend to vote for it are honourable people who, I trust, will honour their words which have been placed on record during the various stages of the Bill. I trust that a new Bill concerning religious discrimination will be brought before your Lordships' House next year. There will indeed be support for such legislation, as promised by Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour and Cross Benches in this House.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in relation to what the right reverend Prelate says, for the avoidance of doubt there is no promise of such a Bill. There is no prospect of any legislation on this issue in this Parliament. I must make that clear. Such a promise has not been made. It may have been implied in various speeches, but I can assure the right reverend Prelate that, so far as concerns the Government, there will no space for such legislation in this Parliament.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, that is helpful clarification. I believe that it intensifies my earlier expressed view that a bird in the hand is worth two promised birds in bushes. Voices from all sides of the House have indicated or anticipated that such a thought-out Bill would be introduced within the next 12 months or so if we did not deal with the issue this evening. I am not totally surprised that that may not be so. Therefore, we may have to wait many years before we ascertain the cash value of some of the promises of support that have been made for such a Bill. Certainly, tonight or in the future we on these Benches would wish to continue to play an active and constructive part in all such deliberations.
Lord Elton: My Lords, whether a bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush depends very much on what the bird does when it is in one's hand. The point that I want to make to the right reverend Prelate
1458
is that those of us who urge caution at this stage are not against legislation but we are against bad legislation. We were advised 48 hours ago, I believe, that we should repose our confidence in the guidelines that were to be brought out. I have them in my hand.
Your Lordships will remember the concern expressed that this legislation should not be used maliciously to persecute people who were evincing legitimate religious views and silencing them. We were told that the guidelines were a protection against that. Presumably the complaint by the person who wishes to harass the person making the genuine religious point is made to the police. In paragraph 3.1 of the guidelines we find that:
"Certain steps can be taken by the police, for example to investigate, to arrest and even to charge, without the need to obtain prior consent from the Attorney General".
Therefore, the guidelines give no protection whatever from that type of harassment.
I have had the guidelines in my hand only for four or five minutes. They cause me to remember that I was in the Home Office for three years during which time an intelligent section of the staff was busy making a permanent search for an interpretation and legal definition of the word "religion". They did so without success. I believe that that has persisted long since. In paragraph 5.6 we find that:
"Some have speculated whether particular named groups could be said to be defined by a religious belief".
I leave out some words. The paragraph then goes on to say that,
"a difficult decision may have to be taken by the Attorney General when deciding whether to grant consent. Such cases will have to he considered on their merits as and when they arise".
In other words, it will be subjective.
I wish to demonstrate only that there may be a myriad of points which we cannot possibly discover in the process we are now going through. That is what I am trying to say to the right reverend Prelate. I am not opposed to the protection that he wants to give, but I do not believe that this is necessarily or, indeed, likely to be the right means.
My final point is that we were given an emotive and touching example by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I believe at Report stage, of an unfortunate Muslim woman who had the horrific experience of being harassed on the grounds of her religion. But I find in paragraph 5.5 that,
"victims of the conduct, against whom the accused intends to stir up hatred or against whom hatred is likely to be stirred up, must be a group defined by their religious or lack of religious belief".
Therefore, it seems that here again there is a lacuna in a document which, if it were to be dealt with in Committee in this House, might emerge effective but, I submit, will not do so in the process in which we are engaged. I believe that we should remove this clause as proposed.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should have much more sympathy for the speech of the right reverend Prelate if, after the Law Commission recommended it many years ago, he and his colleagues had decided that the offence of blasphemy should be abolished. Had that been the position, it would have made it much easier to consider this offence.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I made clear on Report that, if this legislation saw the statute book, we on these Benches would be more than ready to see the disappearance of the law on blasphemy.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. The difficulty about that is that the Minister indicated just now that he does not anticipate that there will be any further legislation in the foreseeable future.
That leads me to my second point. If there really were an emergency or a pressing need for this legislation in the context of anti-terrorism, one could be perfectly sure that the Government would bring forward legislation early after Christmas in order to deal with it. But that is not the position for the following main reason. In so far as we are dealing with victim-orientated crimes, the existing criminal law is more than adequate to cope, as I believe the Attorney-General recognises. Such crimes are covered by Sections 4 and 4A of the Public Order Act and various sections of the Protection from Harassment Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, indicated, the addition of religiously aggravated hatred offences to this Bill will, in some cases, greatly increase, for example, the maximum period of imprisonment. Therefore, as I understand the position, it is only where there is a lack of an individual victim—the Attorney-General gave the leaflet example—that a gap in the criminal law arises.
The third point that I want to raise concerns the guidelines. We are grateful to the Attorney-General for burning the midnight oil and producing the guidelines. I am bound to say with great respect that they beg more questions than they answer. I want to mention two or three examples to begin with, having had them in my hand only for about quarter of an hour. First, the heading to the guidelines includes the words,
"The expression of … religious beliefs".
It does not deal, as it is meant to, with lack of religious beliefs. Secondly, it refers to the expression of "legitimate religious beliefs". For the life of me, I do not understand the difference between a legitimate religious belief and an illegitimate religious belief. Thirdly, it does not make clear in this context the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court has said over and again that freedom of expression protects not only the views with which most reasonable people will agree, but also those that shock, offend or disturb any section of society.
1460
If one takes that as a guide, it gives a totally different impression from this document, which uses language which I am bound to say leaves more of a question mark in my mind about whether free speech would be effectively protected than otherwise. That is no criticism of the Attorney-General, who had the impossible task of trying to produce, in a hurry, guidance that will comply with Article 10 of the convention. With great respect, I do not believe that he has been able to do that. That is a further reason for wanting to abide by our previous decision.
6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, the views of my noble friend the Bishop of Southwark are highly respected among his colleagues within the Church of England, in other denominations and other faiths. However, not all members of the Church of England, other denominations or other faiths agree with everything he says. Nor would he expect them to. He said that we on these Benches are not under any kind of Whip. That is also true.
I agree with many of the comments he made tonight to your Lordships' House. However, listening to the debate and having read the earlier debates in Hansard, it seems to me that, although the intentions of the Government are genuine and well intended, the issues which surround these religious matters are of such sensitivity and complexity that they merit much more careful teasing out.
The Minister made the point that there may be no time in the present Session of Parliament for any such further legislation. Nevertheless, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton: better that than for legislation to be rushed through. Although I hesitate to disagree with my colleague on these Benches on this issue, I feel I must vote against the Government.
Lord Renwick of Clifton: My Lords, I do not want to prolong your Lordships' debate, and I do not speak often in your Lordships' House. However, in common with many people outside this House, I have found it frankly incredible that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and Opposition spokesmen should suggest, or appear to suggest, that there may be no connection between incitement to religious hatred and terrorism. The purpose of banning incitement to religious hatred obviously is to afford protection for minority communities in this country, including the Islamic community. However, it is also a matter of fact that over the past decade and more, a number of extremely radical Islamic spokesmen, mainly clerics, have sought refuge in this country as asylum seekers. They have been granted political asylum, notwithstanding the fact—indeed, because of it—that they were wanted for terrorist offences, and still are, in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Those same spokesmen, who in some cases are avowed Al'Qaeda sympathisers, have used our hospitality to preach Holy War; to seek to raise finance for Holy War; and to recruit people for Holy War.

1461
I find that state of affairs deeply disquieting, as do most people outside this House. So, clearly, do our colleagues in the other place. It is because I believe that there is a connection between incitement to religious hatred and terrorism that I intend to support the inclusion of Clause 39 in the Bill. I hope that others will also do so.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I start by acknowledging that it is a good thing that the House has left in the Bill religiously aggravated offences, an extended definition of racial hatred and the extension of the penalty. I was the one who referred emotively on Report to the example of the young woman. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, should not be accused of that. Unless your Lordships accepted, as they did, after I had made that point that there can be religiously aggravated offences, the additional feature of a religious element in that case could not have been taken into account in there being a new offence.
However, despite that, I remain of the view that there will be a gap in our protection for vulnerable parts of our community if we do not include incitement to religious hatred. I know the mood of the House. I shall deal briefly with the main points raised in the shortest of summaries. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, says that the guidance which I have provided is a strange precedent. I have tried to assist noble Lords and another place by indicating certain matters in relation to the offence. It is not a case of the law being set by the Attorney-General. I have made that extremely clear, as does the guidance.
Publishing guidance as to the basis upon which prosecutors will act is not unprecedented. What may be unusual is to include the reference in the Bill. However, again, I am unrepentant about that. Secondly, what is the hurry? The hurry is clear. There is a connection with September 11th. Anyone who has read the appendix to the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs from another place will see a number of incidents—I referred to some on Report—which show that since September 11th attacks on particular parts of the community have increased. My noble friend the Minister indicates that the choice is now or certainly not soon in order to deal with this.
To argue that there are defects in the Bill without proposing changes undermines the argument that the Bill is wrong as it stands. There is a gap. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was good enough to acknowledge that the sort of thing with which we cannot deal under existing public order offences which are victim orientated is offensive literature. I have seen some of that—noble Lords may have seen it—directed against particular groups, some on websites. If it is directed against Jews or Sikhs it is criminal. If it is directed against Muslims we cannot prosecute it as incitement to racial hatred.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. The Minister indicated that this is Hobson's choice. It is a government
1462
decision not to bring forward legislation. However, as we have proved with the tobacco advertising Bill, there are other ways to bring legislation to this House. In answer to the right reverend Prelate we would bring forward legislation on these matters and defy the Government to frustrate it.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he says. As noble Lords have rightly said, we have spent time on this provision. From our point of view we have spent time trying to explain why the offence as it stands, using exactly the same formula as for incitement to racial hatred, would not give rise to the problems to which some noble Lords have referred. I am of the view that those who have been concerned about the expression of one's own religious belief and criticism of someone else's religious belief should be—and I hope will be—reassured by what is said in this House and in the guidance. That was the reason.
At the end of the day noble Lords have a choice. I can do nothing better than remind noble Lords of what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. He said that this is an opportunity to provide basic protection for all. The figures may well demonstrate that it will not be an offence which will be prosecuted every day or every week up and down the country. Noble Lords may think that that is a reassurance. It is an opportunity to give a clear message; to give a protection now; and to put a stop to the kind of pernicious message which can incite and result in attacks on the train or in any part of the community. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on the amendment and, in particular, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. I want him to understand that I am most assuredly anxious not to cause him any offence at all. I simply say that when he says, "Oh, incitement to religious hatred is offensive, therefore criminalise it", that lacks logic. It lacks common sense. I wanted to say that without causing any offence. I am grateful to the other right reverend Prelate for his views, which set the scales more evenly balanced on the spiritual Benches.
On Report I called the Attorney-General's guidelines amendment a fudge. Having seen it, it is a meretricious fudge. It is an absolute nonsense. It is not of the slightest use to anyone. It states what one can pick up from any down town solicitor if one asked him where he would stand on the general principles of a prosecution. In the guidance, what is the nature of the conduct? Paragraph 5.3 states:
"A person does not commit an offence of incitement to religious hatred unless:
(1)) He uses threatening or abusive or insulting words or behaviour",
and so on. There is a packet of offences in the criminal law dealing with that. Then if one has the religiously aggravated situation, which your Lordships were good enough to forge on to the system, one has seven years.

1463
What is wrong with that? Why do we have to fiddle around with an issue which, as the right reverend Prelate said, is enormously sensitive?
6.14 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, the original Question was that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 23 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23A to the words so restored to the Bill. Since when an amendment has been moved to leave out the words after "House" and to insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 23" to which the Commons have disagreed. The Question is that this amendment be agreed to.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 234; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ackner, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Addington, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Alton of Liverpool. L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Ampthill, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Deedes,L.

Arran, E.

Denham, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Dholakia, L.

Ashdown of Norton-sub-

Dixon-Smith, L.

Hamdon, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Astor, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elles, B.

Attlee, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Elton, L.

Barker, B.

Emerton, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ezra, L.

Biffen.L.

Falkland, V.

Blackwell, L.

Feldman, L.

Blaker, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Flather, B.

Boardman, L.

Fookes, B.

Boothroyd, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Bowness, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Freeman, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Geddes, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Glentoran, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Goodhart, L.

Burnham, L.

Goschen, V.

Burns, L.

Greaves, L.

Buscombe, B.

Greengross, B.

Byford, B.

Greenway, L.

Caithness, E.

Hamwee, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hanham, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Haslam, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Henley, L.

Carrington, L.

Higgins, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Chadlington, L.

Hogg, B.

Chalfont, L.

Holdemess, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Chan, L.

Home, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hooper, B.

Cobbold, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Coe, L.

Howe, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

1464

Howell of Guildford, L.

Peston, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Jacobs, L.

Plumb, L.

Jeger, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Quinton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rawlings.B.

Jopling, L.

Razzall, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Rea, L.

Kimball, L.

Reay, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Redesdale, L.

Kingsland, L.

Rees, L.

Kirkham, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Rennard. L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Renton, L.

Laird, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Russell, E.

Listowel, E.

Saatchi, L.

Liverpool, E.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy. Ly.

Lucas, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Lyell, L.

Seccombe, B.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Selbome, E.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Selsdon, L.

L.

Sharman, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

McNally, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Maddock, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Magjnnis of Drumglass, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mancroft, L.

Slim, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Stem, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Stewartby, L.

Methuen, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Strange, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Strathdyde, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Taverne, L.

Monson, L.

Tebbit, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Tenby, V.

Montrose, D.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Morgan, L.

Thomas of Walliswood. B.

Moynihan, L.

Thomson of Monilieth, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Tope, L.

Naseby, L.

Trefgame, L.

Newby, L.

Trumpington, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Noakes, B.

Vivian, L.

Northbourne, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Northbrook, L.

Wakeham, L.

Northesk, E.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Northover, B.

Walmsley, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Wigoder, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Onslow, E.

Wilcox, B.

Oxfuird,V.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Peel, E.

Windlesham, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Wright of Richmond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Andrews. B.

Ahmed, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ashley of Stoke. L.

Alii, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Amos, B.

Attenborough, L.

1465

Avebury, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bach, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bhatia, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Billingham, B.

Chancellor)

Blackstone, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Borrie, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jones, L.

Brookman, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lipsey, L.

Burlison, L.

Lockwood, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

[Teller]

Chandos,V.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Chorley, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Christopher, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Condon. L.

Mitchell, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Crawley, B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Paul, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pendry, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Puttnam, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Radice, L.

Dubs, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Elder, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Rooker, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sawyer, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Filkin, L.

Sewel, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Simon, V.

Gale, B.

Southwark, Bp.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gilbert, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Golding, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Thornton, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Goudie, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Varley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Whitaker, B.

Grocott, L.

Whitty, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hayman, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Privy Seat)

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before moving to the next amendment, I point out that we still have four important groups of amendments to the Bill to discuss. They all concern subjects that have been discussed in great detail during the eight days allocated to the Bill. We also have the Third Reading of the Office of Communications Bill, two important health orders and an Unstarred Question. We must also deal with the Commons Message. I need say no more—I hope that your Lordships have got the message.

LORDS AMENDMENT
38 After Clause 101, 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 Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
Because it is not appropriate to limit the powers conferred by this Part of the Bill in the manner proposed by the amendment.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 38 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 38A.
I will take note of what my noble friend the Chief Whip said—as, I sense, will the whole House. The amendment passed by your Lordships hampers the Ministry of Defence Police's ability effectively to counter the terrorist threat. There are clear links between criminal activities and terrorism and it is not always possible to draw a clear line between the two. The amendment creates an artificial boundary between the two activities.
The amendment would not only have the effect of restricting the new powers that we propose to give the Ministry of Defence Police. It would also reduce its existing jurisdiction. The amendment is highly damaging to the fight against terrorism. At present, when given authority by the local police force, the Ministry of Defence Police can deal with non-terrorist related disasters in the vicinity of defence land—for example, a civilian aircraft that crashes on the approach to a military airfield. The Ministry of Defence Police can take action such as closing roads in response to a forest fire on lands adjacent to a defence estate. It can pursue suspects as they leave defence land.
Under the amendment passed by your Lordships, the Ministry of Defence Police would no longer be able to do any of those things—even with the authorisation of the local police force—unless there were a suspicion of terrorism or national security were involved. I cannot believe that the House would knowingly reconfirm that position.
Two Select Committees in the other place have supported the extension of the Ministry of Defence powers contained in the Bill; the Armed Forces Select Committee and the Defence Select Committee. I do not propose to read the quotes in front of me, which I have used before.
We acknowledge the concerns which have been expressed about the possible adverse affects of extending the jurisdiction, but we are not persuaded that they call into question the case for the proposed measures.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 38C. The intention behind the amendment is said to improve the Bill in that it seeks to replace the previous amendment. I am afraid that it would be completely unworkable. It would not work in practice and it would cause utter confusion. Perhaps I may give two examples.

