Sitting of 12 February 2001

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

    European Defence
    Sir Sydney Chapman: When he plans to meet the US Defence Secretary to discuss European security and defence policy. [148218]
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: If he will make a statement on European defence co-operation. [148219]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I met the United States Defence Secretary on 3 February at the annual security conference, in Munich. European security and defence was one of several issues that we discussed. On 14–15 December 2000, the North Atlantic Council welcomed the conclusions on European defence of the European Council, at Nice. The Council re-affirmed its determination to reinforce NATO's European pillar and stated that it shared the goal endorsed
    2
    by European Union member states at Nice of a genuine strategic partnership in crisis management between NATO and the EU.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: In view of the Secretary of State's very last comment and the fact that the Prime Minister said last week that it would be his policy to strengthen defence inside NATO, can the Secretary of State explain how those comments square with the St. Malo Anglo-French agreement, which asserted:
    "The European Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed by credible military forces",
    and
    "recourse to sustainable military means … outside the NATO framework"?
    Is not that yet another example of prime ministerial double-speak, and will it not be Government double-speak?
    Mr. Hoon: It has always been quite clear that any significant operation involving the European Union would look, first of all, to NATO for its operational planning and, indeed, for NATO assets. Equally, however, it has always been recognised, as is the case today of course, that individual member states might join other EU member states for small operations distant from NATO—for example, ones involving humanitarian relief, which is central to the Petersberg tasks. In those circumstances, the St. Malo agreement is wholly consistent with the current position. Indeed, it is wholly consistent with the position that the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly supported when the previous Government were in office.
    Mr. Waterson: When the Foreign Secretary said last week that the European defence force would remain "securely anchored" in NATO, how did that sit with the documents signed at Nice, which said that
    "the entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU",

    3
    and that NATO will only be "informed of the developments"? Are not the Government, as always, saying different things to different audiences?
    Mr. Hoon: No, they are not. It is clear that decisions taken by the European Union can be taken only by European Union member states. In a sense, therefore, the hon. Gentleman is stating the obvious. As I said to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), there will be circumstances in which—for small, humanitarian-type operations, consistent with the Petersberg tasks—the European Union may well choose to act alone, as member states could do now.
    Ms Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are committed to a strong future for NATO, the United Kingdom Government must use their key position in Europe and their special relationship with the United States to prevent and deal with misunderstandings and to help to deliver a stronger European Union defence capability? Does he also agree that the two things that threaten NATO's future most are, first, European nations not delivering greater operational effectiveness for NATO; and, secondly, the anti-European rantings and scaremongering of Conservative Members?
    Mr. Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we maintain a strong defence within NATO, and that we strengthen NATO's European pillar. That argument was first advanced by President Kennedy on behalf of the United States, and successive United States Administrations, including the new one, have made it quite clear that it is vital that the Europeans are more capable of being responsible for their own defence. Sadly, Conservative Members want to be completely isolated, not only in the European Union, but in the wider European area. Of the 25 states gathered together in the aftermath of the Brussels capability conference, not one did not want to participate in improving European defence; in the unlikely event of Conservative Members ever again taking power in the United Kingdom, this country would be the only one in the whole of Europe.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on Friday, President Chirac said that development of European security and defence
    "se fait et ne peut que se faire en complete harmonie avec I'OTAN."
    In English, that means that European security and defence can be carried out only in complete agreement with NATO. Is it not a disgrace that, this week, the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), will travel to Washington to tell lies about European defence—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister needs to answer that question.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: Does the Secretary of State agree that the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States on defence and security issues goes beyond NATO, is deeper than that between any other two NATO partners, and that development of a common European security policy should in no way necessarily break that special relationship? Is it not also true that the best way of ensuring the survival of the
    4
    Atlantic alliance is for the United Kingdom to be the lead nation in developing the European defence and security policy? Will he pursue that matter?
    Mr. Hoon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in that series of comments. It is vital that we maintain our excellent relationship with the United States and, indeed, with the new United States Administration. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in the United States in the past week. In the course of a number of conversations with various members of the new Administration, positive support was given to the efforts that European nations are making to improve their contribution to NATO. Specifically, Secretary of State Powell said:
    "I can tell you that within the Bush Administration the President and I and Secretary Rumsfeld and Dr Rice and others think we have a very good understanding of what the European Security and Defence Initiative is all about: an effort on the part of our European friends to increase their capability for rapid reaction in Europe and wherever the need might arise. And we support that goal."
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State now wants to claim anyone who has ever spoken vaguely about anything in the past. He is claiming President Kennedy; soon, no doubt, it will be Napoleon and Alexander the Great. Is not the reality that, at that very meeting, the US Defence Secretary raised serious concerns? Are not my hon. Friends right when they talk about the Government leading the process from start to finish, hand in hand with the French and the Germans? Will he comment on the fact that, today, Mr. Scharping has said:
    "As the European Union develops its security and defence policy and becomes an independent actor, we must determine our security policy with Russia, our biggest neighbour"?
    Is not the reality that the Foreign Secretary has gone to Washington, spinning the Americans a load of nonsense about what the Government signed, but that he cannot admit that the safeguards that he guarantees to Washington are simply not there?
    Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the words he has just used, he will see that they amount to everyone else in history, and currently, being wrong apart from the present Conservative party. If the Conservatives thought more carefully about how isolated they are on matters European, it might give them some credibility when addressing the issues. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman talks about isolation when he cannot find a single country anywhere in the European continent that supports his position on European defence. That is pretty desperate.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State never bothers with the facts. At Nice, the Government signed some undertakings: first, that EU forces would be both autonomous and independent of NATO; secondly, that the planning of operations would take place outside of NATO; thirdly, that the EU will make the first decision on what it will do and then may consult NATO; and, finally, that political and strategic control of the forces will stay with the EU, not within NATO Is not the reality that the Government are, as ever, saying one thing and doing

    5
    another? In Washington, they are saying, "Trust us, we will stop this happening", while back in Europe, they are saying, "Don't worry boys, we love everything about it"?
    Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman wants to deal in the facts, he had better get them right. It has been made clear that operational planning will be a matter for NATO and there will be agreement between the EU and NATO to ensure that we do not develop duplicate facilities. Operational planning will be the firm responsibility of NATO. That has been agreed between NATO and the EU and is part of the underpinning that we have negotiated to ensure that there is no inconsistency between European defence in the EU and European defence as part of NATO.

    KFOR
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will make a statement on the involvement of KFOR as a consequence of Albanian insurgency into Macedonia and southern Serbia. [148220]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): We can be justly proud of the contribution British forces make to the multinational effort to bring peace and stability to Kosovo.
    Our forces continue to play a pivotal role in the NATO-led multinational force in creating a stable environment in which the UN mission can carry out its vital work in developing civil society and local administration.
    KFOR troops continue to monitor closely ethnic Albanian extremism in southern Serbia, and its operations to interdict men and material crossing the administrative boundary have been stepped up. In recent weeks, British forces have made a significant contribution to preventing ethnic violence and lawlessness, both in the region bordering the Presevo valley in Serbia, and in Mitrovica, where extremists persist in their attempts to block progress towards a peaceful multi-ethnic society.
    In the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, policing and internal security remains a matter for the FYROM authorities. However, there has been dialogue between KFOR and FYROM on border security issues, and NATO has offered advice.
    Mr. Dalyell: Why is it that marauding Albanians, rightly apprehended by British members of KFOR, are dispatched to the Americans at camp Bondsteel?
    Mr. Spellar: Forces operating in Multinational Brigade (East) are reinforcing the United States efforts but are, of course, under the control of MNB(E). Camp Bondsteel is the main centre for that. We do not have sufficient facilities available there to detain those numbers of people.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Have the new United States Administration given any indication about whether they intend to withdraw their forces from Kosovo? If they have, or they do so in the near future, are European forces capable of filling the gap?
    Mr. Spellar: The United States Administration have clearly indicated that they are evaluating their worldwide
    6
    commitments. They have also indicated that they will not be taking any precipitous action, particularly in the Balkans, and that they will have discussions with allies on any changes that they might propose, following the evaluation that any new Administration would quite naturally make.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: My hon. Friend may be aware that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs was in Yugoslavia last week. We heard some very positive proposals by the Yugoslav Government to try to defuse the problems in the Presevo valley and to allow co-operation between the Yugoslav army and KFOR to deal with extremists while bringing moderate Albanians in Presevo more fully into public life in Yugoslavia. How are we responding to those proposals and making sure that KFOR responds positively as well?
    Mr. Spellar: I understand that the Foreign Affairs Committee was impressed with the work being undertaken in Kosovo. We certainly welcome Belgrade's willingness to address these issues constructively and have noted Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Covic's proposals. NATO has taken these concerns seriously. We are also considering further measures and the NATO Secretary-General has had an exchange of letters with President Kostunica.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Clearly, there are no quick fixes in the Balkans but there may be slow fixes. Will the Minister assure the House that the professionalism and dedication of British troops on the ground will be matched by the determination and support of the Government for as long as it takes?
    Mr. Spellar: Yes.

    Strategic Defence Review
    Mr. Tony Colman: If he will make a statement on progress in the implementation of the strategic defence review. [148221]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Ministry of Defence is continuing to make excellent progress in implementing the long-term programme set out in the strategic defence review. More than half of the key measures have already been completed. The large majority of the remainder are on track and we remain committed to ensuring that the strategic defence review is implemented in full.
    Mr. Colman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in implementing the SDR, the Government have had to take account of failings in defence equipment brought into service under the previous Government? Is he aware that since the review, and as a result of the significant new investment that this Government have made, those failings are either being repaired or have been repaired, and that the Chief of the Defence Staff himself, Sir Charles Guthrie, has confirmed that British forces are well equipped?
    Mr. Hoon: May I take this opportunity of publicly congratulating the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Charles Guthrie, on his impending retirement? I thank him on