1467
As regards the power to take photographs given in Clause 91, the existing police powers are in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act code of practice. The code gives power to take photographs of anyone charged or convicted of a recordable offence, but there is no power to use reasonable force. Clause 91 gives a power to take photographs of everyone detained in a police station and to use reasonable force if necessary. The effect of Amendment No. 38C appears to be that the power to use reasonable force to remove, for example, a balaclava would be available in relation to a suspect terrorist but not in relation to a suspect rapist.
As regards the Ministry of Defence Police, the amendment unfortunately complicates matters. It requires a Ministry of Defence officer who is called to assist a constable of the local police force to analyse whether he is about to do something which he could not previously have done. That will cause utter confusion at the point at which the decision is taken. Clause 98 was designed to make matters absolutely clear.
As regards powers conferred on the British Transport Police, currently they have jurisdiction only on the railways and elsewhere on railways matters. However, as police officers in uniform, they are frequently called to assist in incidents outside their railways' jurisdiction both by members of the public and other police officers. Indeed, it is estimated that they attend 8,000 such incidents a year. When acting in those circumstances, they will not have the powers and privileges of a police constable, but will have the powers only of an ordinary citizen. The effect of the amendments would be to confirm in legislation that British Transport Police officers can assist only outside their railways' jurisdiction when an incident concerns terrorism or national security. Thus, those officers when witnessing serious assault could intervene as police officers only if they were satisfied that the assailant was a terrorist. In other words, the original amendment passed by this House damages the current situation. I must say with great respect that Amendment No. 38C would be completely unworkable.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 38 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 38A. (Lord Rooker.)
[Amendment No. 38B not moved.)
38C Lord McNally 38C Lord McNally rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 38 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason No. 38A, at end insert "and do propose the following new clause in lieu thereof—
"SCOPE OF POWERS CONFERRED BY THIS PART
Any powers conferred by this Part, except in so far as they confer powers replacing police powers which existed immediately before the coming into force of this Part, shall only be enforceable in relation to any suspicion, or investigation, or acts, of terrorism or any matters of national security.""
1468
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment arises from an exchange in the other place yesterday when the Home Secretary said:
"The House of Lords—inadvertently, of course; no one would have done it intentionally—has made the use of MoD and British Transport police even more difficult than it is now".
My colleague, Simon Hughes, responded in the spirit of constructive improvement of the Bill that has been our line throughout:
"We would reasonably consider the point he has made that the Bill should not further restrict organisations such as the MoD or transport police, although that has never been our intention".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/01: cols. 899 and 900.]
As the Minister clearly said, Amendment No. 38C aims to retain the restrictions which your Lordships voted for on Report, suggesting that they should be concentrated on terrorism, but providing the extra protection of retaining the additional powers in the Bill for those forces.
The Minister says that the amendment is unworkable and, as has been his line at times during the Bill, gave a few blood-curdling examples to frighten us into obedience. But ultimately we return to the more philosophical point which he raised earlier and which has run through the eight days of the debate. It is that, through the Bill, Ministers and the Government want to extend powers in all kinds of directions, using as their justification the terrorist threat. However, in response to the terrorist threat they sweep up many other powers and issues which need to be considered at greater length and as part of different legislation.
As has been pointed out, the MoD proposals were dropped from earlier legislation and a number of objections have been made to the extension of those police powers. I acknowledge that the Home Secretary has tried to move to reassure people about the concerns that have been expressed. We remain unconvinced and, in the spirit of the Chief Whip's extolling of brevity, I shall go no further. We are not convinced that these powers should stay in the Bill and I shall seek the opinion of the House at the appropriate time.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 38 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 38A and do propose Amendment No. 38C in lieu thereof.—(Lord McNally.)
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I want to speak strongly against the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, because of the effect its passing would have on the powers, duty and role of the British Transport Police.
It is not true to say that Clause 100 of the Bill was extensively debated on Report. The debate on Report concentrated almost exclusively on the Ministry of Defence Police. The occasion when we had a full debate on the powers of the British Transport Police

1469
was in Committee. The Government's proposals in Clause 100 there enjoyed considerable cross-party support. For example, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said:
"For reasons of safety, it is important that transport police officers should be given an extended jurisdiction so that they can pursue miscreants beyond the boundaries of railway premises".— [Official Report, 4/12/01; col. 741.]
We had a similar debate on an Unstarred Question which I tabled on 13th November. On that occasion the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, speaking from the Conservative Front Bench, also supported the extension of the jurisdiction of the powers of the BTP.
One needs only to look carefully at what happened in Bradford on 7th July this year to realise how crucial it is that the amendment is defeated and Clause 100 is passed. Throughout the 12 hours of disorder, members of the BTP support unit in Bradford supported and at times protected their colleagues from West Yorkshire Police, the civil force. Their discipline, restraint and courage led a detective inspector from the West Yorkshire force to comment that the BTP officers were openly talked about as heroes of the day.
To begin with on that day, the decision was taken to deploy the officers only at the railway stations because they were aware that legally the force's jurisdiction was confined to railway property. But as the disorder grew during the afternoon and evening, the West Yorkshire police came under sustained attack and became increasingly exhausted and appealed to the BTP support unit for help. That was given, despite its having no jurisdiction in the city and during the following four hours on the front line BTP acted under the command of the West Yorkshire Police and were deployed under the first WYP shield unit. Afterwards, the assistant chief constable described the officers who had helped his force as "absolutely magnificent" in what a judge then subsequently described as,
"a situation where experienced officers came to fear for their lives and for the lives of their colleagues".
If we were to pass the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, we would be making it clear that what the British Transport Police did on that occasion, and on many other occasions to which my noble friend referred in his opening remarks—that is, to come to the help of the civil police and thus protect the rest of us as citizens—would he illegal. I hope very much that the House will reject the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. We should all recognise that we are at the core of the problem with which we have had to deal in regard to this Bill from day one. The problem is that this is a special Bill, brought before Parliament to deal with a special situation. It has been drafted in haste and considered with immense speed. The consequence of that is that we now have difficulties with it.
We think that the restriction that we have placed on the proposed change to the Bill is appropriate. The Government pointed out that the way in which it was originally drafted went too far and we seek now to
1470
draw back from that position. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for doing so in his amendment.
It is not my job to tell the Government how to escape the dilemma, but given that we may be sitting around for some time tonight, perhaps they can come up with a better form of words. However, in the event that they do not do so, they will have to be satisfied with our efforts, whether or not they are perfect.
I return to my opening remarks: we are at the heart of the problem of legislating in this fashion. If that had not had to be done, we should not be facing the current dilemma. I support the amendment.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, before the Minister rises to speak, perhaps I may make my position clear. I support Clause 100 as it stands. I believe that the British Transport Police need the powers contained in the clause, but I do not know enough about the MoD police to comment.
The Government are currently consulting on a properly constituted police authority for the British Transport Police, as well as a proper complaints procedure. Those developments will bring the BTP entirely into line with the civil forces. Aside from what was brought to our attention by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark—that is, that the legislation may take some time, I believe that, in the case of the British Transport Police, such legislation is probably imminent. However, I am not asking about it at this point. Nevertheless, the consultation process is well under way and I think that legislation is likely to be enacted.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I wish to add simply that the situation in regard to the MoD police is clearly different from that of the British Transport Police. Major questions still need to be discussed and I am grateful for the informal talks that have been held.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, made an interesting speech, it did not have anything to do with terrorism or with the emergency situation. The sensitive matters covered in this part of the Bill would be better dealt with in a police reform Bill, which we have been promised, rather than in emergency terrorism legislation.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I should tell noble Lords that I have nothing new to say. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that this goes to the heart of the problem. It certainly does that.
Some noble Lords and, indeed, some Members of the other place are going to have a hell of a job explaining their views to the public tomorrow if they choose to vote these proposals down. The provisions are central to the Bill. We are not trying to pull a fast one.
Furthermore, this part of the Bill cannot be separated. The vote will cover all or nothing. It concerns the MoD police, ordinary Home Office police officers and the British Transport Police. Those who have just spoken sympathetically in respect of the

1471
British Transport Police cannot have it both ways. They cannot say later, "Oh well, I thought we were doing something slightly different". The whole part of the Bill will be affected.
I have to say to noble Lords that Members of the other place will find it quite outrageous that we do not seem to be prepared to address the issues. The Government have tried throughout to make the point that, in terms of dealing with crime and terrorism, we have in place police forces that are legitimate forces which can aid the other authorities. They are hamstrung in many ways. We have cited example after example in the debates on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. Any reasonable member of the public would be absolutely bewildered—I repeat, bewildered—that Members of your Lordships' House have continued to maintain a stand that causes these other police forces to be hamstrung simply because they wish to see such legislation brought forward in another Bill. They have said, "We need a police reform Bill because the issue is not connected to terrorism". Frankly, that will not wash.
I ask noble Lords to think very seriously before they divide on this issue.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him for the last time, I hope, to concede I hat the hatred of terrorism is common to the whole House and that the debate concerns the effectiveness of the proposed measures.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is for noble Lords to explain their position. I cannot explain it for them.
Lord McNally: My Lords, we will be very happy to explain our position. Here we encounter the old problem; namely, that the Minister seems to think that almost any expedient can justify removing the protections and civil liberties that it is the duty of this Parliament to preserve. We shall continue to go through this Bill giving the Government the powers they need to fight terrorism. But the noble Lord will have to come back to the House with other legislation for the wider powers. It is as simple as that. I shall have no problem tomorrow justifying our vote. I think that I should test the opinion of the House.
6.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 38C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 174; Not-Contents, 153.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Barker, B.

Addington, L.

Biffen, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Blaker, L.

Anan, E.

Boardman, L.

Astor, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L

Avebury. L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

1472

Burnham, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market.

Buscombe, B.

L.

Byford, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Caithness, E.

McNally, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Maddock, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mancroft, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Methuen, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chadlington, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Monson, L.

Coe, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Montrose, D.

Craigavon, V.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Moynihan, L

Cumberlege, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Deedes, L.

Naseby, L.

Denham, L.

Newby, L.

Dholakia, L

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Noakes, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Northesk, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northover, B

Ejton L

Norton of Louth, L.

Ezra L

O'Cathain, B.

Falkland V

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L

Feldman, L.

Onslow, E.

Ferrers, E

Oxfuird, V.

Flather, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fookes, B.

Peel, E.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Freeman, L

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Plumb, L.

Geddes, L.

Quinton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rawlings, B.

Glentoran, L.

Razzall, L.

Goodhart, L.

Reay L

Goschen, V.

Redesdale, L.

Greaves, L.

Rees, L.

Greenway, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Greenway, L.

Rennard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Renton, L.

Hanham, B.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Harns of Richmond, B.

Robert of Conwy, L.

Haslam, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Roper, L.[Teiler]

Henley, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Higgins, L.

Russell, E.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Saatchi, L.

Hogg, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Home, E.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Howe, E.

Seccombe, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Selborne, E

Howe of ldlicote, B.

Selsdon, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sharman, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Jacobs, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jopling, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Kimball, L.

Stern, B.

Kingsland, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kirkham, L.

Swinfen, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Taverne, L.

Laird, L.

Tebbit, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Tope, L.

Liverpool, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lyell, L.

Tugendhat, L.

1473

Vivian, L.

Wigoder, L.

Wakeham, L.

Wilcox, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Walmsley, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Acton, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ahmed, L.

Goudie, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Alli, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Greengross, B.

Amos, B.

Grenfell, L.

Andrews, B.

Grocott, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hayman, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Attenborough, L.

HollisofHeigham, B.

Bach, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Barnett,L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bhatia, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Billingham, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blackstone, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Bledisloe, V.

Chancellor)

Boothroyd, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Borrie, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brennan, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Layard, L.

Brookman, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lipsey, L.

Burlison, L.

Listowel, E.

Burns, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

[Teller]

Chalfont, L.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Chandos, V.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Chorley, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Christopher, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Marsh, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cobbold, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Condon, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mitchell, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Morgan, L.

Crawley, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Nicol, B.

David. B.

Pendry, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Peston, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dearing, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Radice, L.

Dubs, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Elder, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Emerton, B.

Rendell of Babergh. B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Rooker, L.

Evans of Watford, 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.

Slim, V.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gilbert, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Golding, B.

Strange, B.

1474

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Tenby, V.

Whitaker, B.

Thornton, B.

Whitty, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Wilkins, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Varley, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Wakefield, Bp.

Privy Seal)

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Warner, L.

Woolmer of Leeds. L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Original Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
40 Clause 102, page 62, line 25, 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."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
40A Because it is not appropriate to limit the power conferred by this clause in the manner proposed by the amendment.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 40 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 40A.
I shall be brief. We have made it clear that the retention of communication data provisions in the Bill will be proportionate and necessary and, I repeat, they will comply with all the data protection legislation and be wholly consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and our Human Rights Act obligations.
We have listened to and acted on the concerns of noble Lords by providing on the face of the Bill for consultation with the Information Commissioner on the code of practice. The code of practice will also need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure. These are all new provisions since the Bill came from the other place, so the Government have moved on the issue.
However, I must make it clear that it is impossible to distinguish at the retention stage what data may be relevant for national security or terrorism purposes. I must remind noble Lords that the data will be retained not by the Government but by the communications providers. The provisions do not extend the access powers agreed by Parliament 18 months ago in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which are also compatible with human rights legislation. There cannot be any mass trawls. Only data used for billing purposes—date, time, place, telephone number, period of call—will be retained, not conversations or messages between individuals.
Earlier today, your Lordships' House voted not to press an amendment to restrict the purposes for which data may be disclosed by public authorities under the provisions of Part 3 of the Bill. The provisions in

1475
Part 11 are not about access to data but about its retention by communications service providers. It makes no sense to limit Part 11 to national security. Part 11 will be proportionate and it will follow EC law and the European Convention on Human Rights. There will be consultation with the Information Commissioner and the code will be subject to parliamentary approval.
It is our intention and our avowed desire to carry out the terms of this provision in voluntary agreement with the industry. We do not want to have to move to a statutory provision. Under a voluntary arrangement and given the code of practice, it is almost implicit that the Information Commissioner and the industry have a veto. If they do not agree, it cannot be clone voluntarily. We should then have to go down the statutory route, which has its own built-in sunset clause. So there is a safeguard—a double lock, as it were—on that part of the Bill's provision. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will see that the Government have moved considerably in this respect on data retention. Bearing in mind the principle behind the decisions made on Part 3, I hope that the original amendment will not be pressed.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 40 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 40A.—(Lord Rooker.)
40B Lord Phillips of Sudbury rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 40 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 40A, leave out "not".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the present position. It is my belief—and. I think, that of the House—that he underestimates the communications data that can be captured under this part of the Bill. It is true that the content of telephone conversations and other communications cannot be pried into. However, as is well known in the industry, the "where, when, how, to whom and with whom?" of all communications, the website hits that anyone makes in the course of the daily round, if trawled automatically, enable the state and the "relevant authorities" to build up a personality profile that tells a great deal, in intimate detail, about citizens. That is the background.
There have been repeated assurances by Ministers in the course of the past year that the very thing that is being done would not be done. Perhaps I may give an example. On 10th May, when Patricia Hewitt took part in an on-line question and answer session for the Guardian, the following question was asked:
"The police (NCIS and ACPO) are still pressing for a new law to compel ISPs to log the addresses of all e-mails sent and received, websites browsed, and newsgroups perused, for ALL their customers indiscriminately, for up to 7 years.… Will Labour enact such a law in its next term?".
The answer was "No". The same categorical answer was given on three occasions.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? This Bill would not be before the House if it were
1476
not for the events of 11th September. So what is the use of quoting an answer by Patricia Hewitt which was made months before that date? What on earth is the relevance of that?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, that is a partially fair point and I do not seek to deflect it. But I am saying that Ministers are now going back on their determination—before 11th September, I admit—to have nothing to do with such a provision. The whole issue is the correct balance between our traditional civil liberties and the needs of the moment. I need not remind the Minister that ours is the only country in Europe that is enacting new laws in the present situation. This House wants new laws. But the question addressed by the amendment is: how far should they go?
Clause 102 gives complete discretion to the Secretary of State to issue a voluntary code of practice. Everyone hopes that such a code will be the one that sticks. But Clause 103 gives the Minister compulsory powers of direction. There is no limit on those powers. He does not have to come hack to Parliament. Their contents can apply—and, it is expected, will apply—to the whole industry. The Minister and those on these Benches have batted remarks hack and forth on the issue of "trawling". The Minister resolutely maintains that there will be no trawling. We resolutely—
Lord Rooker: My Lords, will the noble Lord give me the opportunity to make a further point? What he says is not true. He is close to misleading the House. The powers are time-limited if we go down the statutory route. The Secretary of State would have to come back to Parliament after two years and obtain affirmative resolutions for the powers to continue. So it is not fair to say that there is no time limit on the powers in Clause 103. There is a time limit and it is set out in Clause 104. Indeed, the clause is headed:
"Lapsing of powers in section 103".
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the Minister is talking about time limits. I was not. I was talking about the issue of trawling. Of course there is sunset provision included in the Bill. We happen to think that it is a weak one. We also take note of the fact that time-limited provisions tend to continue ad infinitum, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, made clear at Second Reading.
I want to return to the important issue of trawling, as it worries many Members of this House. A document issued by the Home Office last month entitled The Retention of Communications Data—with the unhappy subheading, Supplementary Regulatory Impact Assessment— says this on the impact on civil liberties:
"Data relating to specific individuals under investigation will only be available if data relating to the communications of We entire population is retained, since a criminal's data cannot be distinguished from anyone else's at the time of collection/ retention. Mass retention has obvious civil liberties ramifications … A balance must therefore be drawn between security and privacy".

1477
That makes it clear beyond peradventure that, whatever the Minister thinks about mass trawling and mass surveillance, the Home Office knows that that is precisely what these clauses relate to. It is their ability, via the Secretary of State's direction, to require the entire industry to retain its entire stock of traffic data for an unlimited period. It is that power that enables the security industry to have access, via the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Data Protection Act, to this huge warehouse of information. We on this side of the House have repeatedly said that we are not content with the balance as struck. That is why we want the amendment to remain.
Perhaps I may remind the House that, in giving directions, the Secretary of State only has to "have regard" as he thinks necessary for the prevention or detection of crime or the prosecution of offenders. The provision is completely general. We want the words to be inserted:
"prevention or detection of crime or the prosecution of offenders which may relate directly or indirectly to national security".
That is the difference between us.
Perhaps I make two more points. First, the oversight and care, as it were, of the data collection machinery provided for in various statutes is in our view wholly inadequate. One of the reasons we feel strongly about this is that there is no effective oversight of the whole business.
To give one example, the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee recently commented that the tribunal set up under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to control access to information and data did not even have enough staff to open the mail. I believe that we shall find that the Interception of Communications Commissioner, Lord Justice Swinton Thomas has a staff of two or fewer. Concerns on this side relate to the inadequacy of the oversight and protection of the citizen and his or her confidential information.
The National Criminal Intelligence Service is building—and has made it quite clear that it wants to go on building—a national traffic data warehouse. That is its aim. Indeed, a senior member of that body said recently, "We want to have all the information we can lay hands on. It's up to you fellows to stop us".
That is what this amendment is about: stopping an excessive and insufficiently controlled acquisition and retention of data information which can then be accessed under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and with limited protection under the Data Protection Act. Your Lordships will know that, in certain circumstances, if the Secretary of State issues a certificate, none of the eight principles of the Data Protection Act will come to the aid of a citizen at all, even if he or she knows that his or her privileged information has been breached. That is a huge problem.
For all those reasons, it is our strong wish to see the amendment remain. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 40 to which
1478
the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 40A, leave out "not".—(Lord Phillips of Sudbury.)
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has said. While we welcome the agreement of the Home Secretary to subject the code of practice on data retention to affirmative resolution, we do not believe that that concession is enough. We believe that Lords Amendments Nos. 40 and 44 properly limit the scope of the proposed data retention provisions without in any way undermining the capacity of law enforcement authorities and intelligence agencies to counter the threat from global terrorism.
As my noble friend Lord Northesk said on Report, there is a very real risk that the vast accumulation of data that the Bill currently envisages could prove counter-productive and, thereby, hinder the work of the intelligence services in their challenging task of fighting terrorism. As the Minister has always insisted, investigations under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and on advice from the Information Commissioner, have proceeded, and are proceeding satisfactorily. With excellent co-operation from communication service providers, why do the Government require this extension of power?
Yesterday in another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State argued that CSPs are unhappy with your Lordships' amendment to Part 11. He said:
"The providers say the amendment is not workable".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/01; col. 907.]
Of course, we do not know which providers have made representations to the Home Office. But I am bound to say that that does not tie in with our advice from the ISPA (Internet Service Providers Association). That association favours the amendment because, given the general lack of legal clarity within Clause 102, it would much prefer checks for proportionality and reasonableness to be made within the narrower, although still wide, framework proposed. In that case, we shall insist that this House supports Amendments Nos. 40 and 44.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall be brief. I shall reply to the central points that have been raised. First, we have made it absolutely clear that there will not be a data warehouse. Secondly, this is not a matter of mass surveillance, even though the retention by data providers of people's information is necessary. The Data Protection Act will cover that. That data cannot and will not be touched by the law enforcement authorities unless the regulation of investigatory powers tests are met: they are necessity and proportionality. As I said before, quite extravagant language is being used which is designed to frighten people into believing that they will be subjected to mass surveillance. They will not be.
I shall set out some of the points. The code of practice will set out the time limits. In this House we have already agreed that it will not be seven years. We were specifically asked about an article in the Observer

1479
and we said that it would not be seven years. I cannot say what it will be, but the implication is that it will be less than seven years because we need to achieve agreement on the code of practice.
Britain is not the only country to have data retention legislation. Belgium and France have such legislation. Contrary to what has been asserted by the noble Lords opposite, this is not the only country to introduce emergency anti-terrorism laws. France and the United States have done so. It is not true to say that we are isolated in that respect.
This is not an extension of police powers, but service providers will retain information that they already collect. This is not new, but we want them to retain that information a little longer so that if there are grounds for checking up on people, the information is there to be used.
The practice of retaining information has been carried out on an informal and voluntary basis since 11th September. It has proved extremely useful and we have had excellent co-operation from the data providers. I have no criticism of the Internet and telephone networks service providers. However, it is important to put such matters on a statutory basis with all the protections that this Bill provides, contrary to the assertions made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I stand corrected if France has introduced legislation. I specifically said "Europe". If that is right, I believe it is right to say that France is the only other country that is doing anything.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the Federal Republic of Germany has also recently introduced an anti-terrorism Act?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, if the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, says so I certainly shall accept that. I would be interested to know exactly what that country has introduced.
The protections to which the Minister referred are in place, but it is not true to say that there is no extension of powers in this Bill. The retention powers are new and potentially they are for the whole industry and for the industry's entire capture of traffic data. That is why, through this amendment, we seek a limit to those powers.
7.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40B), shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 196; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Ackner, L.

Arran, E.

Addington, L.

Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

1480

Astor, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Attlee, E.

Jopling, L.

Barker, B.

Kimball, L.

Biffen, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Blackwell, L.

Kingsland, L.

Blaker, L.

Kirkham, L.

Boardman, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Bowness, L.

Laird, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Liverpool, E.

Burnham, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Buscombe, B.

Lucas, L.

Byford, B.

Lyell, L.

Caithness, E.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McNally, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Maddock, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Chadlington, L.

Mancroft, L.

Chalfont, L.

Marlesford, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Methuen, L.

Coe, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Monson, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Montrose, D.

Deedes, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Denham, L.

Moynihan, L.

Dholakia, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Naseby, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Newby, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Noakes, B.

Elton, L.

Northbrook, L.

Ezra, L.

Northesk, E.

Falkland, V.

Northover, B.

Feldman, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Ferrers, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Flather, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Fookes, B.

Onslow, E.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Freeman, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Freyberg, L.

Peel, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Geddes, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Glentoran, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Goodhart, L.

Plumb, L.

Goschen, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Greaves, L.

Quinton, L.

Greenway, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hamwee, B.

Razzall, L.

Hanham, B.

Reay, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rees, L.

Henley, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Higgins, L.

Rennard, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Renton, L.

Hogg, B.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Home, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Howe, E.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Russell, E.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Saatchi, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Jacobs, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

1481

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Selborne, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Selsdon, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Sharman, L.

Tope, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Trumpington, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Vivian, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wakeham, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Stern, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Walmsley, B.

Stewartby, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Strange, B.

Wilcox, B.

Swinfen, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Taverne, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Tebbit, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ahmed, L.

Filkin, L.

Alli, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Gale, B.

Amos, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Andrews, B.

Gilbert, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Golding, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Attenborough, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Bach, L.

Goudie, B.

Barnett, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Berkeley, L.

Greengross, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Grenfell, L.

Billingham, B.

Grocott, L.

Blackstone, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Hayman, B.

Boothroyd, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Borrie, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brennan, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Brookman, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hoyle, L.

Burlison, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Burns, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Chandos, V.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Chorley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Christopher, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Layard, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Cobbold, L.

Lipsey, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Listowel, E.

Condon, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Crawley, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

David, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Marsh, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dearing, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dubs, L.

Mitchell, L.

Elder, L.

Morgan, L.

Emerton, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Nicol, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Peston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

1482

Plant of Highfield, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Puttnam, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Radice, L.

Tenby, V.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Thornton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Varley, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Rooker, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Warner, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Sawyer, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Whitaker, B.

Sewel, L.

Whitty, L.

Sheldon, L.

Wilkins, B.

Simon, V.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Slim, V.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Original Motion, as amended, agreed to.
7.26 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
44 Clause 103, page 62, line 39, at end insert "for purposes prescribed in section 102(5)"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
44A Because it is not appropriate to limit the power conferred by this clause in the manner proposed by the amendment.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 44 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 44A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 44 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 44A.—(Lord Rooker.)
44B Baroness Buscombe rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 44 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 44A, leave out "not".
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 44 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 44A, leave out "not".—(Baroness Buscombe.)
On Question, Amendment No. 44B agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
48 Clause 110, page 66, line 10, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
"(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), the following are third pillar measures"

(a) the 1995 Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union on Simplified Extradition Procedure between the Member States of the European Union,

(b) the 1996 Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union relating to Extradition between the Member States of the European Union, and

1483

(c) any framework decision adopted under Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence, on joint investigation teams, or on combatting terrorism."

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendments:
48A Line 9, leave out "and"
48B Line 13, at end insert—
"(d) the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union, and the Protocol to that Convention, established in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, and
(e) the provisions of the Schengen acquis which are referred to in Council Decision 2000/365/EC, so far as they relate to Title VI of the Treaty on European Union."
48BB Lord Rooker rose to move, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48A and so much of Amendment 48B as falls within paragraph (d) and do disagree with so much of Amendment No. 48B as falls within paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as an English translation of that, Amendment No. 48BB is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord McNally. Bearing in mind the circumstances, nothing else need be said, as we have obviously reached an agreement on the issue.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48A and so much of Amendment No. 48B as falls within paragraph (d) and do disagree with so much of Amendment No. 48B as falls within paragraph (e).—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
66 After Clause 124, insert the following new clause—
"EXPIRY

(1) This Act, apart from Part 12, shall (subject to subsections (2) to (5)) cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which the Act receives Royal Assent.

(2) The Secretary of State may, subject to subsections (3) to (5), by order provide—

(a) that a provision of the Act which is in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall continue in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months;

(b) that a provision of this Act shall cease to have effect;

(c) that a provision of this Act which is not in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall come into force and remain in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months.

(3) Parts 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(4) Parts 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(5) Part 4 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

1484

(6) Any order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) must be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."

The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof:
66A Before Clause 121, insert the following new Clause—
"REVIEW OF ACT

(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a committee to conduct a review of this Act.

(2) He must seek to secure that at any time there are riot fewer than seven members of the committee.

(3) A person may be a member of the committee only if he is a member of the Privy Council.

(4) The committee shall complete the review and send a report to the Secretary of State not later than the end of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(5) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the report before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable.

(6) The Secretary of State may make payments to persons appointed as members of the committee."

Lord Rooker Lord Rooker had given notice of his intention to move, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 66A in lieu thereof, with the following amendment to Amendment No. 66A—
66AA After subsection (5) insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall also lay before Parliament, as soon as is reasonably practicable, a statement as to—

(a) his views on the report, and

(b) what action (if any) he proposes to take in response to it ."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am getting better at the procedures in this place, but they are still a mystery to me. I understand that it may be possible to reach agreement to deal with the concerns raised on the clause. I therefore do not propose to move Amendment No. 66AA. The debate should therefore take place on Amendment. No. 66B. If the wording of what I have just read out means exactly what it says, I do not think that there is much room for a debate, because there is a possibility of reaching agreement to deal with the issue.
I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Rooker.)
66B Lord Dixon-Smith rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed, leave out the words after "House" and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 66A".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, things may be going on elsewhere, but we still need to create an environment in which those things can continue. To do that, we have to ensure that the sun will set on this Bill.
We may have sounded last post some time ago, and the sun may indeed have gone down, but I understand that the clock has stopped in another place.
We have to include this sunset clause. We have very thoroughly debated it all before, including the procedures under which we have had to consider the Bill perforce. We want the legislation as much as the Government do. As the Bill is not wholly satisfactory, however, this sunset clause is justified. I do not intend to waste the time of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed, leave out the words after "House" and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 66A".—(Lord Dixon-Smith.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I think, subject to your Lordships' guidance, I can hardly move Amendment No. 66C because it would amend Amendment No. 66A, which has not been moved. I hate to make a suggestion to the Chair, but I see that those who are at the Table are nodding.
All I shall say, as I have been allowed to get to my feet, is that I hope that at some stage I may be informed of what those secret conclaves are deciding so that I know what to do with my amendment at a later stage. I think that I am out of order, but it is not my fault.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I thought that the only amendment that had been moved and spoken to was Amendment No. 66B. However, I thought that the Lord Chairman said Amendment No. 66A when he stood up, which is unfortunate.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, it was clearly not moved.
Lord Rooker: My Lords. I may be wrong, but I think that we have agreed to Amendment No. 66B without a vote. It was agreed without a vote on the basis that discussions are taking place elsewhere. So as far as I am concerned, this House has concluded its consideration of the Commons Amendments.

Office of Communications Bill [H.L.]
7.33 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [The Office of Communications]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) The appointment of chairman of OFCOM shall not be made until a bill to give effect to the proposals in section 2(3) to regulate communications is published."
1486
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 4, the second of which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and myself.
I think that the amendments are self-explanatory, and Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are a logical extension of Amendment. No. 4. The group consists of what could be called sunrise amendments which are designed to modify the amount of pre-emptive activities and expenditure that can be entered into by the embryonic Ofcom under this enabling legislation before Parliament has defined its powers and duties.
As the well-known saying goes, cometh the hour, cometh the man—or perhaps I should say person. But the Government have had more than five years—since they started drafting their 1997 general election manifesto—to formulate detailed proposals in this sphere. However, whatever their drafting problems, we cannot establish an elaborate and potentially powerful organisation, with an equally powerful chairman and chief executive, without knowing precisely what qualifications might be best suited to the performance of their duties, what the organisation is going to do, or even when it is going to do it. The only way of aligning Ofcom with the eventual substantive legislation that it will administer is to link them by ensuring that Ofcom starts to operate only when its brief and duties have been fully defined.
The amendments have two purposes. The first is to ensure that Ofcom does not go galloping off in using the fairly wide powers provided by Clause 2(3) to spend money, to set up its organisation and possibly to formulate policies that will then be presented to Parliament as a fait accompli while or—this is very important—even before the substantive legislation is being deliberated on. All we are asking is that before this legislation which the Government describe as enabling comes into effect, Parliament has the opportunity to see precisely what is being enabled in the long term.
In moving his amendment which I fully supported—on this topic in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, accepted that the Government had a problem, and he accepted their assurance that they would consult as widely as possible. He also acknowledged, as I do, that the Government cannot tie themselves down to a particular form of consultation or to a legislative timetable, although we hope that they will manage to sort out their intentions and announce them very quickly. The uncertainty is not doing the communications industry any good at all. These amendments will ensure that Parliament knows what the organisation we seek to establish is all about before the Government are able to press the button starting its operation.
The second and possibly more important purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to remove uncertainty from the existing five regulators. Even before passage of this Bill, they have been working in a type of limbo, and so have their staff. Staff realise that merger of the five regulators will result in some redundancies, and it

1487
would not be surprising if some of them sought other employment before the arrival of their P45s. That type of slippage means that the regulators could find themselves short of key personnel during the interregnum, thereby reducing their efficiency. Even the individual regulators' usual commercial decisions are being inhibited. Purchase of new equipment and contracts for services, for example, may very well have to be put on hold.
The Minister's commitment to a six-monthly progress report from the Government is very welcome. However, no one knows whether or when the substantive legislation, still in the throes of drafting, will receive parliamentary time. We have all witnessed, particularly in the past few days, how sudden calls can be made on legislative time, thereby disrupting the Government's programme even when a drastic timetable curtailing discussion has been imposed.
The purpose of this group of amendments is only to concentrate the Government's mind on getting on with the main Bill, which, with all the constructive goodwill that exists, will inevitably require detailed scrutiny. If precedent is followed, the Bill will take from six to nine months from introduction in the other place to Royal Assent. We are not trying to limit the Government's powers or to inhibit the intended substantive legislation. On the contrary, we have made it absolutely clear that we support the general principle of having a single regulator to cover the industry entirely.
On 15th October the Minister stated that,
"the work in process now embarked on by the steering group of regulators and DTI/DCMS officials provides a satisfactory process for carrying on with the planning for the new body".
So no time will be lost by accepting this series of amendments. At this time we want a simple assurance from the Government that Ofcom will remain a shadow organisation until the Government show us the substance. I beg to move.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I do not go quite as far as the noble Baroness in that my sunrise simply requires the publication of the draft Bill for one week. It does not require discussion; it does not require scrutiny. I rely simply on the fact that if it is published, all those interested in Ofcom will respond quickly and the Government will obtain within a week a clear idea of the public reaction to the draft communications Bill.
However, I agree with the noble Baroness that it would be sensible for the Government to wait until they have tested the water with their proposals before making key appointments like the chairman and chief executive. I warn them that we will only get public consultation when people have seen the detail of legislation. That is the only way to gauge the impact of the full consultative process.
The Government have gone a long way in giving us pre-legislative scrutiny and we all welcome that—me more than anyone—but let us be clear. We hope that pre-legislative scrutiny will improve the quality of the communications Bill, and perhaps also smooth its
1488
passage through Parliament. We are not talking about the full communications Bill; we are talking about the creation of Ofcom and simply expressing the concern that if we make key appointments to Ofcom before the full Bill is even published, there is a danger that the right people may not have been chosen for the right jobs, or even that the right range of jobs were not had in mind.
I can give two possible scenarios. It is by no means impossible that the relationship between Ofcom and the BBC will be somewhat different by spring from that which exists now. Furthermore, a consultative exercise is taking place on cross-media ownership. A very tough regime will arise out of that or a very light one. Surely we need to know which before we decide how to staff up and resource that particular department of Ofcom.
All I am saying is that I started in Committee asking for 12 weeks. I dropped that to four weeks. I am now dropping it to one week. I simply say this: it would be silly to appoint the chairman of Ofcom and its chief executive before the draft communications Bill is published. I shall not press this amendment. But I give the Government this warning: if they do not wait, then on their heads be it if they get it wrong.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches agree with a good deal of what has been said by both noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane. We feel that the Government should get on as quickly as possible to produce the main Bill. We look forward to seeing the draft Bill when it comes before us.
We on these Benches appreciate that this is extremely complicated legislation, perhaps the most complicated in this Parliament. There are obvious difficulties in drafting. Whether or not it is right to set up the structures as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, we do not know. We feel that he has some good points and shall be interested to hear the Minister answer the anxieties expressed. By and large we are grateful to the Government and to both noble Lords on the Government Front Bench for dealing with the concerns expressed—many more than we expected—and we look forward to the assurance, which I am sure the noble Baroness is just about to give us, that a draft Bill will be with us as quickly as possible. We can then allay in short order many of the fears, as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, said, expressed within the industry and staff.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I was not in the House at Second Reading. I was not a Member of the House at that time, though I could and can read the debate. I was present in Committee, though I had not made my maiden speech at that stage. It is recommended that we make our maiden speech in a debate where there is a prepared list of speakers so that whoever has the misfortune to speak after us can in fact phrase in advance what they want to say about the maiden speech.

1489
I felt in Committee that the subjects of these amendments were well worth discussing. I have two reasons for supporting the amendments, but I share with the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, the feeling that it is important that the principle should be established rather than that there should necessarily be a great delay.
My first reason is that I was the first head hunter in this land and one of the things that head hunters try to insist on with their clients is that there should be extremely rigorous specifications before an appointment is made. It is possible to rue in retrospect if somebody is appointed before there is a clear idea of what they are going to do.
My second reason is that, as I believe I mentioned on Report, I had service as the chairman of the Building Societies Ombudsman Council. One of the difficulties while building the ombudsman schemes was that the Financial Services and Markets Act took a long time to come to its conclusion—not in terms of its going through the House, but in terms of the dates of execution. Indeed, N2, which is what wound up the old ombudsman schemes, occurred only on 30th November—two weeks ago—long after the legislation had been passed. A great many people therefore were sitting around effectively taking pay but not doing much while the Financial Services Authority worked out the various codes and brought the various ombudsman schemes together. It seemed unfortunate to me that that contingency had not been foreseen, though it was necessary for us to remain in existence.
I can see the opposite happening in this scheme; that if there are considerable delays for the legislation, then the officers of the new organisation will, equally, be sitting around not doing much and drawing pay in a manner which is not necessarily the best way of running a railroad.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said she wanted to concentrate our minds in relation to producing the communications Bill. I can say that no minds can be more concentrated than they are on making sure that this Bill is produced and ready for the pre-legislative scrutiny that we have guaranteed. That in itself requires a great deal of concentration of mind, so I hope I can give her that initial assurance. Everyone who is involved will be working extremely hard to get the Bill ready so that there can be the proper scrutiny of what the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, described as a very complex Bill.
Any of these amendments could cause unfortunate delay in the preparation to create Ofcom and I see no advantage in delay of that kind. I hope that the firm commitment that we have given on pre-legislative scrutiny will assure all noble Lords who have taken part in the passage of this Bill that there will be the fullest possible opportunity to debate the substance of
1490
the new regime. There is therefore no need to delay the practical steps that need to be taken in relation to appointments.
I hope that the noble Baroness does not want to postpone appointments until the introduction of the Bill. That may be a year away. The drafting of her amendment is not entirely clear. But even if she would be content to see appointments made when the draft communications Bill is published, I see no benefit in linking the timing of these events. As I said, we want to publish the Bill as soon as we possibly can, and we also want to appoint the chairman without delay so that the complete Ofcom board can take charge of the practical steps as soon as possible after next summer.
Perhaps I may respond to a couple of points which the noble Baroness made. Ofcom will not be able to regulate until the main Bill receives Royal Assent. The White Paper sets out what OFCOM will do. We are clear about the kind of qualities required for the chairman and the other hoard members. In that sense delaying the appointments is also unnecessary. The Bill makes clear that OFCOM cannot interfere with existing regulators. In my view the way to reassure staff is to make early progress in creating OFCOM. That is the best possible reassurance they can be given. Let us get on with the appointments as soon as practicable.
I respond to a further point which the noble Baroness made. I believe she suggested that commercial decisions might be put on hold. There is no sensible reason why the existing regulators should cease to operate as normal. They are well aware that the intention is that transfer schemes, drafts of which are provided for in Clause 4(2) of the Bill, will ensure that all the current commercial relationships will continue unaffected after the transfer to Ofcom.
I turn now to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathhlane. That would also delay appointments until the introduction of the communications Bill. Like the BBC and cross-media ownership, it will be fully debated during the pre-legislative scrutiny. There again, I see absolutely no reason to delay the appointment of the chair. The full board will appear several months later, after the chair is appointed.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I ask the Minister to give way briefly. Would she not agree that the appointment of the chairman and chief executive would be better made after the debate rather than before?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, no. The whole purpose of appointing a chairman and subsequently other members of the board, is for them to start working with the existing regulators. I believe that that will provide reassurance to staff, as I have said. The dates on which the Government plan to make the appointments have now been agreed by the existing regulators. Therefore, we should get on with it.
I ask my noble friend and the noble Baroness, as I did at Committee stage, what they consider to be the benefit of delay. Some noble Lords have expressed