    7
    behalf of the four Secretaries of State for Defence whom he has served under two Governments. Most importantly, however, I thank him on behalf of the British people and Her Majesty's armed forces for a career of distinguished and unfailing service.
    Sir Charles Guthrie has said that British forces are now better equipped that any time in his long and distinguished career. Indeed, his successor, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, has indicated that the Royal Navy currently has the best forward programme of warship building than at any stage in his naval career.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, instead of expanding the regular Army by 3,000, as planned in the strategic defence review, the numbers have dropped slightly, and that the proportion of soldiers who are unfit for combat service has increased? Will he also confirm that we have a shortfall of one sixth—17 per cent.—in RAF fast-jet pilots, an even larger proportionate shortfall in Royal Navy fast-jet pilots and that the serviceability across all our major classes of aeroplanes has declined since the SDR was published?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman gives an accurate account of the problems that we inherited. We have sought to resolve several issues, not least improving retention. Recruitment remains buoyant for the Army, and we are on track to deliver the manning required by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force under the strategic defence review.
    There is a short-term problem with fast-jet pilots. We have sought to address that through the recent armed forces' pay review body, and have accepted its recommendations in their entirety, specifically the recommendation on extra payments for fast-jet pilots. We shall address the longer-term problems by seeking to train more pilots to fill the many aircraft that we look forward to procuring for the RAF and Royal Navy.
    Mr. John McFall: One of the aims of the strategic defence review was improvement of performance in the public service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be aware that the work force at Clyde submarine base, in my constituency, have shown commitment and loyalty over the years. Given the latest exercise in saving on expenditure, can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will take seriously the combined trade union response on the future of the work force? Can he assure me that he will not hand the work force lock, stock and barrel to Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd. or the private sector, but have a public-private partnership to improve the stability and efficiency of the base now and in the future?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He and I have held a meeting to discuss proposals to make our systems of warship maintenance and support still more efficient. I have received various suggestions from him and from the trade unions. We are also working closely with the employers to ensure that whatever support we give to the Royal Navy will be the best value for the taxpayer.
    Mr. Robert Key: May I associate Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition with the Secretary of State's thanks to the Chief of the Defence Staff? I congratulate
    8
    General Sir Charles Guthrie on his retirement and his distinguished career. I am sorry that he is retiring, as he told us this weekend that the European Union rapid reaction force would not have a fighting role during his lifetime and that the military should not be undermined by barmy ideas. Why is the Secretary of State determined to ignore his chief military adviser and press ahead with deeply unpopular plans to peg military pay to politically correct targets rather than military effectiveness?
    Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about General Sir Charles Guthrie, but he should put Sir Charles's comments in the correct context. The Chief of the Defence Staff was, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, referring to war-fighting capability, and the Government agree with what he said. War-fighting is the kind of activity that we expect NATO to carry out as a result of our collective defence obligations. General Sir Charles Guthrie was quite right to refer to the fact that it is unlikely that the EU will have a war-fighting role. European defence is about crisis management and the Petersberg tasks, not war-fighting.

    Defence Budget
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What the level of underspending in the defence budget is. [148222]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The latest forecasts are for expenditure to match the total to be sought in the spring supplementary estimates.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Given that the Government have cut £5 billion from the defence budget since 1997, will the Secretary of State guarantee that none of the underspend—amounting to several hundred million pounds—on last year's budget will be returned to the Treasury?
    Mr. Hoon: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, because I suspect that he was put up to ask that question by his Front-Bench colleagues, who appear not to understand the way in which departmental budgets work in government. In particular, they do not appear to understand that Departments are responsible to Parliament for their spending. If they understood that, the shadow Defence Secretary might not have told the News of the World that the underspend represented some sort of cut, as the hon. Gentleman's question suggests.
    I suggest that the hon. Gentleman or his Front-Bench colleagues take a little tutorial from the Library on how departmental underspends are dealt with year on year, particularly for defence. Underspends are carried into the next financial year and are spent on defence. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about underspending, I recommend that he ask the House of Commons Library what the underspend was for 1994–95 and 1995–96. He will find that the underspends then were entirely comparable to the amount that he is concerned about today. I should be interested to know whether he asked any questions about that at the time.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: My goodness, the Secretary of State goes on for an awfully long time to say absolutely nothing; he will

    9
    not answer the question. Let us take him back to the accounts. As he knows, he wrote to me on 6 February about the News of the World article, and claimed:
    "There is no question that the total £241 million underspend on the Defence Programme is somehow going to be taken away by the Treasury."
    The Secretary of State does not even read his accounts; the figure is about £317 million. The accounts state:
    "Actual surplus to be surrendered."
    So, according to the accounts, that money will be surrendered to the Treasury. The Treasury will decide whether it goes back to the right hon. Gentleman. The Minister for the Armed Forces—sitting next to the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench—does not even know anyway, but that is to be expected. In the article, the Minister insisted that
    "unused money would not be given back to the Treasury."
    We have got used to the Government being unable to tell us the truth about European defence, but for them to be unable even to tell us the truth about the accounts shows a level of incompetence that is breathtaking.
    Mr. Hoon: What is breathtaking about the hon. Gentleman is the level of his ignorance of the way in which government works. If he understood anything about that—after he was elected to the House of Commons, he supported the then Conservative Government for five years—he would know full well that the underspend is available to the Department to carry over into the next year. He would also know—[Interruption.] This should be a matter of concern for Members of the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman should know that the reason why there is so much anxiety to ensure that Departments stay within departmental totals is that those totals are approved by Parliament. That is why, year on year—[Interruption.]—and, specifically under the previous Conservative Government, there was a series of underspends to ensure that the MOD stayed within the total granted by Parliament. The matter is not simply that the hon. Gentleman fails to understand how government works—I might expect that, because he is unlikely ever to be in government; he does not understand how the House of Commons works either. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. When Members on the Opposition Front Bench ask a question, I expect them to allow an answer to be made.

    Missile Defence Systems
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What assessment he has made of the desirability of antimissile defence. [148224]
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What expenditure has been incurred at Fylingdales in preparation for national missile defence. [148227]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We continue to assess the potential role of ballistic missile defence systems in countering missile attacks. We have not received a request from the United States to site elements of national missile defence in the
    10
    United Kingdom; nor have we incurred expenditure on any works at RAF Fylingdales in preparation for any such request.
    Dr. Cable: Why does the Minister think that a proposal originally designed to deter attack from small rogue states is seen as such a major threat to nuclear powers such as Russia and China? If those countries retaliate, as they say they will, by expanding their nuclear capability or nuclear defence—triggering effects in countries such as India—what estimate has he made of how that escalation will affect our own security?
    Mr. Hoon: A number of considerations arise in relation to the hon. Gentleman's question. They have been addressed by the US and by this country, in considering the implications of missile defence systems. Clearly, before the US takes a specific decision, it is important that it should consult allies and, indeed, Russia. The new US Administration have made it clear that they would do so—thereby dealing with the type of strategic implications indicated by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State accept that NMD is an extremely dangerous adventure, incredibly expensive for both the United States and any other country that participates in it, and completely at variance with the views of the world court on the legality of nuclear weapons and with the stated aim of the Government that we were in favour of a non-nuclear world in the future? Furthermore, is he aware of the cost of NMD? One 20-missile battery would be 150 per cent. of the cost of the existing British Trident submarine fleet. Does he not think that that is a scandalous waste of money and that we should show more concern for a non-nuclear world than creating the nuclearisation of space and all the dangers that go with it?
    Mr. Hoon: No, I do not.
    Mr. William Cash: Will the Secretary of State give me a straight answer to a simple question? Given the Nice treaty and the references, which I have seen in the control-and-command system that is being set up, to a nuclear capacity in relation to the use of nuclear weaponry, does he have more confidence in our reliance on the French or on the Americans?
    Mr. Hoon: We work closely with our French allies and our United States allies inside NATO. Indeed, as recently as last Friday at the Anglo-French summit, we discussed a range of matters on which we intend to pursue closer co-operation with our French allies—for example, closer co-operation between our two navies, questions of logistics and the ways in which amphibious forces can be organised. We recognise that it is important to establish close co-operation not only with France and the United States, but with the range of allies with whom we have worked closely for a long time.
    Mr. Tony Benn: Did the Secretary of State acquaint himself with the views of Admiral Eugene Carroll—a retired American naval admiral, with a very fine record of service over the years—who made it clear at various meetings in the House of Commons that this was not a nuclear missile defence scheme, but a process

    11
    under which the United States would aim to dominate the space of the world and be able to destroy any land installation by laser beams; that, inevitably, it is bound to lead to a response by Russia and China; and that it is not at all welcome in Europe, no doubt for that reason? Will he make it clear that to leave the decision until after the election, on the ground that no proposal has yet been made, would not be a very wise decision to take?
    Mr. Hoon: I am aware of a number of different opinions in the United States. There is a range of views, both in support of and critical of proposals for missile defence systems. As I have said, there is a range of different proposals. Some of them—perhaps, for the moment, those at the fantastic end of the spectrum—appear to involve proposals with lasers. However, a range of issues is being considered by the present Administration. The only thing that I should emphasise to my right hon. Friend is, of course, that the new United States President was elected specifically on a promise to the American people to go ahead with systems of missile defence and, in those circumstances, my right hon. Friend should not be surprised when, in due course, the United States makes such a proposal.
    Mr. John Bercow: Instead of subjecting us to a diet of waffle, prevarication and stonewalling on this crucial issue of public policy, why does not the right hon. Gentleman simply own up to the fact that the reason why he will not state whether in principle he is in favour of national missile defence as a protection for this country against the antics of rogue states is that the Government are deeply split on the matter? Whereas he and his hon. Friends can see the credible advantages of such a system, his right hon. Friend, the former CND fanatic—the Foreign Secretary, no less—is profoundly against it because he has always been and remains a one-sided nuclear and other disarmer?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman should know, of course, that the Government are always of one mind on any given issue. However, let me make it clear to him that the United States has taken no decision on specific missile defence systems and, therefore, there has been no specific request to the United Kingdom regarding the use of any facility here. We share the United States's concerns about missile proliferation; we have worked with the United States for many years on ways to improve defensive systems. As its closest ally, we would, of course, want to respond helpfully should a request be made by the United States. That point has been made in our early discussions with the new US Administration.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that Government policy has not changed since their response to a Select Committee on Foreign Affairs report in which they state that the Government
    "values the stability which the ABM Treaty provides, and wishes to see it preserved. At no point has the Government given the US Administration reason to assume unqualified UK cooperation with NMD deployment … the Government is strongly in favour of deeper, carefully considered international dialogue on this complex and difficult issue."?
    Mr. Hoon: May I make it clear to my hon. Friend that the ABM treaty was concluded between the United States
    12
    and Russia? The treaty has been amended in the past and is therefore capable of further amendment should the parties—the United States and Russia—choose to make further amendments. We certainly value a degree of strategic control should that be appropriate, and as part of the consultation process that the United States has suggested we will urge that the United States and Russia look to a degree of strategic control for the future. However, as I said in relation to the previous question, in our earlier discussions with the United States Administration we said that, as the United States is our closest ally, we would want to be helpful should it make a specific request on this matter.