1491
concern that the details of the new regime have not yet been spelt out. But anyone who has read the White Paper has a pretty clear picture of the functions that the Government intend for OFCOM. There is now a consultation document on media ownership. Perhaps I may yet again reinforce that there will be a full opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill by a joint committee of both Houses.
In the light of those reassurances and the commitment I have made to get on with the matter, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken supporting Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I separate that from what I say about Amendment No. 4. I believe that the Minister has probably misunderstood. I suggest that we all take some blame for that but certainly not the Minister, because we want to make sure that when the chairman and the chief executive of Ofcom are appointed those making the appointments know exactly what the chairman and the chief executive are to do. We have not seen the Bill. In an organisation which I chair I have recently been through a lengthy process to choose a chief executive. There is no way in which I would have become deeply involved in choosing somebody unless the person chosen had seen the dots and crosses made so that they knew exactly what they were taking on and the skills required.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathblane, said, there is no question of dividing on the issue. I believe he said something to the effect of "Be it on your head if something goes wrong". I emphasise that again. It is right to have it on the record that we believe it would be much more appropriate if those kinds of appointments were made at least after the draft Bill had been published. I say no more than that. The Minister said quite rightly that the Government's mind is really concentrated on this Bill. Presumably, therefore, the draft Bill will arrive when we believe it is due. It should not be too long after that that one can go ahead and appoint the chief executive and the chairman.
The Minister has made her points and we have made ours. For the record we hope that the noble Baroness is correct. If she is not, then it will not be good for the communications industry about which we are all concerned.
As regards Amendment No. 4, the noble Lord, Lord Strathblane, said that he would not go as far as I would. Indeed, I believe the noble Viscount suggested that he was more in tune. I would like to believe that he is because of what the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, said. I have looked again at my wording. I read it very carefully. I said,
"In other words, all we are asking is that before what the Government describes as this enabling Bill comes into effect, Parliament has the opportunity to see exactly what is being enabled".
1492
One can see very well what is being enabled in a draft Bill. Therefore, I am not suggesting anything different from that suggested by the noble Lord; only that my wording is slightly different. I shall not push the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, for the record I said that I sympathised with what both she and the noble Lord said. But since the noble Baroness has spoken, on these Benches I am more in tune with her than I am with what the Government have said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—"
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS

(1) The Secretary of State shall ensure that any bill containing provisions relating to the implementation of any relevant proposals within the meaning of section 2(3) is—

(a) published in draft; and

(b) subject to consultation.

(2) The period for consultation shall be such as to allow scrutiny of any draft bill by a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament.

(3) The Secretary of State shall publish a report on the outcome of a consultation exercise concerning the rules governing media ownership in such a way as to permit its consideration by any joint committee referred to in subsection (2)."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment picks up on points that the Minister has already made as regards the pre-legislative scrutiny. At Report stage the Government gave assurances about the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill which were most welcome. But just four days later the Government published their consultation document on new proposals on media ownership. These are policy issues which formed part of the White Paper, but which have not formed part of our debates on this Bill.
I have therefore tabled this particular amendment at this late stage simply because, first, this is the first time one could do so as the consultation paper has only just appeared; and, secondly, in order to follow the proper guidance under Third Reading rules and Standing Orders: that is, to give the Government the opportunity to clarify certain uncertainties which follow on from the assurances that they gave the House at Report stage on the matter of pre-legislative scrutiny.
The press release issued by the DCMS issued on 26th November states,
"The consultation will last two months—the deadline for responses is 25 January—and will inform the draft Bill on Communications".
My question tonight is this: what does the Government mean by "inform"? Looking through the consultation document it appears that the Government are using two different approaches to different policy issues. On one occasion the

1493
consultation paper states that "views are invited", which looks a very green approach indeed. On another the paper states directly that,
"We will introduce a clause"
to the Communications Bill. In other words, it is done and dusted. For example, at paragraph 6.2.10 it states,
"We will retain the nominated news provider system for ITV but will introduce a clause to allow the Government on advice from OFCOM to revoke it".
It is proper at this stage before we get to pre-legislative scrutiny—on which the Government have given a commitment—to ask what is meant by "inform". Will the new clauses be added to the draft Bill for consideration by the joint committee, or will there be a separate Bill? Tonight the Minister reassured us. I believe that she said that issues of media ownership would be fully debated in pre-legislative scrutiny. One assumes that they can be fully debated only if they form part of the draft Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on that matter.
The practical effect of my amendment would be to require the Secretary of State to publish a report of the consultation exercise in sufficient time and in a format which would enable the joint committee to take those responses properly into consideration during its scrutiny of the draft Bill. I hope that the Government will accept that that is a responsible way forward. I make it clear at this point—as I hope that I have already—that I shall not press the amendment to a Division. It is merely a probing amendment to enable the Government to put on the record their commitment with regard to the work carried out by the joint committee. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is nice to consider this matter without the threat of a timetable in front of us. It is also nice to be able to say that, largely, we can meet the wishes of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, with regard to the amendment.
Subsections (1) and (2) of the proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish the communications Bill in draft for consultation and consideration by a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament. Subsection (3) would require the Secretary of State to publish the outcome of the current consultation exercise which could be considered by the joint committee.
We announced in the Queen's Speech that the draft Bill would be published this Session. We shall consult widely on it, just as we have consulted widely on the White Paper. On Report we gave a clear commitment that we would invite Parliament to establish a joint committee for pre-legislative scrutiny. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has just confirmed that. I confirm it "doubly", if that is of any assistance. Therefore, there is no need for the first two subsections of the amendment.
As regards subsection (3), the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly reminded the House that the consultation exercise which is now in process is due to
1494
report by 25th January. As soon as possible after the receipt of the responses, we shall publish a summary of the responses to the consultation document. In addition, unless respondents have asked for them to be treated as confidential, the responses will be available through the DCMS and DTI websites. Of course, at that point the Bill will still be going through the House of Commons, so that will inevitably occur before the joint committee has been set up.
As regards what is meant by "inform", the answer is twofold. First, as I said, we shall publish a summary of as many responses as we are able to publish. Secondly, that will inform the draft Bill and the explanatory notes to the draft Bill. I believe that that is the right way to do it rather than put another piece of paper in the public domain. I hope that with those remarks the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will feel that all of the elements in her amendment are met. The consultation document is a combination of firm proposals and proposals which are less firm. We must include in the draft Bill actual media ownership proposals. There will not be two Bills. The conclusions we reach and the outcome of the consultation will be reflected in the wording of the draft Bill.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making clear the Government's plans with regard to media ownership. I am also grateful for his explanation of what the Government mean by "inform". I am relieved to hear that any such proposals will be part of the draft Bill. I appreciate that that puts an extra onus on the Government to get the drafting of the draft Bill completed in good time. Noble Lords will recall that at the various stages of the Bill we have been concerned about the timing of the draft Bill. The late consultation on media ownership and the Minister's response make it clear that we may wait even longer for the draft Bill than might otherwise have been the case. I give way to the Minister.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, should not draw that conclusion. As I said, the consultation period will end when the Bill is still in its early stages in the House of Commons. We shall need some time to analyse the results of the consultation, but that will be concurrent with the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons. Therefore, I do not believe that any time will be lost. I have a pocketful of euphemisms on timing ranging from "very shortly", to "shortly", to "in due course", but I do not think that I need to use them.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I believe we sometimes feel that the term that should be used is "eventually", but never mind. I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. As I made clear, this is a probing amendment. I am grateful that my honourable friends in another place will have the opportunity further to consider Ofcom's structure with regard to media ownership issues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 4 not moved]
An amendment (privilege) made.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001
8.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order will implement important reforms to the system of professional self-regulation for nurses, midwives and health visitors. The order will establish a new regulatory body, streamline the present arrangements and deal more effectively with the complex range of issues affecting these vital professions.
The order has been the subject of extensive consultation going back over some years and, I am glad to say, of broad agreement. We have responded positively to many of the points made during the consultation process. A number of significant changes have been made along the way. I confirm today my view that the provisions of the order are compatible with European convention rights.
Under the order, the Nursing and Midwifery Council will replace the UK Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and the four national boards. These proposals represent a key component of our wider efforts, working in partnership with the professions themselves, to drive up and sustain quality throughout the health service. The public and patients are entitled to expect that those treating them are properly regulated and that there is consistency across professional boundaries. We signalled our intention to modernise regulation in the NHS Plan in July 2001 and set three tests for the regulatory bodies. They must be smaller, with much greater patient and public representation. They must have faster and more transparent procedures. They must develop meaningful accountability to the public and the health service.
These orders fully reflect those commitments. But this is only a part of the reforms which are now under way. For example, we have strengthened the GMC's powers to deal with allegations against doctors; and we are working with the council on a wide-ranging programme of reform covering governance, revalidation, registration and conduct procedures. We have embarked on reforms to the regulation of dentists. In addition, the NHS Reform and Health
1496
Care Professions Bill that is being considered in the other place will further strengthen and improve professional self regulation.
The proposals meet the tests set by the NHS Plan. They will provide for a streamlined structure of council, statutory committees and panels, allowing far wider lay participation and expert input from the professions; a flexible, enabling framework with much greater scope for the council to design efficient procedures; a wider definition of unfitness to practise and more powers to deal effectively with it; and a duty to work in partnership with key interests—for example, employers, education providers, the professions and other regulators.
I referred to the need for and the benefits of consensus. The proposals have been endorsed by the professional bodies most closely concerned—the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwifery, the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association, and Unison. I suppose that I ought to declare an interest in Unison. Those organisations' concern—and surely that of your Lordships—is that the law should be translated into effective action.
The professions concerned are the backbone of the health service—635,000 nurses, midwives and health visitors—and delivering on our aspirations for the NHS depends critically on supporting those key staff and encouraging an active partnership between them and those they serve.
The new council's principal purpose is set out in Article 3. It will, for the first time, be required explicitly to treat the health and well being of patients as its prime objective. The council will have a duty to collaborate with and to consult all those with an interest in its work—the professions, patients and clients, employers, education providers and other regulatory bodies. The council will have to be open and proactive in informing the public and the professions about its work.
The new council's core function, at Article 5, will be to keep a register of qualified professionals. It will establish and monitor compliance with standards of education and training, conduct and performance. The measure will not seek to define those standards—nor should it, since that is properly a matter for the council. In that respect, the order continues the tradition of 150 years of professional regulation. It is designed to modernise that tradition by providing a flexible and enabling framework within which the council can respond rapidly and effectively to changes in the provision of services, education and practice, and in public expectations.
The council will no longer need to seek rule changes through Parliament before it can change its operational procedures, as the UKCC must do now. That will give it the tools to do the job properly. That freedom is rightly balanced by areas that must be subject to approval by the Privy Council that are key to the performance of the core regulatory functions. They are the parts of the register and the protected titles for each part.

1497
In addition, the Privy Council will approve the fees that the council proposes to charge registrants; its election scheme for registrant members; and its forward business plan. The Privy Council will also appoint lay members and receive the council's annual report and accounts to present to Parliament. Both councils will have wider powers to deal with individuals who present unacceptable risks to patients. They are set out in Articles 22 to 33. The councils will have powers to deal with registrants whose fitness to practise is impaired through ill health, lack of competence or misconduct. At present, the UKCC labours under a wholly opaque definition of misconduct, as
"conduct unworthy of a nurse".
The council will also have a wide range of powers and sanctions to apply to registrants who are found unfit to practise. They will include cautions; conditional registration while retraining is undertaken or health is regained; suspensions; and striking off the register in extreme cases where the practitioner needs to be removed from treating the public.
The council will also have a critical role in positively guiding and supporting the vast majority of practitioners whose fitness to practise is never in doubt. The council will be much leaner and more strategic than the current bodies. Its initial composition will be 23 strong, with an elected professional majority of one. There will be guaranteed membership from each of the professions regulated. The Nursing and Midwifery Council will also have statutory committees—including one specifically to advise on midwifery issues, to recognise the unique regulatory function of midwifery supervision. The council's structure allows for an equal number of nurse, midwife and health visitor members.
The council may establish any other committees and panels that it needs, so it will have extensive opportunities to co-opt non-members to advise on professional matters or national policy, or to undertake detailed casework within the strategic framework that it sets. The council will report to Parliament through the Privy Council, which will approve any statutory rules the council makes.
We have taken on board most of the concerns raised by those who responded to an earlier draft but I want to address the issue of health visitors, as there has been great concern about the order among some members of that profession. The Government consider health visiting an extremely important profession, on which the NHS and the public depend. Health visitors have a hugely important public health role. Many people know them best for the help they give to families with new babies and their support through children's early years.
Health visitors also work with the most vulnerable people in our society. Health visitors work with individuals and families, to help them to change their diet; to stop smoking or abusing drink and drugs; and to encourage healthier lifestyles. They work in communities to build support for those with no family
1498
and friends. That way, health visitors promote physical and mental well being, and help to keep people living in their own homes.
With the developments in primary care that will be introduced over the next few years, health visitors will be at the forefront of joint working with partners in social care. I make it clear that the order will regulate health visitors. The words "health visitors" do not appear in the order because we do not want to tie the new regulatory body to only the health visiting function as it is now. We recognise that health visiting is expanding into other areas of community and public health practice. We want to give the new council the flexibility to reflect that changing role.
The order is the culmination of many years' hard work and discussion. I pay tribute to the representatives of nurses, midwives and health visitors who have made such an important contribution to the preparation of the order. There have been compromises along the way. Not everyone is happy with everything contained in the order's 101 pages but there is broad agreement that the measure represents a sensible outcome that will enhance the professions, provide faster and more transparent procedures, enable greater patient representation and, above all, uphold and strengthen public interest in professional self-regulation. I hope that the House will support the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
8.18 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jonesrose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but that Her Majesty's Government should also lay an amended order containing a provision for a compulsory register of specialists in community and public health, including health visitors".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his customary clarity. I declare a family interest in the order, in that my sister is a health visitor—which gives me some insight into the value of the work of health visitors and the deficiencies in the order.
The Health Act 1999 represented agreement that changes to professional regulations would be effected by the affirmative order procedure, not primary legislation—and there were assurances that there would be full consultation. I recognise that there will be a number of competing professional interests and that a government are not always in control of the intra-professional communication that is needed. However, there is an overriding need to ensure adequate consultation and that reforms are not steamrollered over a profession in a minority. That applies both to this order and to the Health Professions Order, which is the subject of our next debate. Examining the Nursing and Midwifery Order convinces me that health visitors are not being treated properly or fairly. No compulsory register will be set

1499
up specifically for them, as at present, and there is no reference to the words "health visitor" in the title of the order, as there was in the 1979 Act. In fact, there is not a single mention of health visitors in the order.
Let us look at the situation from the point of view of health visitors. They happily believed that their representative organisation was busily negotiating away on a new regulatory structure. Then they heard that in order to fulfil a "modernisation agenda" for the creation of a wider group of specialist community practitioners, they would need to give up their right to separate registration. In fact, they were told that they will have to subsume themselves within that wider group and, under Article 6, that there will not even be a compulsory register for the new wider group, only one that may be set up by the Privy Council on the proposal of the new council—the NMC. Their membership may be only temporary to that body and, even then, they will be in a small minority. That is hardly satisfactory.
The only groups with a compulsory register will be the nurses and midwives. How would that make me feel as a health visitor—a member of a profession that has been in existence since 1860 and separately in statute since 1919? I would feel that I had been badly represented and I would be justifiably angry with the Government for creating anxiety and uncertainty among my professional group.
I do not place all of the blame on ministerial shoulders. The representative body concerned, which purports to represent some 16,000 or so public health specialist nurses, district nurses, community nurses, school nurses and health visitors appears to date to have failed to obtain adequate assurances from Ministers and to have caused a great deal of unhappiness among its members by failing adequately to debate these matters.
The Minster and his colleagues have on previous occasions and in correspondence said that everything will turn out all right. They say that whatever the arithmetic of the new council—health visitors will initially represent four out of 23 council members—community nurses, including health visitors, will in due course be granted their own register.
But what evidence is there that that will happen or that health visitors will not simply be treated as specialist nurses without their own register? Both the RCN and RCM are hostile to there being a third register. They say that health visitors are a group within nursing and are not a separate profession. Indeed, the RCN said that separate regulation is "confusing" for the public and other specialist interests in nursing. The proposal may never actually come about. It is for that reason that, without wishing to negate the order, we on these Benches want to amend it.
We seek cast-iron assurances from the Minister in various areas. First, we want the register for specialist community and public health practitioners to be definitely set up under the terms of the order, and we want it to include health visitors as a specific registering group or class of registrants. Secondly, we
1500
want name protection to be given to health visitors as part of that compulsory register. Thirdly, we do not want the order to dilute the pre-registration standards of qualification that are expected of health visitors. Moreover, if review work that is now in progress recommends that longer training is required, we want there to be mechanisms under the order to allow for that.
We on these Benches support much of what the professions and the Government are trying to do in terms of giving greater status and qualification to specialists in community and public health. However, that must not be done at the expense of damaging the morale of health visitors or their professional standing and qualification. That would be highly counter-productive. Research papers have clearly demonstrated that there are difficulties yet to be overcome before the specialist community practitioner role can be properly dealt with. As part of the regulatory reforms, I want a strong and viable public health visiting profession. The Victoria Climbie case has already demonstrated that the role of the health visitor in the community should not be minimised. They assess the factors involved with placing children at risk. I hope that the Minister can give the necessary assurances. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end insert, "but that Her Majesty's Government should also lay an amended order containing a provision for a compulsory register of specialists in community and public health, including health visitors".—(Lord Clement-Jones.)
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order so comprehensively and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the clarity with which he moved the amendment. This is a complex area of professional self-regulation. I pay tribute to all those in the professions who have worked hard with the Department of Health to bring forward the proposals.
I am aware that these proposals are supported by the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, and the Community Practitioners arid Health Visitors Association. Those organisations have provided me and, I am sure, other noble Lords with some helpful briefing. Noble Lords should welcome much in the order, which improves the regulatory framework within which those professions work. However, there are aspects of the order that cause concern, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made clear.
The Nursing and Midwifery Council, which will be created by the order, is the successor body to the UKCC. We should remember that the UKCC, while usually known by the initials of the first four words of its name, was in fact the UK Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. The new body, however, takes within its title only the professions of nursing and midwifery, not that of health visiting.

1501
Noble Lords may well ask: what is in a name? Names matter because they send powerful signals to the outside world. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, health visiting has existed as a profession in statute for more than 80 years. The disappearance of the name from the title of the regulatory body could mislead the public as to the status of health visitors. More importantly, it could lead health visitors to believe that they are not a profession. That is important because the belief in, and practice of, specific professional standards is crucial to the delivery of high-quality care, the maintenance of standards and recruitment.
As the noble Lord said, just as serious as the omission of the name from the title is the omission of any mention of health visiting anywhere in the order or the Explanatory Notes. Conspiracy theorists would have had a field day. Health visitors have been amazed at the Government's fierce determination to refuse to mention health visitors. I was glad that the Minister took the opportunity today to place on record the Government's support for the profession of health visitors and their value in society.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, explained that while the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association has supported the order, that is only part of the story. As he said, there is a strong body of opinion among health visitors that they have been sold down the river by the CPHVA. While the CPHVA claims that it has around 80 per cent support from its membership, it has never asked its members whether they are content with the terms of the order. The question that gets 80 per cent support is whether health visitors should remain part of the family of nursing. Health visitors have not been asked about the order, which contains no entrenched protections for the profession of health visiting.
A small group of health visitors, including a recent former chairman of the CPHVA, became disturbed at the development of the draft order and the absence of specific reference to the health visiting profession. They enlisted the support of a number of branches of the CPHVA and called for a special meeting of the association to discuss the matter. The council of the CPHVA refused that elementary democratic process. This group of health visitors, who have styled themselves the Grassroots Network, have contacted a number of individuals who are involved in the affairs of the association's branches. It does not claim that those people form a statistical sample. However, the overwhelming view of those to whom they spoke wanted to see "health visiting" in the title of the NMC. That is perhaps not surprising. But 80 per cent of the members expressed concern about inadequate regulatory safeguards in the order which they believed would adversely affect health visitor training and education.
The amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, refers to the compulsory establishment of a separate register for community and public health nurses. That is not the desire of the Grassroots Network, whose primary aim is to protect
1502
and enhance the role of health visiting. At present there is no recognisable profession of community and public health nursing, and it is not self-evident that such a register will provide the necessary protection for the health-visiting profession. But, on the basis that half a loaf is better than none, I am confident that if there were a requirement for a separate register for community and public health nurses the democratic processes of the CPHVA could be harnessed for the benefit of the health-visiting profession in that context.
Health visitors form a small part of the professions of nursing. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, they fear that their larger cousins in the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives do not regard health visiting as an identifiable profession. While health visitors will initially have four out of the 23 council places, there is a fear that, once the NMC arrangements are in place, the other bodies will gang up on the health visitors, remove the separate register, resist the creation of a separate community and public health register, and thereby remove specific representation of health visiting on the council.
I do not believe that that is a flight of fancy. The general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing said in a letter to me that the name of the NMC—that is, excluding reference to health visitors—
"reflects the view of the majority of RCN members that it is appropriate that the regulatory body refer only to the professions, rather than groups within the professions, that are regulated".
The RCN thus believes that health visiting is a group within nursing and not a profession.
Of course, if this were to come to pass, a majority of the council would have to be persuaded to remove the recognition of health visitors, and the Privy Council would also need to be involved. But I have been involved in professional bodies for a good part of my working life and I know how easy it can be to marginalise minorities. These are very real fears.
I want to raise a number of important questions relating to health visitors in addition to those put by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to which I believe answers should be given. Is it the Government's intention that a part of the register will be maintained for health visitors, both transitionally and for the future? Do the Government believe that the health visitors' part of the register should not be closed without the consent of the council members who are health visitors? Do the Government believe that the health visitors' part of the register should not be closed unless a majority of health visitors themselves agree to closure? Do the Government believe that council representation for health visitors should not be removed; for example, if a majority of the council voted to close that part of the register but did not set up a separate community and public health register? And do the Government agree that the NMC must facilitate the protection and development of the professional knowledge of health visiting; for example, by updating its training rules?

1503
If the answer to any of those questions is anything other than an unequivocal "yes", health visitors everywhere will fear for their profession. And noble Lords would rightly conclude that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is an essential adjunct to the order before us today.
8.34 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, in rising to speak on this matter, I declare an interest. I am an ex-president of MSF, which is the permanent body to which the CPHVA is affiliated. I also want to say that I speak for the vast majority in the profession. I speak for many thousands of people. I must also put into context the health visitors' Grassroots Network, which I believe has written to all of us about this matter. Having said that I speak for the vast majority of its members, I should add that they number 150.
There has been talk about consultation, and several figures have been quoted this evening. It was said that 81 or 94 per cent of health visitors wanted "health visiting" in the title. But only 88 per cent of the people were consulted, which means that the survey was based on only 81 people. Against that, the CPHVA consulted all its members. It held a ballot and 81 per cent of those who replied were in favour of the order as it stands. Since then, independent surveys have shown that 5,000 people have been balloted
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. When he referred to what the members were balloted on, can he confirm that they were asked specifically—I believe that this is what he said—whether or not they were happy with the draft order?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I said that they were happy with the way that matters had progressed in relation to this matter. I also said that 81 per cent had gone further than that. Independent surveys were carried out in which 5,000 people were canvassed—that is, 82 per cent of the total. Only recently—that is, this year when the matter came before us—3,700 people were contacted. Again, 81 per cent of those balloted were in favour. Therefore, I say to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness, who have spoken from the Opposition Front Benches, that they are speaking for a minority—a vociferous minority, I accept. However, that is the group for whom they are speaking.
This order is not about titles; it is about what will happen in the future. In the future the order will not only bring together the professions; it will also involve the public far more. It is about protecting the public as well as the professions. Professions are important but we must not be hidebound by them or by their names. We must see what is being done.
There are more health visitors on the new council than there were on the old one. In addition, they will have equality. This issue has not arisen out of nothing. Not only has consultation taken place among the members of that profession; there has been consultation with Ministers and officials. It has taken six-and-a-half years to arrive at the point that we have reached this evening. I say to anyone who wishes to
1504
destroy what has been built up over six-and-a-half years that there is a pointer to the profession being better and more professional. Health visitors will become involved. Their profession is a very proud one. In addition, as has been said, the public will be protected in relation to community and public health, too. We are moving forward.
I do not want to see this matter unravel because of amendments, however well meaning. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—he says that a member of his family belongs to this profession—will take into account what has been said by those of us who speak not only for one person but for the vast majority of health visitors and other professionals, such as those who work in community and public health. I hope that the order will not be held up or even destroyed because of a good intention upon which the amendment is based. I believe that we have moved on and that the noble Lord speaks for a tiny minority.
Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I declare an interest having had 48 years experience as a nurse and 23 years of being involved in the professional regulatory system. I was chairman of the UKCC until 1993. It is true that a need for change in the nurse regulatory system and nurse education was identified in 1948 and it took until 1979 for legislation to be passed. From 1983 until now there have been great movements forward in bringing nurse education into further education and universities. There has been movement in terms of the profession coming closer together. However, there is no doubt that large bodies are not effective and efficient at working speedily. It has been apparent that professional conduct work has been slowed down by procedure.
After the review of the present structure by JM Consulting recommendations were taken on board. We know that primary legislation was urged by the profession. However, we were persuaded by Ministers at the time, because consultation would take place, to go for an affirmative order. The profession, which includes nursing, midwifery and health visiting, were resistant at that stage. However, it was finally persuaded and consultation took place. As stated by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, that took place over a period of six years.
I am mindful of the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in terms of the minority group. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred to the minority of health visitors—which is a small minority—who wish to contest the title of the order and the fact that they do not have a separate register. We live in a fast moving world of change in the health professions. I support the order. I would ask that the amendment before us tonight be revisited in the light of the fact that the draft order states that the council may set up a register and that there is representation on the council of an equal number of nurses, midwives and health visitors, as the Minister stated, with a majority of one professional.

1505
I therefore support the draft order. I take into account the views of health visitors, who play an important part in the future of community and public health nursing. They have a proud profession on which to reflect. However, we have to look to the future in the provision of health care, both within hospitals and the community, which is fast moving. The delivery of the health professionals is extremely important. The draft order provides a facility in which there can be flexibility and whereby a register can be set up which could embrace all those that work in the community. I am sure that any council which well and truly reflects public and patients' interests will ensure that there is equal representation in terms of a need to set up a register.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I, too, declare an interest. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that his sister is a health visitor. My step-daughter is a health visitor and a member of the HVA. I was an official of MSF, which is the overall organisation to which the Health Visitors Association is affiliated. The HVA is a democratic organisation. It had its own elected executive and annual conference. The group that has been lobbying in favour of the amendment or against the order seems to be a tiny, maverick group. When consultation takes place, that must be with the elected leadership of those organisations. Who else should consultations proceed with?
The HVA is keen to have this order after six years. It thinks that it will help its members to move forward. It is anxious that the order should pass unamended tonight. It has pointed out to me that this will give the HVA stronger representation on the council than it has ever had before. It believes that the order will be helpful, and that it speaks for its membership except for a tiny minority. We do not have to take note of tiny minorities, no matter how articulate. What really matters are the elected senior representatives of the organisation. They are both elected and supported by the membership. I therefore hope that we shall vote tonight for the order unamended.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, had his finger on the button when he spoke of the key criteria being patient care and patient safety. Therefore, I understand the thrust behind the order which the Minister clearly explained. That having been said, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has made a good point. I do not want to re-run the arguments put before your Lordships' House; they are clear.
Twenty years ago, as a Member of another place, I served on the Standing Committee which dealt with the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill, which became an Act in 1997. Some of the issues that we are debating tonight are echoes down the years of the tensions that exist between the different professions—or different branches of the same profession, depending on how one looks at it—that we then had.
1506
As I recall, there was a long discussion within the then Labour Government about the short title of the Bill. As a result of that, it was concluded that "health visitors" should appear in the short title, as eventually happened. The reason given by the then Labour Government was that health visitors had a distinctive role in healthcare. More than any other, they operated in the community not within the structures of the NHS or the educational system. Theirs was an important and distinctive role, albeit a preventive one, but none the less important for that, as opposed to the curative role with which the other professions were concerned.
In the eyes of the Minister's predecessor at the time, Roland Moyle, it entitled them to a specific mention in the title of the Bill. There is a danger that if one is trained as a health visitor and called a health visitor one does not feel as committed to an order entitled "The Nursing and Midwifery Order" as a nurse or a midwife, or even a factory nurse or school nurse. I understand from official correspondence which I along with other Members of your Lordships' House have received that all parties, at least at an official level, are happy with the title of the order and what is contained therein. However, as the noble Lord pointed out, Clause 6(3) states "may provide". It does not require the register to be set up.
It is easy to talk of 19 or 20 per cent as being a vociferous minority. However, if we were to find a way to move from "may" to "shall", surely that would have the effect of calming the concerns of those health visitors who feel that their profession may be overwhelmed under the new structure and those who feel their distinctive contribution may be overlooked.
I hope that the Government will think about the noble Lord's amendment as a way of bridging the gap and ensuring that we move forward with the thoroughly praiseworthy reasons behind the order but that at the same time we carry not just 80 or 70 per cent of the health visiting profession with us but all of it, because it carries out such an important preventive role for the health of our society.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I feel compelled to speak in this debate. I am sure that noble Lords will not doubt me when I say that the one place in which the black community has excelled is in support of the profession that we are discussing. They have given unstinted help from the 1960s to now and have reaped the rewards. Nevertheless, I felt that it was important to find out from them what was really going on. They are in full support of the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Nursing and the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association in welcoming the order.
All these organisations would have liked far more for themselves, but they all recognise that a fully comprehensive consultative process has taken place and the best possible formula has been found to accommodate all parties. They all say that this has been a long drawn out process that has found an

1507
acceptable solution to a very complex situation. The solution has been reached only with the dedication and commitment of the organisation involved, as well as the Departrnent of Health, which has handled this matter in a very efficient manner.
As has already been said, there has been extensive lobbying within Parliament by a small minority of health visitors who want a disproportionate level of representation on the nursing and midwifery council. The whole idea of the council is for the RCM, the RCN and the health visitors to work together in partnership, a word that is often used in this Chamber. Working in partnership is not for their benefit but for the benefit of the public. That will be a very tall order with these rebels creating tension within the three bodies. They oppose the setting up of the council unless they achieve all their demands. That is not democracy at its best and I suggest that noble Lords will recognise it as such.
If we allow this vocal minority of rebel health visitors to succeed, and we halt these orders, we shall see a situation where the public have less protection from practitioners. I am sure that no Member of this House would vote for members of the public to be left unprotected and open to the practices of unqualified medical practitioners.
There is another reason why we should support these orders. Should they fall, the professions will remain under the auspices of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. This body is preparing to be wound up. We know that it wants to wind itself up, because one senior officer has already announced her resignation and I am sure that others will follow. We shall be entrusting the welfare of the public to a body that has accepted that it is now time for a more modern body to come into being.
The organisations concerned with the NMC order are quite clear that they will want a full review of this legislation if there is further opportunity. They estimate that the process may take a further two years and will be an exhaustive affair. Two years of the public—the very public that we want to serve—being left without full protection; two years with the UKCC left in uncertainty; and two years of further wrangling between these august bodies.
We need to think about the welfare of the general public. We also need to take into account the views of the royal colleges of midwives and nursing, as well as the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association, which have all found agreement through this legislation. Voting against this order will be a retrograde step for Parliament and the health service and may have detrimental health implications for the general public.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, before I make my contribution, I declare an interest as vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing and of the Royal College of Midwives and I hope a friend of the Health Visitors' Association.
The other day the Minister reminded me that it was I who conceived this difficult debate. When I was a Minister I commissioned JM Consulting Group Inc to
1508
review the regulation of nurses, midwives and health visitors. I did so because, prior to becoming a Minister in 1992, I was a lay member of the UKCC. I served under the very inspiring leadership and skilful chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton. I was very conscious when I was serving on the UKCC that the noble Baroness was determined that the issue that was most important was the protection of the public, as well as keeping these professions together in the nursing family.
That was not explicit in the regulations, it was implicit, and the noble Baroness consistently arid continually reminded us of our role. Having served on that body, I understood that the UKCC was cumbersome, rigid, slow, bureaucratic and very demanding of members' time. I should like to pay tribute to all the members of that body, particularly the professional members. But the costs to the National Health Service were high, because those people when they were in committee, on the professional conduct hearings and all the mechanisms involved in that, were not looking alter patients or clients in the community.
Like my noble friend Lady Noakes, I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory. I understand the health visitors' fear about their professional status being eroded and also that the public is not being fully protected. But their fears are being exaggerated. As I understand the matter, the health visiting profession will be separately identified through the dedicated part of the new register; only a registered health visitor will be entitled to use the title that has been designated from that part of their new register; and under transitional provisions the health visiting profession will have separate representation on the new council and parity with the other professions. That is a huge step forward.
When I reviewed community nursing 15 years ago, I remember the publicity in the press. There were headings such as, "What do Health Visitors do?", "Why are health visitors there?", "What is their role?". There was tremendous ambivalence. There was pressure on my team to try to erode the role of health visitors. Trevor Clay, who was the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, asked me, "Are you going to do away with health visiting?" We did not because it has such an important role.
In the intervening 15 years we have seen its role expand enormously. They really are the praetorian guard. They are the people there to promote health. I have seen the cycle of deprivation broken very impressively, not by social workers but by health visitors. So of course I have great feeling for their concerns. But those involved in health visiting see the future. It is interesting that they have even changed the name of their organisation to the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association. That is visionary, and I hope that in future they will go on to break new frontiers to improve the health of our nation.
Much consultation has taken place over a long time, which should not be rubbished. The association has been extremely diligent in trying to obtain the views of

1509
its members. The view of the minority, and all the rest of it, has already been debated, so I shall not go into that. But the potential of the new council should be realised and the building blocks are there. It is with huge embarrassment that I find myself totally in support of the Government on this occasion.
I shall refer briefly to midwifery. A concern has been expressed about Article 45. I know that the Minister shares my view that women should have a choice about where they give birth. A lot of pressure is being put on women to give birth in hospital rather than at home when they would prefer to be at home. There is concern that where husbands, partners or friends take part in a birth and a midwife is not present, they may be prosecuted under the order.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that that choice will still be open. I hope that he will promote it in any way that he can. I also hope that he will assure us that no prosecutions will take place in such circumstances.
9 p.m.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, I also rise to support the order and to oppose the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. In doing so, I declare an interest as a current registrant in the register held by the United Kingdom Central Council and, latterly, as an associate general-secretary of Unison—although I have not been briefed by Unison for this debate.
There has been every opportunity for the organisations representing the professions to have their say during the long consultation period. Indeed, the outcomes have been very much influenced by the nursing and midwifery organisations. The royal colleges of nursing and midwifery, Unison and the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association have all been active in consulting and representing their members.
As someone who gave evidence and made representations to the Labour government in the run-up to the 1979 legislation, which gave effect to the UKCC and the four national boards, I know just how seriously nursing organisations take the issue of registration, professional regulation and discipline. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, referred to that legislation and its run-up. It was the last Act carried by that Labour government before it fell in 1979, and I know that many concessions were made. I cannot remember whether the inclusion of health visitors was one of those, but many concessions were certainly made in the wash-up period before the Act was passed.
I also know, unless the world has changed since my day of representing nurses, that none of the organisations will have got everything that it wanted during discussions with the Government. That is the nature of the real world. The order represents an acceptable compromise agreed between the Department of Health and the professions of nursing, midwifery and health visiting. Lest any noble Lord be
1510
in any doubt, the unions to which I referred represent the vast majority of nurses and midwives on the register. None of those organisations will regard it as helpful if the amendment is carried.
When I was general-secretary of the Confederation of Health Service Employees—an organisation with about 70 per cent nurse membership, together with some midwives and health visitors—I was familiar with groups of members being unhappy with the outcomes of negotiations, consultations or democratic decision-making. Their cry was, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said, "We've been sold down the river by the leadership". They sought to engage every avenue to pursue their cause—including, of course making representations to Opposition politicians. I know nothing of the current internal business of the CPHVA, but sometimes such causes have as much to do with trying to usurp the leadership or preparing for a round of elections as with the issue.
What we have here is a great deal of compromise to reach middle ground with which everyone can live in the interests of the greater good. A group of health visitors believe that they have been sold down the river. They do not appear to see the wider picture. They do not see what others have given up in the course of reaching that compromise that meets the wider interest.
Let me give one example of such a compromise. If memory serves me correctly, the present statutory body, the UKCC, contains 28 elected nurses, four health visitors and four midwives among its membership. The order tonight provides for four nurses, four health visitors and four midwives. I know many nurses who think that that change in the ratio between the professions from 7:1 to 1:1 with health visitors may be a compromise too far, but the majority of them accept the need for a streamlined, efficient and flexible organisation. Nurses have not become a dissenting voice, notwithstanding what they have given up—some would say, given away.
To carry the amendment would be manifestly unfair to nurses, not least because many nurses—I am among them—accept that health visiting is part of the greater family of nursing. One cannot be a health visitor unless one is a nurse. Nursing is a family with several branches and, within those branches, many specialisms. Of course health visitors do a great job and tribute has rightly been paid to them today. We shall continue to do so. But many others do a great job: practice nurses, palliative nurses, district nurses, community psychiatric nurses and others in community teams who are not nurses, such as physiotherapists and occupational therapists. The boundaries between all of them are becoming increasingly blurred. Which would be in, and which out, in the definitions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones?
If I can for a moment be critical of my profession, it has a propensity for élitism. All nurses are special, perhaps none more so than nurses registered in the specialty of caring for people with learning difficulties. They are special, but they are not élitist. They have not