    Army (New Equipment)
    Mr. Barry Jones: What plans he has to introduce new equipment for the Army. [148225]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): We are investing in a number of new systems that will ensure that the Army's capability is maintained at the highest level. The Apache helicopter entered service last month, and plans for future equipment include new armoured engineering vehicles and, in the longer term, improvements to the range and accuracy of our artillery weapons, a fully integrated fighting system for the infantry and a new range of armoured fighting vehicles. We have also taken decisive action to rectify two long-standing equipment problems by commencing a modification programme for the SA80 rifle and by launching a new competition for the Bowman radio requirement.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Ministry still committed to purchasing the new heavy lift aircraft, the A400M? I urge him to ensure that he purchases not 25 but 45 of that aircraft, and makes sure that the wings are made in my constituency, where 4,800 skilled workers stand ready to be of service to him. May I further tell him that, in the Airbus consortium, our German colleagues are lobbying like mad to get the contract to make the wings? As we have had steel redundancies in Wales, including at Shotton in my constituency, manufacturing would receive a big boost if he would say that 45 aircraft will be purchased and that the wings will be made in my constituency.
    Dr. Moonie: I assure my right hon. Friend that we are absolutely committed to the purchase of the A400M. Plans for its development are progressing well. I am confident that the wings will be built in his constituency and will preserve the jobs that will be underpinned as a consequence.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister accept that until we have robot wars, we need human beings to operate the equipment? Is not the British Army 8,000 men short? What would the Minister say to the Staffordshire Regiment, whose representatives said at a meeting in the House of Commons only a week and a half ago that, for the first time since the second world war, it is undermanned by more than 250?
    Dr. Moonie: I am well aware of the deficiencies in numbers that we inherited from the previous

    13
    Government—deficiencies that, like them, we have done our best to remedy. The hon. Gentleman must recognise, however, that demographic changes in this country make it increasingly difficult to recruit into the armed forces. We are taking effective action to improve recruitment and retention through the package of support that we are giving to families, and through the improvements that we are making to accommodation. The picture in the next few years will be very much better than over the past few years.

    Future Offshore Vehicles
    Mr. Mike Hancock: When his Department will complete its evaluation of the tenders for the future offshore vehicles contract; and if he will make a statement. [148226]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Invitations to tender for the future offshore patrol vessel contract were issued on 12 December 2000. The closing date for submitting bids was 8 February 2001. If industry's responses confirm improved value for money over the current service, the intention is to be able to place a contract in April 2001.
    Mr. Hancock: Is the Minister aware of the importance of the contract to the employees of Vosper Thornycroft in the south of Hampshire, who currently face redundancy because of a shortage of work? In view of the important industrial implications, will he give a commitment to the House that the Defence Procurement Agency will complete its evaluation of the bids as quickly as is practicable, and will countenance no further delay? Will he also assure the House that the agency will be vigilant about the predatory bids for the contract that might be on the horizon, and rule them out of order? That will safeguard the position in which we have more than one shipbuilder building warships for the British Government.
    Dr. Moonie: I am well aware of the importance that shipbuilders in the hon. Gentleman's area attach to the contract. I assure him that there will be no delays in reaching a conclusion on the bids that we have received. We are also well aware of the importance of competition.
    Mr. Syd Rapson: I declare an interest as a member of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, which has a presence in the industry. Given the size of future shipbuilding operations in this country and the extra capacity that is required, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to maintain the two asset bases, one on the Clyde and one on the south coast, because having two United Kingdom companies that are efficient in that sector increases our chances of building and exporting warships?
    Dr. Moonie: As I have said, we recognise the importance of diversity of location and ownership in shipbuilding for our armed forces. That includes the north-east and the north-west, as well as the south coast and the Clyde. We will do everything we can to ensure that we get best value for money and continue to support British industry.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: What confidence can there be that the Ministry of Defence will handle the
    14
    competition fairly? The strategic defence review identified two LSLs as a requirement, but it was decided that four were needed instead, two of which were given, without competition, to the Yarrow yard. That has probably enabled Yarrow, which is owned by BAE Systems Marine Ltd., to launch a predatory bid for those craft. Is it not time the Ministry returned to the use of competition as the guiding principle, and stopped handing out contracts to giants such as BAE Systems, in the interests of industrial rather than defence policy?
    Dr. Moonie: I must point out that the original requirement was for six of those ships, not four. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Dr. Moonie: When we are placing a large procurement order, such as the one mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, there is clearly a trade-off between where to place the shipbuilding orders and the time within which we want to bring the ships into service. Our armed forces are absolutely delighted with the speed with which we managed to place the orders.

    Royal Navy (Pay and Conditions)
    Mr. Tony McWalter: What steps he is taking to improve pay and conditions of Royal Navy personnel. [148228]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The terms and conditions of naval service personnel are subjected to regular review to ensure their currency and fairness. The rates of pay and associated allowances of naval service personnel are reviewed annually by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which bases its recommendations on broad comparability with similarly weighted civilian jobs. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on Friday, the review body's recommendations for the 2001 pay award have been accepted in full by the Government and will be implemented from 1 April. The settlement is good for all the armed forces and is fully deserved, given the excellent job that they do.
    Mr. McWalter: Does my hon. Friend agree that many people in the armed forces welcome the improvements that he describes? However, vessels such as HMS Ocean were not so much lean-manned ships as scandalously undermanned, as part of the previous Government's arrangements? Will he ensure that staffing levels on such ships are high enough to keep them clean, so that they can be a source of pride to the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Spellar: I assure my hon. Friend that the Navy's leadership is ensuring that our ships are properly and adequately manned. It is also undertaking effective recruiting, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, and the Royal Air Force and the Navy are moving towards achieving the required staffing balance.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Does the Minister agree that the most unfair aspect of pay and pensions is the so-called pensions trough, whereby some people who retired at a time of pay restraint are £1,000 or more a year

    15
    worse off than people who may have retired only a few days later? Does he also agree that if those pensions were part of a private scheme, the trustees would have tried to address the problem? Will he face up to the representations made to him by the Officers Pensions Society and others to deal with that injustice?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the issue is difficult and has been faced by Governments of both parties for many years. It affects not only the armed forces pension scheme, but a considerable number of public sector schemes as well. It is a little disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to imply that there may be a separation between the armed forces scheme and the schemes for the rest of the public sector. As I said, all Governments have faced that difficulty, and in 18 years, the previous Government did nothing about it.
    Ms Claire Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that armed forces personnel serving abroad receive less pay than they do when they are based in barracks here? Will he give a commitment to consider that issue?
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend is probably referring to overseas allowances for personnel in Germany and the Balkans. That is a difficult matter, which raises taxation issues. The previous Administration also faced those problems—but I am not trying to place the responsibility on them. Individuals who serve in Germany and the Balkans may not be better off in their overall service, because they will be affected by a different tax regime. However, we recognise the problems caused by separation; that is why we introduced enhanced separation allowances.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the Minister realise that the shortfall of naval pilots in joint force Harrier is not just a question of money? Does he understand that although RAF Cottesmore is an agreeable location—it is a former bomber base in good hunting country—it is not exactly the same as a naval air station where there is salt in the air, and the traditions, atmosphere and ethos encourage Fleet Air Arm pilots, like other naval personnel, to stay and to feel at home?
    Mr. Spellar: I have been to Yeovilton and I did not notice too much salt flying across from the waves on the beach. Like many other countries, we face considerable pressures in recruiting naval air personnel and RAF pilots, because of the expansion of the civil airline industry. I wish only that the industry paid for all its own training, instead of constantly poaching personnel from the air force. We are looking to improve and increase output from the training system, but that will take time. That is why we have, as the hon. Gentleman will know, introduced measures to encourage retention, so as to sustain our operational effectiveness. The Navy and the RAF are hopeful and optimistic that those will have a significant positive effect.
    Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend will be aware that for some years I have been campaigning to have removed the arcane old-fashioned regulations that affect the pay of Navy, Army and RAF personnel. Those regulations prevent the operation of deduction of earnings orders that the Child Support Agency has imposed on
    16
    some personnel, and so help them to avoid their responsibilities. When will the Minister do something about that? The new CSA arrangements will do nothing to deal with the backlog of cases affected by those regulations, and that is a crying shame.
    Mr. Spellar: I know that my hon. Friend has met the Under-Secretary of State to discuss the matter. My recollection from my days as Under-Secretary is that the percentage that can be deducted from service pay is greater than the CSA levels that are to be introduced. I admit that problems arise because of arrears, which are often due to CSA bureaucracy. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is considering the matter.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: I wonder whether the Government have any conception of the consternation and chaos produced throughout the armed forces by their ill-conceived and mishandled pay proposals for 2000. What possible sense or justice is there in paying a cook more than a bomb disposal expert with the same rank and seniority? I spent Thursday with an all-party group on one of the Royal Navy's largest ships. The whole complement was in a state of cold fury about the proposals. Is it surprising that with such a ham-fisted Government, morale and retention in all the services are collapsing—contrary to the complacent impression given by Ministers earlier in response to my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)?
    Mr. Spellar: Everyone recognises that changed pay systems always create some difficulties, especially in their early stages. Policies are designed to be more flexible so that they can be adapted to changing circumstances. Everyone will have the opportunity to increase his earnings within his rank, in recognition of experience and qualifications. The second major change is a more targeted approach, which will allow us to address accurately particular areas of need. Allowances will be focused more efficiently on recruitment and retention. It is a strategy for retaining the best alongside the strategy for change. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) indicates some dissent. That is slightly surprising, as that was said at the introduction of the policy in February 1997, in the foreword signed by the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo).

    Royal Navy (Front-line Equipment)
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What progress he has made with enhancing front-line equipment for the Royal Navy. [148230]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): We have under way the largest warship programme for many years. This includes the type 45 destroyer equipped with the principal anti-air missile system; new aircraft carriers with new carrier-borne aircraft and airborne early-warning aircraft; Astute class submarines; new amphibious support ships; and multi-role survey vessels. The Royal Navy will also be

    17
    supported with new roll on/roll off vessels and new auxiliary oilers. This is just part of a huge programme of modernisation that, I am happy to say, is progressing well.
    Mrs. Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that the Government's plans to procure two new larger aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy will not be affected by the outcome of the general election?
    Dr. Moonie: Given the performance of the Opposition, I do not think that that will be a problem.
    Mr. David Chidgey: Does the Minister recall saying a few moments ago that the Government believed in competition within the warship-building industry? Does he not realise that when the Secretary of State announced fair and equal shares in the type 45 programme last year, that in itself persuaded Vosper Thornycroft to share its commercial and engineering techniques with the big players? As a result, it is subject to predatory pricing and is likely to be driven out of the marketplace, which would be a loss to warship building and to the country's economy? What does the Minister have to say about honouring the pledges made in the House to protect smaller players from predatory pricing?
    Dr. Moonie: There has been no change to date in our policy, which is to conduct a procurement exercise involving both yards, under the direction of the prime contractor. That remains the policy.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend ensure that future large aircraft carriers will be capable of operating Eurofighter, as that will ensure that we have a seaworthy—or rather, sea-going—version of Eurofighter, which will benefit jobs in the north-west?
    Dr. Moonie: The decision on the further development of Eurofighter has not yet been taken. I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware that we are committed to supporting the early stages of development of the joint strike fighter, which promises to be a most exciting and effective aircraft.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will any royal naval fleet submarines be decommissioned earlier than planned?
    Dr. Moonie: No.

    Defence Expenditure
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: How much total expenditure on defence was as a percentage of gross domestic product in the last financial year. [148231]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Over the last year defence spending has represented 2.4 per cent. of gross domestic product.
    Mr. Williams: Will my hon. Friend confirm that defence expenditure, though rising as a percentage of gross domestic product, is much lower than it was in the
    18
    mid 1980s, thanks to the peace dividend? Will he also confirm that a higher proportion of that spending is now spent on peacekeeping than on offensive capability?
    Mr. Spellar: These issues are not so easily divisible. The ability to undertake high-intensity war fighting also produces the forces that have been able to react rapidly throughout the world, very professionally, to bring peace and stability to many areas—to Kosovo, to Sierra Leone and elsewhere. That is all part of the overall capability of our armed forces.