1511
been lobbying for their own part of the register to be guaranteed. That may well happen—I have no doubt that it will—but they have not been lobbying for it.
Most of my clinical practice was in operating theatres and in trauma intensive care. We were a scarce commodity, but we were not, I hope, an élitist group. How could we be when so many of our colleagues used to suggest that we were really technicians?
In a profession as disparate as nursing, there is no room for élitism. There has to be room for change, development and continuing learning to keep pace with all the changes in society. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, properly pointed out, in recent years health visitors have played a tremendous part in that change. I have no doubt that they will continue to do so.
There is no need for the amendment. There is already provision in the order for setting up a part or parts of the register for community and public health specialists. And with one health visitor to every nurse, to every midwife, I have not the slightest doubt that health visitors are well provided for; and I believe that a part of the register will include health visitors. However, the amendment would create uncertainty and would be a distraction from the real business of bringing regulation up to date and, most importantly, of protecting the public.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I rise to support the Nursing and Midwifery Order and to support the CPH VA, whose leadership may have been a little maligned on occasions today. I here declare an interest. Before entering your Lordships' House, I worked for the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union of which the CPHVA is a valid part. I worked there for 13 years with and for the CPHVA, so I am very familiar with the debate which is taking place in the Chamber today.
I also had the honour—and it was an honour—during that time to attend the annual conferences of the CPHVA. There has perhaps been a suggestion that the CPHVA is not a democratic organisation. Every year it holds a large conference attended by many representatives who represent the 18,000 members. Every year the director of the CPHVA addresses the conference.
I want to read a short extract from a report of the director's address to the 1999 conference because it has been suggested that the CPHVA did not mention to its members what was taking place. The article states:
"In her opening address she"—
Jackie Carnell, director of the CPHVA—
"said that the CPHVA's developing role in the arena of primary and community health care had meant letting go of some of the things held dear in the past, such as the name 'health visitor' in the title of the new Nursing and Midwifery Council.
Ms Carnell is then reported as saying:
"Some feel that this is a disaster for the future of health visiting. My message to all of you who feel this way is that you are wrong".
1512
The article continues:
"CPHVA members should have the confidence to know that health visitors were still leading the agenda from their place on the new council, so professional differences should be left behind. 'They weaken us and detract from the main agenda—an agenda to secure the right and appropriately regulated workforce for the future".
Jackie Carnell was not howled down. There were no shouts of "horror" from the floor. There were no riots at that conference. Instead, she was received with acclaim and a standing ovation at the conference for what she and the executive behind her had done for CPHVA members in relation to this order.
Finally, the CPHVA is not an organisation which is irresponsible. It obviously wanted to look after its members, so it took legal advice. It was firmly advised that the order as it is written fully covers the HVA and what it requests from the order.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been a high-quality debate. That is not surprising because the issues we are debating are extremely important in relation to the future of these professions. All noble Lords have spoken from a great degree of experience in these areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, set the context of self-regulation. The enormous strides which have been taken over the past 40 years have been partly as a result of her profound leadership of the profession and her stewardship at the UKCC. While I firmly believe that the current rules surrounding the UKCC are not up to what we need for the modern professions and their regulation, I pay tribute to all UKCC members who have put in an enormous amount of hard work.
My noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids made a telling point about the community interest to black minority ethnic nurses, health visitors and midwives. She pointed out that they, along with most of the professions, which are so dedicated, welcome what is contained in the order.
The most striking point that I should like to make to noble Lords tonight is that the health professions are often accused of tribalism. Sometimes that accusation has been correct, but those professions—I include the 12 professions that we are to debate shortly—within the Health Professions Council have ridden above that tribalism. Surely it is unique that the Government stand before noble Lords with the backing of the 15 professional organisations, together with Unison, in support of the order. It is an order that will enormously enhance the public interest and public involvement in those regulatory councils. I repeat, surely that is unique.
My noble friend Lord MacKenzie spoke of the compromises that enabled this development to take place. Yes, there have been many compromises, but I believe that they have come about through a measured process of consultation. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has already referred to her starring role in commissioning JM Consulting. When she welcomed its first report, concerning the professions supplementary to medicine, she said that she

1513
welcomed the report and supported its conclusions, but that completely new legislation would be required to streamline the existing arrangements. How right she was. Considerable consultation has taken place since 1996 in relation to the health professions, and since 1997 in relation to nurses, midwives and health visitors.
It is also worth making the point that we published our original proposals for a three-month public consultation on 1st August 2000, and completed those by 1st November 2000. Having considered those responses and having been involved in many discussions between the professions and those organisations which reflect the public interest, as well as the Department of Health, a draft order was then published for consultation. The comments we received as a result of that consultation very much reflected support and a recognition of the fact that the Government had listened.
I come to the issue of health visiting. We have had a long and passionate debate. I am aware of those health visitors who are concerned about the position of the health visiting profession, but I have to say that the professional body for most health visitors has campaigned long and hard for this very change. As my noble friend Lady Gibson pointed out, my experience of the CPHVA confirms that it is an extremely professional organisation that is well able to speak on behalf of its membership. Any government must rely on the basis of discussions held with the recognised professional organisations. That is what we have done.
In the light of all the discussions that have been held over the past few weeks since the order was debated in another place, I have talked to Mr Jonathan Ashbridge, the president of the shadow Nursing and Midwifery Council. I felt that noble Lords would find it helpful if I were able to give the assurances which he has given to me and to place them on the record tonight. In a letter which I received yesterday, Mr Ashbridge states that:
"I can confirm that the Council is committed to ensuring that there is a part of the register for health visiting. Indeed, at its meeting next Thursday, the Council will be asked to approve its response to the competence framework required for entry onto this part of the register.
The NMC's prime function is public protection. The full range of public health and community practice that health visiting embodies is seen by the Council as a vital component of the provision of healthcare in this country. It is therefore essential that the existing high standards of regulation must continue and be enhanced. It is inconceivable that health visitors would not play a significant role in the conduct and work of the Council as the majority of care provided in this country is and remains in the community.
Health visitor registrant members are already making a vital contribution to the work of the Shadow NMC. This reflects their comprehensive preparation in terms of education and training, but also their unique ability to articulate the wider health needs of the public. The proactive approach epitomises the modern face of regulation which is encapsulated in the draft order and is a valuable base which will underpin the Council's work".
I want to make it clear that we need to be able to protect the public by registering the whole range of health visitors and community and public health
1514
specialists. This protection does not come from having a profession named either in the order or in the name of the council itself. The protection comes from being included in the register held by the council. This means having the power to create a part of the NMC register for that whole group of practitioners, with a designated title and appropriate qualifications to match. The order contains a provision to do just that.
As noble Lords have remarked, we have provided for a part of the register for specialists in community and public health and for their four places on the council. In practice, this might change only if they themselves wanted it to happen, by extending their role to cover a wider group of specialists in community and public health. Before any change could occur, the council would have to consult health visitors and must have proper regard to their differing considerations as a group. This would extend their protected title and protected specialist training into a wider group.
The part of the new register will carry with it a protected designated title, which means that only those with the specialist approved training, such as in health visiting, which leads to registration in that part of the register may call themselves by that title. The title and part itself is for the council to propose and the Privy Council to determine. To make a far-fetched suggestion, even if the council tried to overrule the health visitor members by not proposing such a part—which is most unlikely—the Privy Council would still be able to overrule the council.
The title might be "Registered Health Visitor"; it might be "Registered Community Practitioner (Health Visitor), "Registered Community Practitioner (Public Health Practitioner)" or "Registered Community Practitioner (Family Health Practitioner)". The additional identifier in the parenthesis could be whatever health visitors choose, the NMC proposes and the Privy Council decides on to reflect their changing wider role. But, whatever it is, only practitioners with that special training may call themselves by that title. In future, the part of the register may be for "Registered Community Practitioner" with additional identification of the branch of specialist qualification in parenthesis—for example, "(Health Visitor)". There is an exact parallel to this on the Health Professions Council, which we shall come to debate shortly.
As to membership, the election scheme in Schedule 1 Article 2(2)(b) must be devised by the Nursing and Midwifery Council itself. Again, the health visitors on the council will be there to see that the election scheme provides for their part of the register to have members to represent it. Given that there must be health visitors on the council, it is inconceivable that they will not propose to have their own part on the register. From my discussion with Mr Ashbridge yesterday, I can assure the House that there are four very able and assertive health visitors already playing a full part in pursuing their professional interests.
My noble friend Lord MacKenzie made a telling point about membership. At the moment, on the UKCC there are 40 elected professionals. They

1515
comprise 28 nurses, eight midwives and four health visitors. The new shadow council, the transitional council, enables there to be four health visitors, four nurses and four midwives. What better protection can there be for health visitors than that change?
Like every noble Lord, I believe that the health visitor profession is a noble one. It has, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said, played an enormous role in developing public health in this country. I believe that the way in which the order has been constructed enables the profession to go forward and to enhance its responsibilities and role. I am convinced that there are sufficient safeguards in the order to enable that to happen.
I turn to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, concerning midwives, and particularly to the proposal to increase the fine applicable to those who commit the offence of attending a woman in childbirth as a provider of care without an appropriate qualification as either a midwife or a medical practitioner. By "attend" we mean "assume responsibility for care".
The proposal is not intended to outlaw husbands, partners and relatives whose presence and general support for women in childbirth is extremely important. The point of the offence is to protect the function of midwifery in the interests of public safety. This has been an offence since the Midwives Act 1902. The fine incurred by the offence was £10 at that time. We received advice from JM Consulting, which thought that the level of the fine should reflect the seriousness of the offence. The Royal College of Midwives and some consumer groups supported that.
I am aware that the Association for Improvement in Maternity Services feels strongly that a fine for this offence should be dropped altogether. I understand why. The association wants this so that, in the case where a woman wants to give birth at home but there are no qualified midwives available to attend her, she may at least have the attendance of a partner or relative on the grounds that having someone unqualified is better than having no one in attendance at all.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, knows that I am sympathetic to matters relating to childbirth as two of my own children were born at home. However, I also believe that the safety of both mother and baby is paramount. I accept the challenge that the noble Baroness lays down. But the best way to tackle this is to increase the number of practising qualified midwives to enable the health service to offer the home birth service which I believe it should be offering. I say unequivocally that that is our intention. I point out that there have been hardly any prosecutions for this offence. We have come across only one, which took place nearly 20 years ago.
Again, the quality of the debate has been outstanding. We are all agreed that we want to see enhanced professional self-regulation to enhance the public interest. No one disagrees with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as to the importance of health visitors. I hope, however, that I have reassured the
1516
noble Lord that the intent in this order is to enhance the profession, to safeguard it, but to create the conditions in which it can expand and develop the services that it offers to the public.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I agree with the Minister that this has been an extremely useful debate. I very much welcome the support from the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Emerson, and from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson for the Motion to amend the order.
I admit, however, that I am totally unrepentant in the face of the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen and Lady Howells, and the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie—whose view seemed to be that I was entering into the trade union politics of the matter rather than debating the merits of the order.
Whether or not they are a "vocal minority" or "rebel" health visitors—and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, suggested that we do not have to take any notice of tiny minorities, just of the "senior people"—the fact is—
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? My point was that the people who were consulted were not just senior people; they were elected through the democratic process within the union.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I and others on these Benches have always taken one of the functions of this House to be the protection of minorities. It is an extremely important function. It is precisely why this Motion was tabled.
That minority has done a great service. It has elicited considerable assurance from the Minister. He elicited the letter from the shadow president of the new body giving the assurances on each of the three areas about which I asked him. That demonstrates that the minority was right in asking for such assurance. It was right to articulate its concerns to Members of this House.
I shall repeat those assurances because I believe that, effectively, the Minister has answered them. The first is that the register will be set up: I believe that the Minister has given us that assurance, and that it will include health visitors. It will not just be on a transitional basis, but it will be permanent. Secondly, there is the assurance about name protection for health visitors. Lastly, I believe that the Minister has also given an assurance about health visitors' qualification standards and that the new order can deal with and enhance those standards as part of the new registration process.
I am pleased that the Minister has given us those cast-iron assurances for which I asked. I believe that all health visitors will be able to unite behind the order. We have had an effective demonstration of how it is possible for Ministers to give such assurances. Although at the first hurdle they did not succeed, at the

1517
second hurdle—namely, in this House—we have had a satisfactory debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Professions Order 2001
9.31 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, some of the remarks that I made in introducing the previous order are applicable to this one so my speech will be briefer.
This order is consistent with the order that we have just discussed. It will replace the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine (CPSM) and its 12 uniprofessional boards. It makes the same provision and gives the same benefits for the allied health professions and the patients who use their services, as the previous order does for nurses, midwives and health visitors.
Importantly, the HPC will be able to initiate proposals for the extension of regulation to new groups. This is a big step forward. The CPSM was restricted by law to covering only 12 professions, but the HPC has no such restriction. I pay particular tribute to the patience of such groups as the Association of Operating Department Practitioners and Perfusionists who did not secure the limited slots available with the CPSM. I know that they and other professional groups will look forward to the new HPC taking that work forward.
The HPC will have an option to have 25 members, 13 professional and 12 lay, where the president is a professional, as is the case with the appointments made to the shadow council. Of the 13, one will be the president and the rest will each represent one of the professions regulated by the council. We would not expect those members to do the work by themselves. The council must also have four statutory committees to cover the main functions of a regulatory body. Those committees will be multi-professional too, but there is no limit on their membership.
The council will have wider powers to deal with individuals who present unacceptable risks to patients set out at Articles 22 to 33 of each order. It will have powers to deal with registrants whose fitness to practise is impaired, whether through ill health, lack of competence, or misconduct. That will be a big improvement on the current limited powers of the CPSM, which is able to deal only with infamous conduct in a professional respect and has only one option for action which is striking off.
1518
The council will also have a critical role in positively guiding and supporting the vast majority of practitioners whose fitness to practise is never in doubt. In addition, the council may set up any other committees and panels that it needs. It will have extensive opportunities to co-opt non-members to advise on professional matters or on national policy or to carry out detailed casework within the strategic framework that they set.
I understand that one issue that will be discussed in the debate on this order is the matter of chiropodists, particularly unregulated chiropodists. The profession is split into those currently regulated, who have a full three-year degree training to cover footcare across the whole ill and well population, and the unregulated, who, I believe, train chiefly to carry out basic footcare on otherwise healthy people.
The order provides a transitional pathway to registration, open to those who can demonstrate that they have been practising safely and effectively or that their qualifications and experience are comparable to the current requirements for registration. I know that there are some concerns about how that will operate. I assure the House that both sectors are meeting regularly under the facilitation of the Department of Health and the shadow Health Professions Council with a view to reaching an agreed position on the requirements for registration before the new council is established next April.
In the order we have sought to tackle gaps in existing legislation. We have also taken on board the concerns raised by the professions and by consumer and patient organisations. They are unanimously in support of the order being passed. I understand that there are concerns, particularly about chiropodists, but I believe that the order is the best way forward. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
Earl Howerose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but that Her Majesty's Government should also lay an amended order containing a provision for a practicable transitional period for entry of unregistered members of the chiropody profession to the register of the Health Professions Council and for wider representation on professional advisory committees".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments on the order, which is very welcome in principle. We all recognise the importance of protecting professional titles and ensuring proper standards of training and competence on the part of those who administer treatment to patients. As a concept, the establishment of a Health Professions Council with enhanced powers compared with those of the CPSM is also a positive step forward.
However, as the Minister said, one group of professionals—the large group of non-state registered practitioners of chiropody and podiatry—are far from happy with the order. Chiropody is unique among the

1519
12 or so professions covered by the HPC in that it is the only one split almost 50:50 between state registered and non-state registered practitioners. Both sections account for about 8,000 members, although the non-state registered sector is slightly larger.
The split goes back to 1945 when five British chiropody organisations amalgamated and began offering their members to serve the needs of the newly formed National Health Service. They subsequently became the examining body for the purposes of state registration under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. At that time there was no compulsion and little incentive to be registered, unless one wished to work for the NHS. For that reason, the other half of the profession, represented by the British Chiropodists and Podiatrists Association and the SMAE Institute, which had not amalgamated, opted to remain unchanged.
The issue for non-state registered chiropodists is that, upon approval of the order, to be able to work as a chiropodist or podiatrist in the community they will need a three-year honours degree. The existing qualifications of those 8,000 practitioners will officially count for nothing, no matter how long, how safely or how successfully they have been practising.
Nobody, least of all the BCPA, has an interest in allowing sub-standard chiropodists to treat patients. Everyone wants proper regulation. However, the way in which the order will impact on the chiropody profession flies in the face of common sense. All of a sudden we shall be faced with the prospect that a substantial number of chiropodists and podiatrists who are doing important and valuable work will no longer be available to look after their patients. A large decrease in chiropodist numbers will put added pressure on an area of the NHS that is already over-burdened.
The HPC may or may not take a sensible, pragmatic view of this issue. However, the HPC will be dominated by the state-registered sector; the independent sector will have no representation on it whatsoever. I am quite certain that the state-registered sector is approaching these concerns responsibly and will want to avoid a large fallout of numbers, but the matter is largely not within their hands. A two-year transitional period has been allowed for to enable independent practitioners to transfer to the new registry. That period is totally impracticable bearing in mind not only the 8,000 applications that will need to be considered and processed, but independent-sector students who are due to qualify after the critical period.
It should be possible to find a way forward. There are already provisions to enable state-registered practitioners to be registered automatically even if they have no academic degree. So far, however, the picture looks exceedingly unclear. I am sorry to say this, but the Government give the impression that they have rushed the matter along without sufficient thought or discussion. They now seem to be throwing up their hands and saying, "It's all too difficult; the profession itself must sort out the problems". I believe
1520
that that is not a responsible position for Ministers to adopt. We are not talking about some small minority of under-qualified or unsuitable people from whom the public need to be protected; on the contrary, it is a very large number of skilled practitioners who to a greater or lesser extent have relieved the pressure on the NHS for very many years and do not feel that the Government have done them justice.
The order will enable the Government to wash their hands of the problem in the knowledge that the chiropody profession will now be fully regulated. It is deeply regrettable if that is all that matters to the Government. The Government should have felt that they had a responsibility to resolve these difficulties.
Perhaps I may turn to other matters of concern as reflected in my amendment. The Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, which represents the state-registered sector, is worried that there will not be adequate representation for each profession on the HPC. Without that, the society fears that the HPC's main aim will not be achieved—the effective protection of the public. I am aware of the proposals to establish professional advisory committees, but the PACs will only be ad hoc working panels to advise on specific projects; as I understand it, they will not be standing committees. Unless sufficient representatives of each profession have a real input into the HPC, it is hard to see how the public are to be reassured by what is now proposed. I wonder whether the Minister could comment on that.
Additionally, the society wants to see a role for the professional advisory committees in ensuring that the four United Kingdom countries are effectively represented in the deliberations of the HPC. There is currently no guarantee that each profession from each of the devolved countries will have a voice on the HPC, although that is apparently what the Government want to see. All that the Government have provided for is for at least one of the professional members and alternates to come from each UK country. As the society has stated, that could mean that a biomedical scientist from Scotland could end up representing all the Scottish professions on the HPC. How practical and how fair do the Government think that that would be?
As I said, we on these Benches have no quarrel with the principle of this order. Our complaint is that the Government should have taken a little more time and trouble to ensure that the concerns that I have outlined were eliminated. That should not have been beyond the wit of man. Regrettably, however, they have taken the decision that it is more important for the order to be rushed through, loose ends and all. I hope that the Minister can provide us with some real reassurances on those important matters. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "but that Her Majesty's Government should also lay an amended order containing a provision for a practicable transitional period for entry of unregistered members of the chiropody profession to the register of the Health Professions Council and For wider representation on professional advisory committees".—(Earl Howe.)
9.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in thanking the Minister for his exposition of the effect and benefits of the new Health Professions Order. In some ways, clearly, putting together the order for the new Health Professions Council to replace the CPSM has been even more difficult than the previous order. But it is clear that most of the professions involved are broadly supportive of the order, believing that it offers a better regulatory system than the current one. I particularly welcome the common registration for independent and state sector practitioners and the type of protection that that will give.
Yet as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, there are still strong concerns and problems. In the jargon of the trade, many of them are uni-professional concerns; that is, concerns that relate to individual professions and not necessarily to the scheme as a whole. One of those concerns relates to the practice advisory committees.
Under the previous 1960 Act there was a scheme of boards for each profession which was set up to regulate education and training for each of the 12 professions. Under the order there will be no statutory uni-professional arrangement. However, there will be professional advisory committees which can be set up by the council under paragraph 3(12)(b) of the order.
There is no compulsion for those professional advisory committees to be set up, nor is there any clear ambit for their responsibilities. Those committees should be standing committees with a clear remit.
In addition, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, there is concern among some of the professions about the representation by each of them from the different nations in the UK on the slimmed-down council. The Minister and the council need to ensure that, as far as possible, the interests of the four countries are represented on the council. Perhaps the Minister can explain how that will be achieved under the order as it now stands.
Finally, there is unhappiness at the level of representation on the council among those professional bodies which reflect effectively two or three disciplines, such as the prosthesists and orthotists, or the arts, music and drama therapists. What comfort can the Minister give to those professions who feel that the size of the new body will cause problems to those individual disciplines?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I must begin by apologising to the Minister because I was unable to attend the briefing he kindly held on this order the other day. Therefore if he tells me that the points I make were covered there, I accept that reprimand and pray his indulgence this evening.
I support the broad principles behind the order and its purpose. As more and more consult what is rather inelegantly called in this order the "relevant" professions, those professions are making an increasingly valuable and widespread contribution to our health and welfare. Therefore, conversely, the
1522
general public are ever more entitled to seek some form of imprimatur of their conduct, behaviour and competence.
I should like to ask for the Minister's reassurance on three points. The first concerns the grandfathering, which takes place in paragraph 6(3)(c) on page 11. I pray in aid here the fact that I was a board member in the City of one of the first regulatory authorities which required us to bring together individual registers and combine them. When we began to do this under the Financial Services Act in the late 1980s, early 1990s, we found that there was considerable difficulty in ensuring that the right standards of competence were held by all participants. It presented us with many practical problems. The grandfathering proposal in this order, while obviously attractive in theory, is not always as attractive in practice.
The proposal before us is designed to raise standards, to impose common levels of competence and so increase public confidence. The reassurance I seek from the Minister is that he is really convinced that this wholesale grandfathering from the 1960 Act will not undermine the authority and reputation of the new body. Clearly, some difficulties in the early days of the new body would severely damage its public reputation.
The second point concerns continuing professional education. It is a commonplace that we live in an age of rapid change, and the healthcare world is not immune. That is not just as regards the practise of professional skills, although that is obviously very important; it also covers the whole area of professional relationships. We no longer live in a deferential age but in a questioning age. Professional relationships have shifted and are continuing to shift.
I seek the Minister's reassurance that as regards Article 15(1)(b) on page 19 he believes that there is imposed a sufficiently clear duty for there to be a proper programme of continuing professional education. As a layman I did not find the wording of that clause particularly clear or compelling.
The last point concerns the discipline of the incompetent or errant. Until last summer I was the deputy chairman of a private hospital group. It was a for profit acute hospital group. In such companies one does not employ doctors, consultants or surgeons; one provides a facility within which they practise. But although one has no authority over their professional conduct, one has an interest in their competence because of the impact on the reputation of the hospital.
We found that complaints against doctors took a very long time to be heard by the GMC. They took many months and often one to two years. That was in no one's interest. It certainly was not in the interests of our company. It was not in the interests of the doctor, who had a cloud hanging over him the whole time. Above all, referring to our primary duty mentioned in the last debate, it was not in the interests of the patient, whose safety might be compromised.
I do not see in this order any requirement for urgency in the disciplinary procedures. I believe that the new body should have some duty imposed on it to

1523
act with sufficient celerity. If we are seeking to build public confidence we need to ensure that complaints are addressed promptly. I would therefore like to hear the Minister's views on that issue as well.
As I have said, I believe that this is a welcome order and I am pleased to see the emphasis that we are giving to the relevant professions. But I would like to hear the Minister's views on those three points.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance to the House that in the interim period of state registration of chiropodists, there will be enough of them to deal with the ever-growing elderly population and the increase in the number of people with diabetes? Can the Minister say how a non-state registered chiropodist obtains full state registration?
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, it is rather late and I shall be brief. I support the order. I am very sorry that my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester is unable to take part in the debate. He is president of the Society of Chiropodists, but he has had to keep a hospital appointment.
I am aware of the concerns, particularly among chiropodists, about some of the provisions of this order. I believe that the most important concern of the state registered chiropodists is that in their view the order fails to ensure that a strong, professional advisory committee will be established for each of the professions. Article 3 empowers the Health Professions Council to establish a PAC and that is obviously an advance. But it must also be said that the Health Professions Council is not under a duty to execute that power. Moreover, although the HPC has established a professional advisory committee, it can also abolish that committee.
The role of an advisory committee is usually to advise on any matter affecting its interests, including reporting on present conditions and making recommendations for future changes. What will be the role of an advisory committee established under Article 3? We have read what the president of the shadow Health Professions Council has had to say. She is in a key position. But the concept which she advanced has come in for criticism. I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could say how the department considers that a professional advisory committee should operate under this order.
I refer to an aspect of devolution. As far as I can see, the order contains at least three provisions which relate exclusively to Wales; namely, Article 6(3)(g), Article 20 and Article 45. There may be others which I have missed. Yet nowhere in the explanatory note is there a reference to those provisions. They are nowhere mentioned. I envisage that there will be more such provisions in the future as the Welsh Assembly develops policies to meet Welsh needs. Therefore, it would be helpful to the practitioner in Wales if the explanatory note were to draw his or her attention to
1524
the existence of such provisions within the order. That would be a simple improvement which should be built into the explanatory note in the future.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised a concern which I hope the Minister will address. The thrust of the argument seemed to be that a category of chiropodists, for example, would have to acquire a professional qualification over a set period to be able to go on the register, but the timing was such that they could not acquire that within the time limits imposed by the order. The practical effect of that appears to be that, for a period at least, certain people will be driven from their professional activity.
If that is the case, have the Human Rights Act implications of that been thought or If one passes legislation which has the effect of depriving a person of a profession, normally, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, one has efficient grandfather clauses which ensure that all competent people who have practised a profession are carried on into the new system. There is no guillotine and one does not put people out of business. It may be that the legal premise for that is wrong. However, if a category of professionals could be put out of business by the order as they could not comply with its terms, that would be a grave matter. I hope that the Minister will address it.
10 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, in welcoming the order I declare an interest as president of the College of Occupational Therapists which greatly welcomes the order which has taken many years to reach the House. I have been president of the college for approximately seven years. I assure noble Lords that in that time, and before, the professions allied to medicine have pressed hard for the kind of order that we have before us. This is not a new idea. It has not been rushed through and it is greatly welcomed by the profession. Certainly, the provisions within the order for closure of title—as a lay person would express it—will prevent those without appropriate qualifications parading as titled practitioners. That measure is extremely welcome from the consumer protection angle.
Both that measure and the proposal to require the regulated professions to provide evidence of their continuing professional development and fitness to practise are welcome and are supported not only by the College of Occupational Therapists but also by the bodies that form the 12 professions which are covered by the order. College members work both in the state sector and private practice but there has been a relationship for many years between the college and universities for validation of degree courses—for which students receive no state aid, unlike nurses who can receive bursaries. That issue should be addressed but it is not before us this evening.
The college, together with allied health professionals, supports the order's provision for a robust system of self-regulation that puts public protection at the forefront. That does not exist at

1525
present. Persons are practising in professions allied to medicine who do not have a recognised qualification. The order provides for qualifications to be withdrawn but they must be held in the first instance. That provision is similar to one in the nursing profession where the regulatory body can withdraw a nurse's licence to practise. The order will introduce a similar measure to all the professions that it covers.
I hope that the noble Earl, whose views I much respect, does not press his amendment. The order has been a long time coming. There has been plenty of time for people without qualifications to improve, to ensure that registration is within their grasp. The transitional arrangements should provide for that to happen. If your Lordships insist on specifying who will sit on the new body, what committees it will form and how it will operate, that would tie the council's hands. The new body will not be a closed shop but will have lay representation, which the professions also welcome.
Does the Minister agree that the new Health Professions Council must work in partnership with the College of Occupational Therapists and the 11 other professions? Also, will the Government ensure that the regulated professions play a full and equal part in maintaining high standards of professional practice—if for no other reason than the protection of the public?
The majority of professions allied to medicine welcome the order. They pressed the previous government for such a measure but did not get far. They have been pressing the present Government since the 1997 general election. The order will underpin the quality of services provided. It will ensure that when individuals do not practise to high standards, their professional body will have the authority to withdraw their title. I welcome the order and hope that the House will support it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, a common theme has been the importance of the 12 professions that will be regulated under the new council and the hope that other professions will be regulated in future. Considering the challenges facing the National Health Service, there is no doubt that the professions covered by the proposed Health Professions Council will have an important role.
I was somewhat amused when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that the process by which the order was brought to your Lordships' House involved "rush"; that is not the word that I should choose. It has been a very long process—too long, in many ways.
As with the NMC, extensive work has been undertaken with the professions, groups that represent the public interest and the department to try to get the matter right, and I believe that we have done so. My noble friend Lady Dean raised an important point when she discussed partnership with the profession. One criticism that I should make of the CPSM's record is that in many cases it had lost the confidence of the professional organisations. I believe that the HPC will work effectively only if, in serving the public interest, it develops a strong partnership with each of the 12 professions.
1526
We have appointed a very good shadow council and I am confident that the right leadership is being provided. I say to my noble friend that I am convinced that the HPC will seek to work in partnership with those professions. Unless the HPC, in protecting the public interest, also allows those professions to feel real ownership in relation to the its work, it will not work effectively.
We seek to ensure that we do not have an over-sized council. Twelve professions are involved and inevitably there will be a limited number of places. Essentially, each profession will have one representative. In that context, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies raised a concern about the shape and status of the professional advisory committees, which are provided for in the order. It is important that the HPC is left to advance its own proposals about how it will organise its work within the general parameters that are laid down in the order. Setting up PACs is a matter for the HPC.
Following discussions with noble Lords over the past two weeks, I have satisfied myself that the shadow HPC is working in partnership with the professional bodies to ensure that they have confidence in the arrangements relating to PACs. I understand that the HPC will produce proposals that will give wider representation than at present. That would involve more professionals with targeted expertise who would ensure high-quality, speedy and appropriate expert professional input to the functions of the HPC. That would be backed up with full training in those functions.
The shadow HPC welcomes the positive contribution of professional bodies. I should expect the HPC to work through its registrant members to develop a range of appropriate mechanisms to enable the professions to contribute to the successful implementation of the order.
The HPC will need arrangements that take account of the needs of the different professions. That may include regular standing advisory committees and making use of existing networks. The HPC should consult widely among registrants and the professions on its proposal to obtain professional advice before it finalises its arrangements. It will be required to report to the Privy Council each year on how it has carried out its functions. It is envisaged that the HPC will hold frequent PAC meetings, particularly in the early stages while setting up its new procedures.
The order also permits the council to delegate some of its functions to the bodies that it sets up. But the HPC can accommodate all this with a fresh approach. I am sure that the shadow HPC will continue as it has done, working in partnership with the professions to ensure that it has the professional advice and input that it needs.
A very relevant point was raised by, I believe, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the concern of state-registered chiropodists in relation to professional representation from all four UK countries in a smaller, more strategic council. One way in which we shall ensure that is through the supplementation of the work

1527
of the council by statutory committees plus other networks and committees which can draw on other professionals from each country. Again, in that way, with a flexible, inclusive approach, the HPC will be able to cover the four-country angle. It will also do so by encouraging professions fully to brief council members.
Much of the detailed work involving professional difference will not be handled by the council but by its committees. Again, they may draw on a wide range of professionals from all four countries. But a profession which does not have council representation in a country can always ensure that its concerns are raised both by its own professional representatives and also by its own country members. I am confident that the HPC will be able to handle the four-country issue.
I turn to the question of chiropodists. In doing so, perhaps I may pick up some of the points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and others. First, I fully accept the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, made. Chiropodists are very important. I believe that their role, in particular in relation to the mobility of older people, is crucial. The National Service Framework for Older People is the way in which we wish to develop services for older people. Within that, I would expect the role and number of chiropodists to be given full attention.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, the profession is split into two. In essence, in relation to the grandfathering provisions there is a very important debate as to how long the HPC register should be kept open to allow those who have not been trained on an approved course time either to undertake extra training or to demonstrate experience in safe practice so that they may register before the register is closed to all but those who are trained in the approved way. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, suggested, that method of registering people who do not have approved training is called "grandparenting".
Article 13 of the order provides a transitional pathway to registration which is open to those who can demonstrate that they have been practising safely and effectively or that their qualifications and experience are comparable to the current requirements for registration. In that context, perhaps I may make it clear that in either case the HPC may, but need not, require them to pass a test of competence.
I want to repeat a point that I made in my introductory remarks. Both sectors are meeting regularly under the facilitation of the Department of Health and the shadow HPC with a view to reaching an agreed position on the requirements for registration before the new council is established next April. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, chided me because he believed that those discussions should have been completed by now. The Department of Health made strenuous efforts to ensure that the discussions took place, but, in this case, it takes three to tango. Representatives of the non-state-registered sector have proven rather reluctant to engage in the discussions. Having said
1528
that, meetings are now taking place regularly. As a Minister, I am very keen to ensure that they come to a successful conclusion.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, perhaps I may ask him whether he believes that there will be enough people to assess the non-registered chiropodists and how long that process will take.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall come to that. I believe that this will be a challenge to the HPC but, as I have explained, this matter does not rest with the individual members of the HPC. It is able to use professional people from the field. I am sure that it would be able to find a way to do as the noble Baroness suggests. That is the whole point of facilitating discussions between the two sectors; that is, to ensure that this is carried out as smoothly as possible.
There is a balance to be struck. It is unsatisfactory that we have a situation at present in which people who have not gone through state registration can call themselves chiropodists. We have to protect the public interest. That is the paramount consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, raised the issue of human rights in relation to this specific question. The view of the Government is that the order is compliant with the Human Rights Act. Article 12 is applicable. The council must consult those affected on criteria for grandparenting. There is a choice of routes, either through qualifications or experience. Reasoned decisions must be given. Applicants have a right of appeal, first, to council and to the courts. It has to be a careful process. We must uphold the public interest. However, equally we must ensure that those people who do have the relevant qualifications, or can obtain them, or have the relevant experience, are given as much opportunity as possible to enable them to be registered by the council.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about timing, which is important. We have received representation from the unregulated sector, which wanted the transitional period for meeting the standards before the new register is closed to all but those with the approved training extended to seven years. The order proposes two years. It is the view of the Government that, given that full training is up to three years at most, the call for a transitional period of seven years seems excessive. It may be designed to allow those who are currently practising to reach retirement before they need to comply with the new standards. There is a difficult balance between public interest and being fair to the unregulated sector. But I believe that that sort of extension is unacceptable.
However, the timetable allows flexibility. If your Lordships approve the order today, the health professions council will be set up on 1st April 2002. It will inherit the register, rules and procedures of the CPSM to begin with, so that there is no break in the regulatory function. During its first year, the HPC will have to propose the parts, protected titles, associated qualifications and standards of proficiency which its

1529
new register will encompass. It must consult registrants and prospective registrants on those proposals. It will then propose to the Privy Council, which will ultimately determine the parts, titles and qualifications relating to each profession in the register, which it will then be able to open.
Even if we rush in an unseemly way, I do not believe that that process could be undertaken in less than one year. The expectation is that the process might take up to April 2003. Once the register is open, it will remain open for a transitional period of up to two years before it is closed to all except those who achieve registration by reaching the standard of practice and training the HPC requires. That is likely to happen by April 2005. From now until 2005, a period of about three-and-a-quarter years is likely to be available for those in the unregulated sector who wish to become registered with the HPC and to carry on practising as chiropodists or podiatrists, using whatever title is protected under this order to demonstrate to the HPC that they meet its standards. That is a reasonable period of time.
I also point out—the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is no longer here that the JM report was published in 1996. It is apparent that that has been the aim of both the previous and of this Government. The unregulated profession has had time to think through some of these issues. We are essentially saying that it has three and-a-quarter years from today before the likely end of the grandfathering provision.
Perhaps I may take up two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. Both were extremely interesting. He asked about continuing professional development. I refer the noble Lord to Article 19 on page 24. That relates to post-registration training. Paragraph 19(1) states:
"The Council may make rules requiring registrants to undertake such continuing professional development as it shall specify in standards.
Continuing professional development is vitally important. The order clearly gives the HPC the power to do it. I am sure that, consistent with what is happening in the other professions, continuing professional development will be a very important factor.
The noble Lord asked another important question: how will the new body enhance and speed up the disciplinary procedure? I agree with the noble Lord that speed is of the essence. The smaller dynamic councils that we hope to establish will lead to swifter and more transparent decision making in addressing public protection issues. The establishment of statutory committees linked to the core regulatory function, including the main areas of fitness to practise work, the investigation committee, the conduct and competence committee and the health committee, give an ability to the HPC to ensure that it has effective procedures.
It is also worth bearing in mind, and as a trailer to the NHS modernisation Bill, which is proceeding rapidly through the other place, that within that Bill is a provision to establish a UK council of health
1530
regulators. That council will have an important role to play in ensuring that the different regulatory bodies are working as effectively as possible.
I am grateful to noble Lords for the issues that they have raised. I understand the concerns of the chiropody profession. I reiterate that we shall work as hard as we possibly can with representatives of both sectors to enable the matter to be dealt with fairly and effectively but crucially in the public interest. I am grateful to noble Lords for their attention.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his full reply and to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate.
The Minister has helpfully clarified the element of the proposals relating to the transitional period for registration on to the chiropodist and podiatrist register. Much of the concern expressed by the BChA relates to the practicality of the arrangements for non-state registered members to qualify for registration within the statutory time frame. I understand that there is effectively a three-year plus window in which registration can occur. That will no doubt be sufficient for some.
The concern is perhaps broader than that. Non-state registered practitioners want to know that sensible rules will be applied to enable those among them who can readily demonstrate proficiency to be admitted to the register without undue fuss, and certainly without having to undergo a mandatory three-year degree course. If common sense is not applied to the situation many chiropodists will simply call it a day. I cannot emphasise enough how damaging that would be. Eight thousand practitioners is not only the majority of practising chiropodists but a large number of individuals.
It is reassuring to hear from the Minister that the HPC is doing its utmost to establish sensible arrangements with regard to registration. But some bridge-building needs to take place. I am encouraged by the Minister's stated view that that is happening.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I want to reassure him that the Department of Health will work hard to continue facilitating sensible arrangements and agreement between the two sectors that the HPC can take forward. We all want a sensible outcome. We do not want to preclude people who have a contribution to make from practising in future. Equally, we must uphold the public interest. The department will work hard to ensure that the process is conducted sensibly and fairly.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those reassurances. I am hopeful that his confidence that the HPC will want to work in partnership with the individual professions will be fulfilled in practice. I hope that the HPC will be inclusive in its general approach to chiropodists. I am also grateful for the Minister's assurances about professional advisory committees. I welcome what he was able to tell us about their proposed composition and functions. That clarification is certainly helpful.