    NATO (European Security)
    Mr. Tim Loughton: When he last met the NATO Secretary General to discuss European security. [148232]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I last discussed European security with Lord Robertson at the North Atlantic Council Defence Ministers meeting on 5 and 6 December 2000.
    Mr. Loughton: Does the Secretary of State agree with the head of the European Union's new military staff that, in time, EU rapid reaction forces will compete with NATO?
    Mr. Hoon: No, I do not. Indeed, as we have negotiated the way forward between the EU and NATO, it has been clear Government policy that there should no duplication whatever of complementary abilities. We want to make sure that the remaining details that still have to be negotiated are right, and we fully agree with the United States that it is important that there should be no duplication of the various available facilities.

    Service Personnel
    Mr. Russell Brown: If he will make a statement on the change in the total number of service personnel since 1979. [148233]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): On 1 April 1979, the trained strength of the armed forces was 284,200. On 1 December 2000, the trained strength of the armed forces was 189,318. The reduction in the size of the armed forces over the last 20 years reflects changes in the requirements of the international situation and defence policy. The roles of the armed forces have changed from those envisaged in the cold war to those defined in the strategic defence review. Our aim is to achieve a balance of resources between platforms, weapons and people, to generate and maintain modern, joint battle-winning forces.
    Mr. Brown: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the bulk of the cuts in the number of service personnel occurred under the previous Administration? How many foreign policy-led strategic reviews of defence policy, as opposed to reviews led by the need for Tory cuts, have been carried out since 1979?
    Mr. Spellar: I assure my hon. Friend that, as he rightly says, the strategic defence review was led by policy imperatives, followed by resource requirements. He is

    19
    right to identify the fact that under the previous Administration, any such reviews were Treasury led and cuts oriented. Not only were there cuts in the numbers in the armed forces, but targets were overshot. We inherited that situation. It was undesirable because of the extra pressure on our forces, and because it gave a clear impression to people outside that the forces were no longer recruiting. I pay tribute to the recruitment organisations of the three services, which have made a considerable effort to get across the message that we are in the business of recruitment, and are still hiring considerable numbers of high-quality young people.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the Minister accept that, as the Adjutant-General said, at the present inflow rate of personnel to the Army, it will take 31 years to achieve the Government's targets? There is therefore no room for complacency. Does he also accept that putting women in the front line in the Army is not likely to enhance morale in the armed services? Furthermore, will he comment on the activities of two Army women who have invited contempt for the Army? Will he do something about that, so that such people do not treat the Army as a game? It is a fully professional service, and women should not treat it in that way.
    Mr. Spellar: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been reading the wrong newspapers. I am pleased to hear that he is contradicting his own leader on the issue of women in the front line.
    20
    Rather than leap in to this subject, Ministers are awaiting the professional and thorough study undertaken by the Army, which will report later this year. We will evaluate that and report to the House. We are certainly not complacent about recruitment numbers. As I just said, we inherited a serious situation: not only were numbers down, but the impression had been given that we were no longer recruiting. [Interruption.] Contrary to the impression given by the bawling of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), numbers in the Army are going up. That is a tremendous tribute to the training machine that gets recruits through to the Army, and the efforts of our recruiters, especially as employment levels have risen by 1 million, thanks to the excellent economic policies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Traditionally, people believe that recruitment suffers when employment rises—but now the attraction of our armed forces ensures that recruitment, too is rising. That is good for the forces, and a good sign for our economy.
    Mr. David Winnick: Should it not be entirely for women in the armed forces to decide whether they are capable and fit to do the job in the front line? If they are, they should be able to do it, and there should be no discrimination against them. Should that not be the Government's policy?
    Mr. Spellar: Our policy is to await the outcome of the review being conducted by the Army, which will be conducted in depth, and extremely professional. We would, of course, be interested to know what the joined-up policy of the Opposition is.

Point of Order
3.30 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not against the Standing Orders and procedures of the House that on a day allocated for Opposition time, the Government should make a non-essential statement, particularly when the contents of that statement have been trailed all weekend in the media?
Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Lady's concern, but the statement is not against the procedures of the House. The Minister is entitled to make a statement before the House.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It must be a point of order relating to the statement; otherwise I will take it after the statement.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to the original point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you advise the House whether you have any discretion as to whether to allow a statement to be made? The Minister should ask your permission to make a statement, and the request should be judged not least by whether the statement is genuinely urgent, particularly on a day that is supposed to be allocated to the Opposition as a Supply day. Do you accept that in order to protect the House, there must be an element of discretion? We cannot be ruled and dictated to by Ministers.
Mr. Speaker: I have stated that the Minister is entitled to come before the House and make a statement.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As both Speaker and Deputy Speaker, do you recollect that almost every week since 1997, the Tory Opposition have demanded a statement from the Government on this, that and the other? I have never heard so much hypocrisy in my life.

Schools Green Paper
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Well, Mr. Speaker, you cannot win.
With permission, I shall make a statement. I begin by thanking all those who assisted in drawing up the proposals, including my ministerial team. I put on record my appreciation of teachers and non-teaching staff across the country for the work that they are doing, day in, day out, to turn policy proposals into reality in the classroom and beyond.
Four years ago, we promised that we would improve school standards. Last week, the chief inspector of schools confirmed improvements in literacy and numeracy, which have transformed primary schools. Standards are rising fastest in schools where under-achievement was most pronounced, in education action zones and through the excellence in cities programmes. We have seen more than 650 schools successfully removed from special measures. We will deliver our class size pledge ahead of schedule.
We are laying the early foundations, with 120,000 more young children in free nursery places than four years ago. We are committed to universal free nursery education for all three and four-year-olds, and to providing child care places benefiting 1 million children by 2004. We have expanded the sure start programme, and I am pleased to announce that the number of early years excellence centres will be increased to 100.
Our task now is to build on those foundations, to sustain change in primary schools and to transform secondary education. We have made a good start, particularly through excellence in cities, the considerable expansion of specialist schools and our investment in buildings and repair. In partnership with teachers and parents, we need to move further and faster.
Today's Green Paper, "Schools: Building on Success", sets out three key challenges for the future. First, we need to improve standards still further. For primary schools, we are consulting on a new target for achievement at age 11 so that 85 per cent. will gain level 4 in English and maths by 2004 and 35 per cent. will reach level 5. We aim to achieve a step change in performance in early secondary years. We shall set demanding targets for achievement at age 14, building on success in primary schools. Attainment at that age is a key determinant of GCSE performance, and 93 per cent. of those who reach level 6 gain five or more good GCSE grades. That is why we are already taking action.
We have introduced new programmes of teaching with more challenging targets in 200 schools, as well as catch-up provision and tests for 12-year-olds who have fallen behind. From September, we shall extend that programme to all English secondary schools, backed by £82 million of investment in this year alone. We are concentrating renewed attention on secondary schools with low levels of success and, through new pupil learning credits, helping those schools that face the largest economic and social disadvantage.
The second challenge is a new focus on diversity and choice to ensure that the individual talent of pupils is fostered and that their weaknesses are addressed. Through a more diverse curriculum and improved support, we can

23
transform their life chances. The national curriculum remains a basic entitlement, but, in addition, we shall ensure that all children have access to sport and the arts and to teaching on citizenship and democracy. I can announce today our intention that, over time, every primary school child will have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument and to experience one of a range of sports. However, we need to do much more to offer real choice.
We shall accelerate pupil achievement with experimental programmes for youngsters, who will take tests at 13 rather than 14, and ensure that there is more early entry for GCSE. I can announce today the establishment of a new centre, which will spread best practice in addressing the needs of gifted and talented pupils. We shall offer a new vocational route, providing choices in work-based as well as full-time practical GCSEs that will lead to apprenticeships for those who would benefit.
The third task is to extend diversity among schools so that every secondary school develops a particular ethos and plays to its strengths and also contributes to the community and the wider education system. We shall double the current number of specialist schools with a new target date of 2003 for the first 1,000, leading to 1,500 schools within five years. Consistency is important. Therefore, I can announce today the creation of advanced specialist schools, which will extend their role to assisting in teacher training and school leadership.
We have already announced the first city academies in inner-city areas. Today, we are proposing new forms of partnership with the voluntary and private sectors to support schools. Beacon schools enable the best of our schools to share best practice with others. I can therefore tell the House that, as well as making 1,000 offers of beacon status by the autumn, we shall also expand the programme to some schools that show excellence in working with their communities.
The Government have been the first to support new voluntary-aided schools for different faiths. We believe that it is important that, where there is parental demand, we support such schools. We recognise that the cost to Church and other faith schools of funding 15 per cent. of capital investment has been considerable, especially with the improved funding from Government. I can today announce that, following discussions with Churches and other faith groups, we intend to reduce that contribution to 10 per cent.
To succeed in reforming standards in schools, we need to recruit and retain good teachers. There are 2,250 more people training to be teachers today than a year ago. That is a direct result of the action we took last year. This year's pay settlement is also an important step, and helps new recruits and experienced teachers in particular. There has been a 12 per cent. increase in applications for teacher training, and more than a twofold increase in inquiries. We need to consider further how we can persuade good graduates to consider teaching, and how we can help them to stay in the profession.
The Green Paper proposes that we consult universities about developing teacher modules in a wide range of undergraduate courses, so that young people get a taste and experience of what teaching has to offer, and some are able to complete the in-school, graduate teaching programme on
24
a fast track. Furthermore, in shortage subjects—maths, English, languages, science and technology—we will assist new teachers by paying off their student loans at one tenth of their debt in each year they remain in teaching in the state sector. During that period, they will not have to repay those loans. That is a substantial new incentive to graduates to come into and to stay in teaching.
The programme that I have announced sets a clear direction for schools over the next five years. It builds on the policies that work. It offers consistency and continuity with modernisation. Teachers will be supported by improved training, and by policies aimed at cutting bureaucracy and addressing teacher work load. That will be backed by increased autonomy for head teachers of successful schools, building on changes in inspection and funding and on the curriculum, and improved pay and conditions for staff. The programme will be underpinned by the substantial increase in investment that we have provided in the day-to-day running of our schools and in the fabric of the buildings.
Our policies are designed to develop the potential of and offer equality to every child, whatever his background and whichever school he attends. We have today moved beyond the old arguments to create a schools system appropriate to the 21st century. I commend the Green Paper to the House.
Mrs. Theresa May: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me prior sight of this statement, and prior knowledge of the content of the Green Paper from The Sunday Times, The Sunday Telegraph, the Sunday People, The Independent on Sunday, the Daily Mail, various other newspapers, the BBC, ITN, Sky, Radio 4, and other broadcast media.
There can be no doubt about what has brought the right hon. Gentleman to the House to make this announcement—panic. The Government have failed to deliver on education, and the Secretary of State knows it. After four years, the Labour Government's education policy is failing, and has been put on special measures.
The Secretary of State knows that, under the Government, class sizes in secondary schools have risen, their targets on exclusions have undermined discipline in classrooms, as confirmed by Ofsted, and they have stifled the energy and enthusiasm of our teachers by burdening them with red tape and paperwork—a directive a day since the beginning of last year.
The Government have presided over a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention that has left schools up and down the country without sufficient staff, and has done serious harm to the education of tens of thousands of children. What is the Government's answer to those problems? This morning the Prime Minister pledged to increase the share of national income spent on education in the next Parliament—exactly the same pledge that he gave before the last Parliament, and the same pledge on which he has failed to deliver in this Parliament.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, over the current Parliament, the Government will have spent an average of 4.6 per cent. of gross domestic product a year on education, compared to the average of 5 per cent. spent by the previous Conservative Government? Will he confirm that this Government have thus failed to deliver their 1997 manifesto commitment to spend a greater proportion of national income on education than did the

25
last Conservative Government? The right hon. Gentleman has not delivered on that pledge; why should we believe him this time?
Now there are more pledges in the Green Paper published today. There is to be diversity in secondary education, businesses are to take over failing schools, head teachers are to be given greater management freedom from local education authorities. Obviously, we welcome the language and rhetoric of many of the proposals in the Green Paper—at least, those that have been cut and pasted from the Conservative party website—but why should we believe the Secretary of State's pledge on diversity, when he abolished grant-maintained schools? Why should we believe his pledge to bring in businesses to run schools, when the Government have failed to provide that in education action zones? Why should we believe his pledge on freedom for head teachers, when he continues to let local education authorities top-slice money from our schools?
We particularly welcome the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of a principle we have long advocated: that the private sector should be allowed to take over management of some schools. Will he confirm that he has abandoned his previous dogmatic stance, and that private-sector companies will now be able to make a profit running state schools?
Teachers are bogged down by bureaucracy under this Government. Given his words this afternoon, will the Secretary of State apologise to the teaching profession for the lack of trust that he has shown it over the last four years, for the increased work load he has imposed on it, and for the way in which he has driven tens of thousands of teachers out of the profession?
What is new in the Government's package today? It must be the decision this morning that they suddenly favour selection. All those people—some of whom may well be sitting on the Labour Benches now—who watched the Secretary of State's lips at the 1995 Labour party conference, when he said "No selection by examination or interview", will have been startled by today's announcement. On this issue, the Government are guilty of confusion and cowardice.
Specialist schools are able to select 10 per cent. of their pupils; but the Secretary of State tells Radio 4 that they are not selective. And what of the new national academies for gifted and talented children? Will the Secretary of State tell us how pupils will be selected to attend the national academies, if not by examination or interview or on the basis of aptitude?
Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister's office, which says that our comprehensive schools today are bog standard? Labour's confusion over selection is obvious. They attack grammar schools, but have brought in selection in the inner cities for the brightest pupils, and will now bring in selection for those who wish to take vocational GCSEs. When will the Government stop their vendetta against grammar schools, and scrap the grammar school ballots?
The Secretary of State has talked today of diversity and choice. Instead, he offers bureaucracy and confusion. What is clear from the details of the statement is that the Government will still be imposing their will on schools. As with the Thunderbirds puppets, the central manipulator will still be obvious.
26
Will the Secretary of State now accept that the only way in which to provide for the freedoms of which he and the Prime Minister speak is to free our schools from the shackles of local education authorities, provide the whole of the funding for each school directly to the school on the basis of a national formula, and set schools free to decide what is right for their pupils, untrammelled by bureaucratic and politically correct interference from central or local government?
Our schools need to draw out and to develop the talents and abilities of every child and to enable each child to develop his full potential. Our aim is to provide the education that is right for every child, but, for that, we need an education system whose hallmarks are excellence, diversity and choice—a system where schools are free to set their own ethos, to maintain it through their admissions policy and to set and to exert discipline; where they receive the whole of their budget direct and are free to spend it in the interests of their pupils; and where teachers are trusted and free to get on with the job of teaching children and raising standards.
The Green Paper does nothing to provide the freedom that our teachers and schools are crying out for. This is not just a bog standard, but a failing Government: they are failing schools, children, teachers and parents. In the interests of our children's future, they should be removed from office as soon as possible.
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to the Lady Penelope of the Opposition for the warm welcome that she has given to the raising of standards and to the concentration on pupil improvement. I am also grateful for her many suggestions for improving standards in the most deprived parts of the country—I am terribly sorry that I appeared to miss all that last bit of her speech. Instead, we got a diatribe of dogma about taking money away from special needs, from school transport and from school improvement and simply distributing it through the standard spending assessment process. Let me answer one or two of the things that the hon. Lady did ask me.
We are interested in investing in improvement, not in profit. It was sad that the hon. Lady made no additional suggestions about teacher recruitment, which I have requested from her twice in the House in the past month. She made no suggestions for improving the schools that were left to flounder under the previous Government; nor did she welcome the measures that we are introducing via pupil learning credits. Through that process we will ensure that there is greater freedom for those schools that wish to exercise it, rather than imposing it on them. By that means we can also invest in raising the chances of every child, gifted, talented, or with special needs. Instead of commenting on those proposals, we heard a diatribe about structure, questions about profit and abuse of the work that has been going on to raise standards throughout the country.
The hon. Lady compares the position during the depths of the recession in the early 1990s with that of today. Let us compare what we inherited with the position today. Expenditure on education has increased from 4.7 per cent. of national income to 4.96 per cent. We have every intention of ensuring that that expenditure graph rises, as the Prime Minister spelt out this morning, so that, year on year on year, there will be increased funding for schools, which we have not seen for generations, and which will enable teachers to do their job properly.

27
Let me take on the central issue raised by the hon. Lady. The present Government have managed to turn around 650 schools that were on special measures and restore them to sound health. That achievement has been far more effective than anything achieved before. The good teaching, good schooling and better results achieved in those schools have been recognised by the past three reports of successive chief inspectors. That is the measure by which we determine our success. The measures that we use are not the criticisms raised by the hon. Lady, but whether the life chances of children are being improved by our policies.
I challenge the hon. Lady and her colleagues to say whether they would spend the extra £82 million this year, whether they would spend the increased amount on performance-related promotion and whether they would continue the standards fund investment, which is directly aiding those schools, through the excellence in cities programmes. That money does not, however, go directly to the schools and is therefore not covered by the so-called pledge—one of the many pledges that last about three weeks—that Conservative Members have made on school spending, not on education spending. If they will not say that they would spend that money on raising standards in our schools, the Opposition—we shall be meeting them at the general election—will be a bunch of hypocrites, preaching one thing while intending to practise another.
As for the hon. Lady's gibe at the start of her oration, I can say only that 1 am very pleased to be able to combine accountability to the public, whom we serve, with accountability to the House—so that everyone knows what we are proposing and is aware of what the Opposition are not proposing.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and the fact that there is a future for education across the country. He is aware that, in mining areas, because of the previous Tory Government's pit closures, we are short of skills and skills training. How will the programme that he has announced today help us to meet the new economy's skills needs, particularly in mining areas?
Mr. Blunkett: The diversity that we are seeking at secondary level will not only build on the heritage and commitment to skills in those areas on which the United Kingdom relied economically and for jobs for 150 years, but redesign and regain the commitment to apprenticeship and vocational skills that has been lost in so many areas. Our combination of diversity, academic education and offering youngsters the ability to choose and choose again, so that they can develop themselves through lifelong learning—it is not a matter of "one chance and you're out"—will give children from the age of 14 the opportunity to sample different life opportunities; the ability to decide at that stage which route they wish to take; and the opportunity to be encouraged and enabled in new modern apprenticeships. That will make it possible for them to gain the types of skills on which their fathers and grandfathers relied.
Mr. Phil Willis: The Liberal Democrats sincerely welcome the fact that the Government are putting education at the heart of the next
28
general election. We are also pleased that the Green Paper contains some interesting proposals. We welcome the teaching of sport and music in primary schools, and we certainly welcome more money for extra-curricular activities. We also welcome a review of the 14 to 16-years curriculum, although I ask the Secretary of State to extend that to the 14 to 19-years curriculum. Such a review is urgently needed.
Many of the Government's proposals, however, are muddled, ill thought out and lack reality. Margaret Thatcher was the Secretary of State who introduced the most comprehensive schools in Britain. The current Secretary of State will be remembered as the one who engineered and sounded the death knell of comprehensive education and the introduction of selection. If specialist schools are good enough for four out of 10 schools, why are they not good enough for all of them? Why is the Government's vision so narrow that six out of 10 schools have to comprise a second tier of schools in our system? If specialist schools have to select 10 per cent. of their pupils by aptitude or ability, why have 93 per cent. of existing specialist schools rejected that path? Why does the Secretary of State think that such selection will improve standards? I think that the whole House would like to hear that answer.
We welcome the Secretary of State's admission that there is a crisis not only in teacher recruitment but in teacher retention. However, the type of thinking that holds that money should be provided only for "shortage subjects", without even defining a shortage subject, is very muddled. Religious education is a national curriculum subject, but, in the past 15 years, the full quota of RE teachers—unlike the quota of biology teachers—has never been recruited. However, the debts of students who become biology teachers will be paid, whereas those of students who become RE teachers will not be paid. We therefore need to know how "shortage subject" will be defined and how the Secretary of State will apply the definition in giving those grants.
How will the Secretary of State tell teachers in a staff room—some of whom have had their debts paid off and others not—that we now have an equitable and fair teaching profession? Will he consider the Liberal Democrat proposal of a 100 per cent. training salary for teachers, so that everyone is treated fairly and is guaranteed a job for the first year?
Mr. Blunkett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the welcome at the beginning of his remarks. I agree that the 14 to 19 age range is important, which is why the beginnings of programmes in the secondary school, pre-16 period will be carried forward post-16. That makes a lot of sense and we are working with further education colleges and others to achieve it.
The hon. Gentleman chides me about comprehensive education. It is important to spell out the fact that under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 specialist schools can choose, by aptitude, up to 10 per cent. of their pupils. Actually, the Act rules out any further selection by examination for all schools that do not already have it. The adjudicator has been taking appeals from parents in relation to those schools that did have partial selection. It is important that, in their coverage, the media understand what the law says and what is happening in schools.
Comprehensive schools, to me, are all-ability but not all the same. They are able to provide for the individual needs of pupils. That was the aspiration of Anthony