1531
This debate has been useful. Several important points have been put on record. The Minister has given important reassurances. In the light of those, I am persuaded that it would not be right to press my amendment to a Division. However, while it is not appropriate to divide the House, I hope that the concerns registered in this debate will be followed through with vigour. I am sure that the goodwill that exists throughout the chiropody profession can be harnessed to ensure not only a meeting of minds but a building of confidence that will unite the profession in a real and tangible sense. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Carter: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that the other place works in a mysterious and, I am afraid, rather stately way to conduct its business. With that in mind, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 11.30 p.m. That will allow for up to 30 minutes for the tabling of amendments after the Bill has returned from the other place.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 10.27 to 11.30 p.m.]

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON AND AMENDMENT
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 29 as first printed for the Lords.]
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason and amendment be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons reason and amendment be considered forthwith.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
38C After Clause 101, insert the following new Clause—
"SCOPE OF POWERS CONFERRED BY THIS PART
Any powers conferred by this Part, except in so far as they confer powers replacing police powers which existed immediately before the coming into force of this Part, shall only be enforceable in relation to any suspicion, or investigation, or acts, of terrorism or any matters of national security."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
38D Because it is not appropriate to limit the powers conferred by this Part of the Bill in the manner proposed by the amendment.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 38C to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 38D.
1532
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 38C to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 38D.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
66 After Clause 124, insert the following new clause—
"EXPIRY

(1) This Act, apart from Part 12, shall (subject to subsections (2) to (5)) cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which the Act receives Royal Assent.

(2) The Secretary of State may, subject to subsections (3) to (5), by order provide—

(a) that a provision of the Act which is in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall continue in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months;

(b) that a provision of this Act shall cease to have effect;

(c) that a provision of this Act which is not in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall come into force and remain in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months.

(3) Parts 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(4) Parts 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(5) Part 4 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(6) Any order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) must be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."

The Commons insist on their disagreement to this Amendment, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof—
66F Page 72, line 17, insert the following new Clause—
EFFECT OF REPORT

(1) A report under section (Review of Act)(4) may specify any provision of this Act as a provision to which this section applies.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), any provision specified under subsection (1) ceases to have effect at the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the report is laid before Parliament under section (Review of Act)(5).

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if before the end of that period a motion has been made in each House of Parliament considering the report."

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to their Amendment No. 66F in lieu thereof.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to their Amendment No. 66F in lieu thereof.—(Lord Rooker.)
Baroness Williams of Crosby rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed arid do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 66F in lieu thereof, leave out

1533
the words after "disagreed" and insert ", do disagree with Amendment No. 66F and agree the following amendment in lieu thereof—
66G After Clause 124, insert the following new Clause—
"DURATION

(1) This Act shall (subject to subsections (2) to (3)) cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) The Secretary of State may, subject to subsection (3), by order provide—

(a) that a provision of the Act which is in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall continue in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months,—

(b) that a provision of this Act shall cease to have effect;

(c) that a provision of this Act which is not in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall come into force and remain in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months.

(3) This Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed."

(4) Any order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) must be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to argue that we should retain the original amendment which was agreed by the House at the earlier stages of discussion between ourselves and another place. Given the lateness of the hour, I shall put the reasons briefly.
First and foremost, the period is surprisingly long for a piece of sunset legislation compared with earlier terrorism legislation. The original terrorism legislation in 1974, which followed the outrages in Birmingham, Guildford and elsewhere which many people will recall as a result of the operations of the then IRA, made provision for a six-month period followed by a six-month extension, the entire Act to expire within at most one year of the passage of the Act.
In the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, provision was made for one year and an extension of one year by order, after which the Act ceased to operate. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 similarly made provision for a 12-month expiry and a maximum extension of a period of 12 months. In 1996, the then Northern Ireland prevention of terrorism legislation made similar provision. In the Terrorism Act 2000 provision was made for the Act to expire after one year in the case of Part 7 unless it was extended by a statutory order. It also required an annual report.
The concern of those on these Benches with regard to the expiry period is that that originally proposed in the Bill of five years seemed to us exceptionally long for legislation so little debated and discussed as this. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that of the 135 clauses of the Bill, precisely 86 were debated at all in another place. Not a single line of those other clauses was debated in the so-called "elected" Chamber. May I also point out that some of the major clauses in the Bill such as Clause 17, Clause 19 and others, were never adequately debated in another place. In this
1534
House, too, I think that we would have to admit that the debates were, at best, only sketchy for reasons of time.
We do not object to that. We recognise that this is emergency legislation, as we also recognise the scale of the emergency. However, we believe that the original period of five years is exceptionally long to revisit with the full scrutiny of Parliament provisions which will have such a substantial effect on the civil liberties, privacy and freedom of our fellow citizens.
We now have an amendment, to which I believe that the Government have acceded, which suggests that in place of the original proposal to create an automatic expiry of the Bill within a period of one year, we have provision for a Privy Council committee which will review the operations of the Act after two years and will then produce a report, after which the relevant parts of the Bill would expire within six months unless the report produces a reason why they should not so expire.
Let me say simply, by quoting the words of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that,
"in a democracy whose provisions and whose legislation is often regarded as a model for the rest of the democratic world, one should be very careful indeed about allowing this kind of legislation to run for as long a period as is the case on the face of the Bill".
I shall add to that the comment that noble Lords know what happened with emergency legislation passed in many countries that once upon a time were colonies, which then made that provisional legislation permanent—I could cite Malaysia and many African countries. Those noble Lords will understand the great danger if such provisional legislation does become permanent and thus paves the way from democracy to autocracy. On these Benches we do not suggest that that is the case, but perhaps I may say that a committee of the Privy Council, distinguished though no doubt Privy Counsellors are—and I know because I am one of them—is not much of a substitute for proper sunset legislation.
The reason that such a committee is not much of a substitute—let us be direct about it—is, first, that Privy Counsellors come from a rather narrow sector of the community and can have little familiarity with the ways in which the Act will be likely to operate on a number of our fellow citizens, not to speak of those from other and far less fortunate parts of the world. Secondly, Privy Counsellors, by the nature of their position, will be appointed to the review body by whom?—by the Secretary of State. I do not regard that as the clear establishment of the independent judgment of the Privy Counsellors.
Finally, like many other noble Lords, I attended the debates held in another place. There I heard the honourable Member for Hampstead and Highgate complain about the intervention of an unelected House in this legislation. I have to say that what is required for the purposes of scrutiny and review is not only to be elected, but also to have an independent judgment and the commitment of one's own convictions. It is up to another place to find its voice, to express itself and to insist on its own standards of

1535
accountability from the executive to itself. It is in that context that 1 believe that the House of Commons' own reform depends on the willingness of the Members of that House to stand up and demand such reform.
Having made those points, let me conclude by saying that there is no reason of any final kind why Privy Counsellors should not be subject to the agreement of the two Chambers of Parliament in taking up this highly responsible role. It is clear that they should report to the two Chambers of Parliament. I hope that they will feel themselves to be accountable to the two Chambers of Parliament and not only to the Minister who appoints them.
I thank Ministers for the way in which they have dealt with some of the attempts that we have made to modify and change this legislation. I add to that our gratitude to the Official Opposition for the way in which they have conducted their own approach and review of the Bill.
Final victory over terrorists will lie in making emergency legislation of this kind a permanent feature of our democracy, with all the limitations on the civil liberties of citizens that that implies. It is therefore incumbent upon this House to behave not only with great responsibility but to the highest standards of what it is to be—a scrutinising chamber. I am very proud of noble Lords for the way in which they have conducted their part in this Bill. Ultimately, it is now a better and safer Bill, a Bill which will serve well the citizens of this country in an extremely grave and difficult situation. Striking a balance between liberty and security is one of the most difficult tasks any legislative chamber is ever called upon to fulfil. I beg to move. Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 66F in lieu thereof, leave out the words after "disagreed" and insert ", do disagree with Amendment No. 66F and agree Amendment No. 66G in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Williams of Crosby.)
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has made a powerful speech, with which Members in most sectors of the House will have some sympathy. However, ultimately—even in this House, where there is a strong degree of independence and idealism—we have to live in the realms of practical politics, and we have to look at the totality of the Bill as it is now. It is for that reason that we shall not be supporting the noble Baroness in her assertion in regard to Amendment No. 66G.
We are grateful to the Government for the care and consideration that they have given to the views expressed by the House. We have been fortunate to have a much greater time to consider the Bill—rushed though it has been, complain about it though we have—than Members of the other place were permitted. The noble Baroness is correct: we cannot say that the Bill was considered in the other place. But we have demonstrated here that the totality of Parliament can work well on behalf of all the British
1536
people. We have been able to do here that which they were unable to do in another place—that is, to give the Bill considerable detailed consideration. Now, with the help of the Government, we have removed many of its worst faults.
It is a result in which this House can take considerable pride. We have a Bill with which Parliament in its totality can be pleased and which the country in due time will come to appreciate. It has been an immensely hard task for those involved, but we have arrived at what I regard as a satisfactory conclusion. I regret that on this occasion we shall not be supporting the noble Baroness.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I note what the noble Baroness has said. However, I must say that she uttered an unfortunate phrase at this time of night, bearing in mind the position we are in, referring to the "so-called elected Chamber". It is a phrase that she may come to regret later.
I accept that what we propose in lieu of a review of the Act is unique. However, as was made clear earlier, in this country our legislative system does not allow for systematic reviews of Acts of Parliament so that we could ask after mature consideration: does this Act do what Parliament intended when it passed it? We do not have a systematic review like that. It is a matter about which many people in both Houses have complained in the past.
This is a unique structure, asking a group of Privy Counsellors to review the legislation—a minimum of seven; we have not fixed the number. There are 500-odd members of the Privy Council to choose from, of course—some of whom are probably slightly longer in the tooth than myself, it is true. Nevertheless, the chances are that they are likely to be Members of both Houses. They will be people of experience—probably in dealing in the past with so-called emergency legislation. It is an important step.
I must also make the point, so that there is no misunderstanding, that it is our intention that the Act should be reviewed in the way in which it is implemented. It will not merely be a review after two years. It is true that there will be a report before two years, but our intention is that the review will start as soon as the Act comes into effect, so that there will be a constant period of review. We cannot say when, but the committee will be set up and proposals will be drawn up as soon as possible, early in the new year. It has never been our intention that everything should go to sleep and then, all of a sudden after two years, the committee will look at what has happened. Our intention has always been to have a constant review. I hope that no other impression has been given.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the Home Secretary consult before making these appointments; and, if so, with whom?
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, he most certainly will consult. It is not something that we shall do lightly. It

1537
is not a question of the Home Secretary one day publishing a list of names. Of course he will consult as widely as possible. We want to move reasonably quickly on this matter. Much of the legislation comes into force on Royal Assent and, subject to your Lordships' wishes, that will be in a very short period.
I listened to the debate in the other place during the past hour. It is true that there has been a great deal of criticism about the way in which both Houses have dealt with the Bill in terms of time. I accept that in this House the biggest problem has been lack of time for consideration between the Bill's stages. That has caused problems for everyone.
In the other place, many Members could rightly say that three days was not enough time for a piece of legislation such as this—that is a legitimate point—but between both Houses, over a considerable period of hours and days—bearing in mind that the legislation was not rushed; it took us three months to produce it. It may have been produced in an emergency situation, but the Bill is not emergency legislation in the sense of being thought up one week and presented to Parliament the next. It has been improved at every stage of its progress. At every stage of its progress through both Houses changes have been made. To that extent, every part of the process has been an improvement. As the Home Secretary said, 98 per cent of the Bill is there. It is true that there is the other issue, which I shall not go into, regarding religious hatred. Nevertheless, the general thrust of the Bill meets the circumstances in which we find ourselves. It is moderate, proportionate and measured. I also welcome the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in favour of the proposed amendment.
As this is the last time that I shall rise to speak on the Bill, perhaps I may take the opportunity to thank all noble Lords who have participated—sometimes privately with little billets-doux, at other times vociferously in the Chamber. I also want to thank the team of civil servants who have worked on the Bill—I must say, having seen their office in Queen Anne's Gate, in quite appalling conditions. They have worked their socks off night and day, seven days a week during this process. It has been a massive effort—but it has been damned good experience!
I also want to thank my own private office in the Home Office. Dealing with our day-job on immigration and asylum we have a large caseload in addition to this Bill. I look forward to dealing with all the other Home Office Bills that will be brought before your Lordships' House.
Lastly, I thank the ministerial team. Six Ministers have dealt with the Bill on a departmental basis. It has been absolutely crucial that we have been able to operate as a team and to share the load so that we could put before your Lordships a coherent package of measures. The Bill is long and complicated, but the central issue is a simple one: to take some moderate precautions into our legal framework for dealing with the terrorists rewriting their rulebook on 11th September.
Lord McNally: My Lords, perhaps I can take the briefest moment to congratulate the Minister on what I believe was a parliamentary tour de force. When I watched the Home Secretary in another place, I fully appreciated the fact that he is the softy in the Home Office! I want to thank my home team. I often say that if we had to pay them we could not afford them. We have tried to make a constructive contribution from the considerable expertise that exists on these Benches. We are also grateful for the co-operation of the "official" Conservatives. We have all had times when we have lost our cool, but I believe that we have reached a good ending. I thank the Minister.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I beg to seek the opinion of the House on this amendment.
11.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 66G) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 135.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Monson, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Newby, L.

Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Northover, B.

Avebury, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Barker, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Razzall, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Rennard, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falkland, V.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Goodhard, L.

Russell, E.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Greaves, L.

Sharman, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Jacobs, L.

Taverne, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Tope, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

McNally, L.

Walmsley, B.

Maddock, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Borrie, L.

Alli, L.

Brennan, L.

Amos, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Andrews, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Burlison, L.

Attenborough, L.

Burnham, L.

Attlee, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Bach, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Berkeley, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Chadlington, L.

Billingham, B.

Chandos, V.

Blackstone, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Blackwell, L.

Cobbold, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

1539

Colwyn, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.[Teller]

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Crawley, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Mancroft, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Desai, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dubs, L.

Mitchell, L.

Elder, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Moynihan, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Northbrook, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Filkin, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Onslow, E.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Orfuird, V.

Gale, B.

Palumbo, L.

Geddes, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gilbert, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rawlings, B.

Golding, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Goudie, B.

Richard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rooker, L.

Greengross, B.

Saatchi, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Grocott, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hanham, B.

Sawyer, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Seccombe, B.

Sewel, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Simon, V.

Hayman, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thornton, B.

Hoyle, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Warner, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Whitty, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Wilcox, B.

Wilkins, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkham, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Layard, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Animal Health Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Lord Carter: My Lords, for the benefit of my colleagues, I am tempted to say that the Whip is off, the roster stays.
I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 12.25 a.m. For those of your Lordships who wish to be absolutely sure that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill receives Royal Assent, you are extremely welcome to join us in the Chamber. However, three of us will be here to ensure that it does receive Royal Assent.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 12.4 to 12.25 a. m.]

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past midnight.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Entry Clearance Refusals
  Entry Clearance Refusals
  Sri Lankan Asylum Seekers
  Sri Lankan Asylum Seekers
  Firearms Incidents Involving Police Personnel
  Firearms Incidents Involving Police Personnel
  Highly Skilled Migrants
  Highly Skilled Migrants
  Security Council Resolution 1373
  Security Council Resolution 1373
  Doha Declaration
  Doha Declaration
  Near Earth Objects Task Force
  Near Earth Objects Task Force
  Joint Services Adventurous Training (Gliding)
  Joint Services Adventurous Training (Gliding)
  British Troops on Active Service
  British Troops on Active Service
  Chinook Mark 2/2a Helicopter
  Chinook Mark 2/2a Helicopter
  HMS Victory Fore Topsail
  HMS Victory Fore Topsail
  Future Offensive Air System
  Future Offensive Air System
  Private Hospitals in London: NHS Occupancy
  Private Hospitals in London: NHS Occupancy
  Autism
  Autism
  Breast Cancer
  Breast Cancer
  Human Embryonic Stem Cells
  Human Embryonic Stem Cells
  Geron Bio-med
  Geron Bio-med
  Cannabis: Therapeutic Uses Report
  Cannabis: Therapeutic Uses Report
  Diabetes
  Diabetes
  Statutory Provisions: Commencement
  Statutory Provisions: Commencement
  Deaths in Custody
  Deaths in Custody
  Rural Task Force
  Rural Task Force
  Primary School Teachers: Male Graduates
  Primary School Teachers: Male Graduates