29
Crosland, and I pay tribute to Susan Crosland, who confirmed that on "The World at One" on Radio 4 today. She welcomed our proposals, which she said were in line with her husband's original intentions in putting forward a system that had diversity, that played to the strengths of pupils and the schools and that did not allow for simple sameness.
I spelled out the specialisms where there are the greatest shortages at the moment. They are the ones, plus English, that have already had the golden hellos. The hon. Gentleman asked what people in a staff room will think when they find that some teachers in shortage subjects have had a golden hello for taking up teaching. I will tell him: they will think what a relief it is that they now have teachers to fill vacancies, lift the work load, teach the children and pick up the specialisms that were in short supply. That is why we are doing it.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: I welcome the sensible and non-dogmatic approach to delegating more autonomy to schools. In that respect, will my right hon. Friend say what steps are being taken to reduce the administrative and form-filling burden on teachers, started by the Conservative party?
Mr. Blunkett: Apart from completely revising the standards fund formula in terms of its allocation and monitoring, we have reduced the paperwork and administration by two thirds in secondary schools, and by 40 per cent. in primary schools last term. The latter figure was a result of our sending the schools a grammar guide, and I just wish that Opposition parties would follow through their logic. If we are to improve standards and teach phonics, spelling and decent grammar, we must do something about it besides eulogising. We are also putting in place a major reduction in data collection. We will reduce the amount that is asked of schools by other authorities, such as education authorities, Ofsted and the like. We will make sure that the monitoring panel that we have established in the Department does its job of telling us what is and what is not acceptable in schools.
Mr. Michael Fallon: If the majority of secondary schools specialise and a minority do not, will it not be time for the Secretary of State to give up the pretence that he is running a comprehensive system? Could he say whether pupils in the remaining non-specialist schools are still entitled to opportunity for all?
Mr. Blunkett: We have specialist schools and beacon schools, which, incidentally, also have resources to use in spreading best practice. The new community beacons that I announced today will be a part of that.
We have schools where there are variations and which develop, because of the expertise of particular teachers, an ability to deliver to special needs pupils. Teachers with a particular talent offer after-school and lunchtime programmes in languages such as Greek, and spread those programmes between schools.
A comprehensive system, in my book, does not have some good schools in some leafy suburbs and second-rate schools in other areas served by those who have always had the lousiest deal. It has decent schools for every child, so that those living in the leafy suburbs might, just for once, want to send their children across cities, across
30
boroughs and out of the immediate neighbourhood into schools that have improved so dramatically and have specialisms so attractive that no parent in their right mind would want to eschew them.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I warmly welcome the extra boost announced today for teacher recruitment and retention. However, will my right hon. Friend say a little more about how he intends to help students already on BEd courses who, as he will be aware, feel that they have missed out on the very generous help being given for postgraduate one-year courses and who are looking for a bit of help from this?
Mr. Blunkett: If my hon. Friend looks at paragraph 12 of chapter 5, he will see listed a range of ways in which we might be able to help BEd and BA students who are taking undergraduate courses in education. The options on which I want to consult involve being able to pay students in their fourth year of a four-year course, reaching a point when they might be able to take up the induction year and therefore gain qualified teacher status. We are also looking at students taking up the equivalent of the graduate teacher programme in the fourth year, or taking sufficient modules during the four-year course to have reached the point in the fourth year at which they can take up QT status automatically—apologies to the Gallery, if anyone is still listening, for the jargon.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: They have all gone.
Mr. Blunkett: I am not surprised, considering the questions that we have heard from Conservative Members.
We shall combine the above measures with encouraging undergraduates on other courses to sample and enjoy teaching, including taking up paid work as teaching assistants, should the semester and the school term coincide sufficiently well.
Sir Peter Emery: Will the Secretary of State realise that much of what he has been doing recently has done nothing for the specialisation of schools in the countryside? I have a letter signed by the right hon. Gentleman, dated just over two weeks ago, in which he praises the additional £52 million for the SAS—[Interruption]—I mean the SSA for the counties. Devon, which is one of the largest counties in the country, gets less than £100,000 out of that £52 million, with £150,000 going to the whole of the west country. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the extra money for the neighbourhood renewal fund being brilliant for Devon. Plymouth—a Labour area—gets £1 million, but there is nothing for Devon and the countryside. This is the Labour party looking after its own, not the countryside.
Mr. Blunkett: I do not know about the SAS, but I know a bit about the SSA. We all agree that it needed revising a long time ago and we will do something about it.
I do not want to be ungenerous to the right hon. Gentleman, but in fact Plymouth is not under Labour control, regrettably. We lost it at the last local elections. [Interruption.] I heard the right hon. Gentleman say Plymouth; I am terribly sorry if I misheard him. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did say Plymouth."]

31
Let me put the record straight. This was additional money, on top of the revenue support grant, the standards fund, the building programmes that have been allocated and the nursery education provision for that county and others. The money was provided from Department for Education and Employment resources that we identified, based on the distribution and top-slicing of adult education money and the ability of authorities to reach and deliver their standards agenda.
I am terribly sorry that I could not do more than I did a fortnight ago, but I will continue to do my best to ensure that the schools in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency receive the special grant that they never had when his party were in office.
Gillian Merron: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement for its response to the fact that vocational and technical education has been downgraded for too long? As a result, engineering careers, for example, have been difficult to promote positively to young people. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that vocational GCSEs and work-related learning opportunities will become a central part of the education system? Along with closer links between schools and industry, that will ensure that places such as Lincoln receive the bright and talented people whom we need to work in engineering.
Mr. Blunkett: I certainly can. That is why the specialist school programme is being expanded to science, engineering and business and enterprise. I pay tribute to the contribution that business and commerce have made both in kind and in support for and direct links with schools. It was disgraceful that the shadow Secretary of State was so disparaging about the efforts made. What a funny twist that was, and what a changed world we live in. I assure my hon. Friend that the work will continue and that the 14-plus programme, helped by the change in the law that we brought about in 1998, will facilitate it.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Most of the Secretary of State's statement applies, of course, to England alone, but one area—the relief of repayment of student loans for teachers—has considerable scope for cross-border confusion. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position of those in teacher training colleges in Wales who then teach in England, and of those from teacher training colleges in England who go to teach in Wales? Has some understanding been reached with the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in Cardiff, Jane Davidson; and can the Secretary of State clarify the situation?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I am happy to do so. The cost will be met from central funds, not by the Welsh Assembly, and that will facilitate decision making for the young people to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State recognise that many parents in inner urban areas are strongly committed to the principle of universal comprehensive education? Many inner London boroughs have a serious problem because the remaining grammar schools and selective schools in outer London
32
diminish the number of able children who go to inner city schools. Will my right hon. Friend renew his commitment to comprehensive education? Instead of promoting the idea of 10 per cent. selectivity in specialist schools, will he reduce selectivity so that we end up with the universal comprehensive system that would be the best possible support for inner city schools?
Mr. Blunkett: I thought that I had already done that. The introduction to the Green Paper calls for
"embracing without reservation the principles of inclusion and equality of opportunity on which comprehensives were founded".
I repeat that this afternoon. We have every intention of ensuring that where parents want change, they can use the adjudicator system to trigger it. In the case of selective schools using the old 11-plus, parents will have the opportunity to do that too. The main task that I set myself four years ago was to transform the schools, in which too many children found themselves, that were called comprehensive, but were comprehensive in name only.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: In reflecting on his four years, the Secretary of State will have noted the answer given to the House a few weeks ago by the Minister for School Standards on allocations to local authorities. Can he tell us why Sheffield and Derby receive £2,500 for a primary pupil, but the county of Derbyshire receives only £2,300? Do the allocations have anything to do with who the Cabinet Ministers are?
Mr. Blunkett: If that did have anything to do with Cabinet Ministers, it would relate to the previous Government's Cabinet, not the present Government's. The system used for distribution of revenue support grant is the system that we inherited. We have done our best to ensure, through the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, that the system is put right. Direct funding to schools, the standards fund, the new funds for nursery provision and the funds allocated for building programmes make matters not worse, but better. Had we put those resources directly into the SSAs, Derbyshire's relative position would have been a great deal worse.
Mr. David Watts: What assessment has been made of the excellence in cities project and of its effect on increasing standards? Will he confirm that the education SSA system will be reviewed and changed next year?
Mr. Blunkett: On my hon. Friend's second question, which picks up on the one put by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), our Green Paper was issued last year and we have been holding consultations on it. By the summer, we shall be making decisions on a revised system of SSA distribution.
There has been a dramatic improvement in schools in excellence in cities areas; the youth cohort study showed improvements of 10 per cent. for youngsters from black and Asian households and of 7 per cent. for those from white, working-class households, as compared with the rest of the country.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to expand Church

33
schools. Bishop Ramsey Church of England school in my constituency is excellent. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, in outer London, which he classifies as the leafy suburbs, there are considerable problems in the exercise of the real choice to which he pays lip service and makes obeisance? Will he do something to make certain that parents in my constituency really have the chance to get their child into the school of their choice? The fact is that not only the Church schools, but the foundation schools, are so good that local children are being flooded out by an inflow from across the borough boundaries.
Mr. Blunkett: I inherited a difficult problem: the inability of parents to get a place for their children at the schools closest to where they live. Sometimes that was because of selection; sometimes it was because of inherited admissions decisions. That is why we introduced a revised code, and set up independent tribunals so that parents could appeal to an external arbiter. That is why we expanded schools—especially in the infant and primary range—to ensure that more parents obtained their choice. Improving the quality of education is the only answer, if we are not to squeeze out those who do not know the ropes, who do not have a loud enough voice or who have not been able to use the admissions system to get their children into the school of their choice.
Mr. Gordon Marsden: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for his proposed expansion of specialist schools, in whose number I hope that the Blackpool Collegiate high school—currently preparing a bid for sports college status—may be included. What resources does my right hon. Friend think he may be able to allocate to non-specialist secondary schools, so that subjects such as history, geography and citizenship, all of which need promotion, receive the right resources, so as to enable the expression of diversity of choice across the whole sector?
Mr. Blunkett: That will be done by ensuring that, first, should the Collegiate school obtain sports status, it can share it with neighbouring schools, to increase the excellence of the athletes and gymnasts of Blackpool who will welcome us to a triumphant party conference in a couple of years. Secondly, the programmes that we have set in train—the excellence clusters that are reaching out to other parts of the country—will ensure that the resources for learning support units, for mentors and for the programme for gifted and talented children will be extended in the way that I want. I hope that whoever is in my job in a few years will have been able to ensure that those measures and that investment—over and above the amount that schools would have received and thus vulnerable to the election of a Tory Government—have been put in place.
Sandra Gidley: I would be among the first to welcome the greater diversity offered by specialist schools—I welcome the increase in their number—but the reality is that, increasingly, parents can send their children only to the local school. Their offspring may be budding sports stars, but they might be stuck in an area where the specialist school is one for languages—excellent though that may be. Are we not introducing a postcode lottery for education?
Mr. Blunkett: No, we clearly are not, but I understand that the Liberal Democrats are committed to reversing the Greenwich judgment.
Mr. Willis: Hear, hear.
Mr. Blunkett: The Liberal Democrat spokesman agrees in his usual cheerful way. However, if the Greenwich judgment were overturned, people would be confined within their postcode areas and they would not have the choice to move across the boundaries.
Mr. Hilary Benn: Given that comprehensive schools have played a major part in raising standards of pupil achievement in the past 30 years, and although I recognise that we can do even better, may I urge my right hon. Friend to give particular encouragement to comprehensive schools serving the most deprived inner city communities to seek specialist status where they wish to do so?
Mr. Blunkett: The answer is an unequivocal yes. Under the excellence in cities initiative, we have deliberately supported and worked with schools to do that. My intention has always been that city academies and specialist schools should be targeted and resources provided precisely to lift the standing, the status and the achievement of the schools that need that particular boost; they can then share it with their communities.
Mr. Fabricant: I welcome those statements, which come straight from Conservative party policy—even though they were delayed because of the dreadful activities of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on Thursday—but what can the Secretary of State do to make people in Staffordshire believe that anything he says now is not a promise today and no jam at all tomorrow? A promise was made in 1997 that the Government would spend more money per capita as a proportion of GDP on education—they have not. They made promises in 1997 to raise the SSA in Staffordshire within a year of forming a Labour Government; we still languish second from bottom.
Mr. Blunkett: There has been a £300 increase in per pupil funding—£700 by the end of the spending review period—and the commitment to increase the amount spent on Staffordshire's schools has been met, ensuring that the buildings are repaired, that technology is installed and that teachers are better paid.
Fiona Mactaggart: The Secretary of State has referred to comprehensive schools that, in practice, are not comprehensive. I wonder what the statement offers to areas such as mine, where we have so-called comprehensive schools and an 11-plus exam? We have four grammar schools and five secondary schools. How will the Green Paper provide extra opportunities and diversity in places that still retain selection?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, in the Green Paper is a proposal, which I want to exemplify in the weeks ahead, to provide substantial additional resources for schools in such circumstances that are prepared to co-operate in sharing staff and facilities and in facilitating the integration of their pupils. In that way we can encourage the schools that have a traditional selection process at 11 to give all children the life chance that they are denied if they are excluded from excellence by an examination at one point in their lives.

Points of Order
4.23 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order, of which I gave you notice this morning, concerns the removal from the Order Paper of Question 10, which I tabled and which was already printed in the Order Book, to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for answer on Tuesday 27 February 2001. You will be familiar with the letter written to me on 7 February from the Deputy Principal Clerk at the Table Office. I make it clear that in no way do I criticise the Clerks, who are doing their job, and in normal circumstances, there would be no whisper of an objection from me for ruling out a question that involved sub judice matters.
The letter from the Deputy Principal Clerk reads:
"You have an oral Question in the Order Book for answer on Tuesday 27 February asking the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 31 January, on Lockerbie, if he will take steps to establish the existence of criminal evidence relating to persons other than Mr. Al-Megrahi.
You may already know that Mr. Al-Megrahi has lodged a Notice of Appeal and that accordingly the sub judice rule applies once more to the matters in the case. The Speaker has therefore directed that your oral question be removed from the Order Book.
The rule also, of course, applies to your Westminster Hall debate on Tuesday 13 February on relations between the UK and Libya. References in debate to the matters awaiting adjudication in the case would be sub judice. Although the bare facts that the trial court at Zeist has reached a conclusion and that an appeal has been lodged may be acknowledged, any further comment about the trial or appeal or matters likely to be raised in the appeal would be out of order."
The problem is that there is nothing ordinary about the Lockerbie case. In particular, the Foreign Secretary, the American Secretary of State and a host of others have made statements calling for Libya to face up to its alleged responsibilities without waiting for the appeal procedure and, indeed in some cases, after the appeal has been lodged. Acres of newspaper comment appeared, both before and after the decision to appeal was announced. Is not what is sauce for the Foreign's Secretary's goose sauce for a Back Bencher's gander? More pertinently, should the House of Commons—and the House of Commons alone—be restrained from asking questions in good time?
The issue is not simply one of the rights of an individual defendant but whether, on the back of a trial verdict that is vehemently disputed by many of those who
36
know most about the detail, this country should join in what could all too easily become military action in north Africa. The idea that the House of Commons should be prevented by rules—which are perfectly sensible in the overwhelming number of court cases in our domestic courts—from discussing grave international matters, where events could all too easily take over before the appeal procedure can be completed, is a matter, I submit, for your reflection, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order.
As notice of appeal has been lodged by Mr. Al-Megrahi, the case is now sub judice. Under our rules the question to which the hon. Gentleman refers has properly been removed the Order Paper. However, he also has an Adjournment debate tomorrow in Westminster Hall. In that debate, Members will be able to discuss the wider issues of the United Kingdom's and the United States' relations with Libya arising from the Lockerbie case to which the hon. Gentleman has also referred.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to my supplementary question in Defence questions, it became clear that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence did not understand the difference between a landing ship logistic and a roll-on/roll-off ferry. I attempted to correct him from a sedentary position, but you, Mr. Speaker, quite properly rebuked me. If the Minister's answer has misdirected himself and the House, is there anything else besides the Order Paper that I can use to get him back to the House to correct the record?
Mr. Speaker: There is one thing for sure: the hon. Gentleman cannot rerun Question Time.
Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware from reports at the weekend that Sir Richard Branson's People's Lottery is seeking compensation of £8 million from the National Lottery Commission. Any compensation would come from the funds that are much needed by organisations throughout the country, and many people have expressed their alarm at that. Have you, Mr. Speaker, received any communication from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about a statement on this issue?
Mr. Speaker: I have received no such communication.

Opposition Day
[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Prison Conditions
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister
  4.29 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
  That this House notes with concern the comments of the Director General of the Prison Service, in which he criticised intolerable conditions and referred to a number of prisons as 'hell holes', and the Reports of the Chief Inspector of Prisons which described appalling conditions at certain prisons; and calls on the Government to take urgent action to improve conditions in Her Majesty's Prisons, in order to enable them better to fulfil their role of protecting the public.
  I rather regret that the Government's gross discourtesy in having a statement on an Opposition day has meant that we have much less time for debate than this very important subject requires. When it happened on my previous Opposition day, I accepted it because it was a genuine emergency and the Government thought it necessary to make a statement on the steel industry. However, there was nothing remotely urgent about today's statement.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The Conservatives used to do that.
  Miss Widdecombe: Unless there was a sensitive time factor, we were careful not to have Government statements on Opposition days.
  Let me start by quoting the Prime Minister when he was shadow Home Secretary. He told the Labour party conference that it was the Government's responsibility
  "to confront the disgrace of a prison system in Britain that is inhumane, old fashioned and ineffective.
  He went on to say that we should drastically reform the system
  "as a service that is publicly accountable, not as the new Tory plaything of privatisation for those out to make a profit."

  That was his understanding of the priorities of the Government and the Prison Service in 1992.
  In 1997, the Home Secretary made a point of saying at the beginning of his term of office that he would take personal responsibility for the Prison Service and did not intend to shelter behind civil servants. He will remember that I welcomed that as a step forward and looked forward to seeing how he would discharge that responsibility. Today, I shall examine the Home Secretary's stewardship of the Prison Service.
  I shall quote some shocking words:
  "I am not prepared to continue to apologise for failing prison after failing prison.
  I have had enough of trying to explain the very immorality of our treatment of some prisoners and the degradation of some establishments."
  Those words were uttered by the Director General of the Prison Service and are an indictment of the Government's record on the prison system.
  38
  I shall not pretend that prisons have always been exemplary under Conservative Governments and always despicable under Labour Governments. Until the publication of the Woolf report, Her Majesty's prisons were pretty bad, no matter which party was in power. That fact was acknowledged by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffen (Mr. Clarke) when he established the Prison Service agency. From then on, we made steady and, at times, startling progress, but since 1997 the Government have not had that commitment and, consequently, the Prison Service has either stalled or—worse—fallen back, with bad results for prisoners and public. Let me make it clear at the outset that I do not criticise the many dedicated men and women who work for the Prison Service; I criticise the Government.
  Prisons protect the public in two ways: by keeping the prisoner out of circulation for the duration of his sentence and by making it less likely that he will reoffend when he leaves. The huge progress of an 80 per cent. reduction in escapes in our final years in government has been maintained, but the progress on the second front of providing purposeful activity has not.
  Mr. David Winnick: Although I shall not be voting for the motion, I believe that the subject should be debated. Indeed, the Select Committee on Home Affairs is meeting at 5 o'clock. Does the right hon. Lady accept that, irrespective of which party is in office, the situation will become extremely difficult if more and more people continue to go to prison who are not an immediate danger to the community? Instead of increasing the number of people in prison, is there not a case for considering the alternatives? There is, however, no doubt that some people must serve prison sentences.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I know that he takes a genuine and close interest in these matters. There is no inherent tension in having increasing numbers of people going to prison and also making the regimes decent and constructive. Rather than simply making that assertion, I can illustrate it with the fact that our best progress in making conditions more decent and increasing purposeful activity by hundreds of thousands of hours was achieved against a background of a 25 per cent. rise in the prison population in just a few years.
  I do not believe that the courts send people to prison willy-nilly. Prison is nearly always a last resort when other options have failed, unless the first offence is horrendously serious. If the courts believe that people need to be in prison, it is the Government's duty to provide the necessary places in decent, constructive circumstances.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Lady think that there are significant numbers of people who should be in prison but are not? Does she have any estimate of that figure? Does she believe that there are significant numbers of people in prison who should not be, and what is her estimate of that number? What does she think is the right policy for the next five years, whether or not she is in government during that time?
  Miss Widdecombe: I think that there are people who should be in prison who currently are not. I refer to those

  39
  on the Home Secretary's home detention curfew scheme, who should complete what used to be a normal part of their prison sentence. We have proposed "three strikes and you're out" for people who deal soft drugs to children. They should be in prison. We have proposed tougher penalties for those who commit sexual offences against children. They, too, should be in prison.
  As for those people who are in prison but should not be, the only significant number is those who have severe mental problems. In my time as prisons Minister, I was concerned that people who should be treated by the NHS are instead left in a prison system that cannot cope with them. We might tackle that problem a bit better—although we would probably not solve it completely—if the NHS was responsible for delivering prison health rather than there being a completely separate service, which means that there is not a seamless continuum.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me to play a numbers game, and I cannot do so. I have never subscribed to the view that there is an ideal prison population—a number above which we should not go. I can only repeat that where the courts decide that prison is appropriate, it is the Government's duty to supply the places, even if that means building more prisons.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Lady was prisons Minister for several years. She referred to people with mental illness who are in prison. Did she set up a study to evaluate the number involved, and does she recall what that number was?
  Miss Widdecombe: I was given a series of numbers by the prison health service, which varied from those who should not be in prison at all to those who would be helped if they received adequate health services while in prison. I shall not indulge in faulty recollection; Ministers have recently got into trouble because of faulty recollection. We conducted studies on those numbers. The hon. Gentleman might remember that we introduced a hybrid order, which enabled judges to determine that there should be a mixed penalty to be served partly in prison and partly in hospital. Before the hon. Gentleman asks me whether I made any assessment of the success of that, the answer is no because there was not time to do so before there was a regrettable change of Government.
  I was saying that in the years following the Woolf report, prisons were made decent but austere. For example, the practice of prisoners sharing three to a cell designed for two was ended in 1994. Slopping out was ended in 1995. It is now back in three prisons. Assaults on prisoners and staff fell. The percentage of prisoners sharing two to a cell for one dropped, and prisoners engaged in hundreds of hours more of purposeful activity. They spent more time out of cells, were subject to random drugs tests, undertook national vocational qualifications and were given a new and effective system of incentives and privileges.
  Four years into the Government's term of office, report after report has condemned the conditions in our prisons. However, the Government have failed to give the service any priority, even to the extent of the Minister with responsibility for prisons being unable to give me basic information about performance against standard indicators in the House.
  40
  The Director General of the Prison Service's comments in his speech last week exposes the Government's attitude to our prison system. He stated:
  "Year after year, governor after governor, inspection after inspection, prisons like these have been exposed. Year after year the exposure has led to a flurry of hand wringing, sometimes a change of governor, a dash of capital investment, but no real or sustained improvement."
  In June, the chief inspector of prisons apparently found conditions in Brixton prison to be worse than when he made his previous report in 1996. He found conditions to be
  "totally unacceptable in any jail."
  He found that there were no workshops and no educational facilities worthy of the name. Who has presided over the system for four of the five years that have elapsed since 1996? The answer is the Home Secretary.
  At Birmingham prison, it has been reported that half of all education classes are unfilled. The chief inspector apparently found that conditions were significantly worse than those set out in previous critical reports in 1995 and 1998. That is an indictment of the malaise that has developed in the prison system under the Government. They could blame the Conservative Government for 1995, but not for 1998, and certainly not for 2001.
  How can we expect our prisons to fulfil their role of protecting the public and allowing criminals to make a new start in life if inmates are left to rot in idleness in such conditions? The chief inspector further stated that Brixton prison is not failing but is being failed. It is being failed, and failed by the Government. As the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, pointed out in his Prison Reform Trust lecture last month, in the past financial year the Prison Service's key performance indicators were met in less than half of all cases. That is hardly an impressive record. The Conservative Government's track record was that the agency consistently met either all or nearly all of its indicators.
  In his latest annual report, the chief inspector of prisons commented that 1998–99 was a very bad year for the Prison Service, marked by extreme examples of unacceptable practice in prisons. Let us consider the facts. Under the Government, the number of assaults on prisoners has increased from 2,747 in the Conservative Government's last year to 3,456 in the year 1999–2000. The number of assaults on staff also increased by 471. Before the excuse is made that there are more prisoners, it is a percentage increase of 4.8 per cent. in the Conservative Government's final year to 5.3 per cent. in respect of prisoners; there is a smaller increase in respect of staff.
  One of the saddest indicators of the failing prison system—of bullying, hopelessness and depression—is the number of suicides. In the last year, the number was 91, compared with 70 in 1997. Under this Government, the period of time that prisoners spend out of their cells on weekdays fell from an average of 11 hours in 1997 to just over 10 now. The number of hours that prisoners spend in purposeful activity fell to 22.8 hours; under the previous Government, it had increased to more than 26 hours. As the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) admitted last week, the hours of purposeful activity are now back to

  41
  those of 1992—before we began to implement the Woolf report—which means that all the progress of our last five years has been vitiated.
  Mr. Huw Edwards: I visited Usk prison in my constituency only three weeks ago. May I assure the right hon. Lady that the description that she has just given is unlike the experience in that prison, where the amount of purposeful activity—NVQs, sex offender treatment programmes, training and education—has increased markedly in the past few years?
  Miss Widdecombe: The picture that I am painting is not, as the hon. Gentleman said, my picture: it is being painted by the Home Secretary's own report and statistics. If they are wrong, Ministers are misleading the House. I do not think that that is likely; the report and statistics are right, and the hon. Gentleman must accept that. If purposeful activity takes up an average of 22.8 hours, it stands to reason that in some prisons—perhaps including Usk—it will take up more time, but in others it will take up less.
  We must also consider the fact that that indicator includes all the open prisons, where a full day's work is normal for all prisoners. In many prisons, therefore, there are only a few hours of purposeful activity a week. I am happy to accept that the hon. Gentleman was impressed by what he saw when he visited his own prison. I could name other prisons, and I shall, where I have been impressed by what I have seen. I am afraid, however, that there are many more—regrettably, most prisons—which do not reach those standards.
  How can prisons be expected to reform criminals if time is squandered in idleness, which amounts to thousands of lost opportunities to do something to make our prisoners useful members of our society? The Government claim that they have exceeded their target for the number of prisoners sharing a cell designed for one. Their target was 18 per cent., but the number sharing a cell is 17.2 per cent. However, that is a percentage increase on the 15.5 per cent. that we left in 1996–97. There could not be a clearer demonstration of sliding back into bad ways. The figures for the last financial year show that the situation was even worse than the year before. If targets are lowered, and if Ministers who inherited a 15.5 per cent. rate of two prisoners sharing a cell for one set a target of 18 per cent., inevitably standards will slip, which has happened in this and other measurements of our prisons performance.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: I am interested in the right hon. Lady's speech so far. Will she say what she would do about all those things and give a straight answer to a simple question? Will she commit to match, at the very least, the Government's spending plans for prisons?
  Miss Widdecombe: Oh dear; I have a feeling that a Tory gain is in the offing. Our proposals on policy have already been made clear, and I shall make them clear again a little later—[Interruption.] When I do so, I shall address the issue of spending. If the hon. Gentleman contains himself, he will hear what I have to say. The Home Secretary cannot plead pressure of numbers, for we reduced the percentage of two prisoners sharing a cell for one during a time of record rises in the prison population.
  42
  In his highly condemnatory report on Feltham young offenders institution, the chief inspector reported that Feltham was without clear strategic direction and that conditions were unacceptable, yet two years later the Government have done nothing to solve the crisis. In August 2000, the assistant governor at Feltham resigned, claiming that the prison still operated in "Dickensian conditions".
  In his report into conditions at Portland young offenders institution, the chief inspector stated:
  "If an organisation such as the prison service does not have a proactive line management structure that is required to monitor and correct the quality of the treatment and conditions of prisoners, it will fail in its duty toward both prisoners and the public."
  Has the Home Secretary done anything about that?
  Surely it is conditions at young offender institutions that should worry us the most. It is essential that young offenders, above all, should be able to use their period of incarceration to rebuild their lives as useful members of the community, but instead there is an increasing culture of violence, which is leading to our young offender institutions becoming human dustbins, which young people leave dehumanised and sucked into a culture of ever more violence. The number of violent offences per 100 in those institutions has increased from 78 in 1997 to 90 in the last full financial year.
  This Government are without a strategy for prisons; they are a Government who have allowed drift, decline and stagnation to infect the culture of our prison system. Not that there has been any shortage of ideology. In 1996, the Secretary of State said:
  "I regard privatisation of the prison service as morally repugnant."
  What is morally repugnant is the appalling situation that the Government have allowed to develop in so many of our prisons. It was our vision that led to significant improvements, which have now been lost by the Government.
  Of course, not all reports have been bad. The chief inspector's report on Blantyre House concluded by praising the consistent, innovative and courageous approach of the governor and staff. So what happens? Blantyre House is raided provocatively and excessively, the governor is removed, and Ministers defend their actions.
  The inspection of the private prison, Blakenhurst, concluded:
  "The regime offered was good with excellent vocational training facilities, good work and education opportunities."
  The inspection report into Buckley concluded:
  "From this inspection we were able to say that Buckley Hall is a thoroughly good prison."
  The report continued:
  "The atmosphere was relaxed, yet controlled and relationships between staff and prisoners varied from good to excellent."
  That is in contrast to the "hell holes" of many of our urban prisons described by the director general. What happens? Blakenhurst and Buckley Hall are renationalised—given back to the public sector, which cannot even run its own prisons properly, under an uncaring Government. Of course, the public sector pays no penalty if it fails. There is no built-in financial incentive to succeed.
  I would be the last to lay all the failings of any prison directly at the feet of a Home Secretary, but too many of the problems in our prison system have been created by the Government. The lack of a strategic vision is failing

  43
  both prisoners and the public. The Home Secretary attacked privatisation as immoral—not just bad or misguided, but immoral—yet he is now offering it as a solution to the immoral conditions at Brixton. At the same time that privatisation is seen as the answer to the problems at Brixton, Blakenhurst and Buckley Hall are being brought back into the public sector.
  One wonders whether the right hon. Gentleman has done yet another U-turn. Having been converted in a matter of weeks from a moral repulsion at the mere thought of private prisons to supporting them and providing more of them, he is once again—and in the teeth of all the evidence of the reports submitted to him—going back to the old Labour view that anything private is bad and anything public is good. Alternatively, has he done some deal with the Prison Officers Association, to which he promised before the last election that he would abandon privatisation?
  It is precisely this confusion—abandon privatisation there, implement it here—and lack of direction at the heart of our prison system that has led to decline and stagnation under this Government. What our Prison Service needs is a sense of direction. It needs a Government who have a vision for it and its future and who are prepared to tackle the disgraceful conditions in which so many prisoners spend their sentences.
  Last year, the number of hours that prisoners spent in workshops declined, which is another way of saying that the number of hours that they spent in idleness increased. We need a prison system that works not only by protecting the public by taking criminals off our streets, but by allowing those who have been caught up in criminality the opportunity to rejoin society as useful citizens—yet the Home Secretary is squandering the opportunity to create a prison system that will work on both those counts.
  Our proposals for self-financing prison workshops would create an opportunity for the Prison Service to start to take significant steps towards becoming a service that truly fulfils the three tasks of protecting the public, punishing criminals and providing a chance for those who have committed crime to build a new life on release.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Making sacks.
  Miss Widdecombe: The last thing that I want is for prisoners to do what they do at the moment: churn out more than 2 million pairs of socks every year—not for some sensible purpose such as sale to Marks and Spencer, but for consumption by a prison population who have never exceeded 64,000. So whether it is sacks or socks, I am not interested in purposeless activity. [Interruption.] If I may continue, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) may hear the answer to his question.
  We will work towards a full working day in all prisons. The work that prisoners would undertake, if it came from real employers who really wanted it to be done, would allow a wage, rather than pocket money, to be paid to prisoners. Deductions could be made to cover savings, so that the prisoner could not be left with the plea that he had a choice between criminality and the dole; reparations to victims, so that he would understand that there are
  44
  consequences to actions; the upkeep of his own family, which falls almost entirely on the taxpayer; and, indeed, his own upkeep, so that he would learn the habits not only of regular and demanding work, but of an orderly and responsible distribution of the proceeds of work.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw)rose—
  Mr. Eric Martlew rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way first to the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady and I am following her remarks with some care. She said that such industries would be self-financing and would cover all prisoners, who number about 64,000 at any one time. Will she publish the calculations that lay behind that conclusion so as better to inform the debate and say what kind of product would be manufactured?
  Miss Widdecombe: Product does not always have to be manufactured. If the Home Secretary has taken any interest at all in the work that already goes on in our prisons, he will be aware that a wide range of products such as printing—in suitable prisons, of course—and other services are supplied. If he considers the example of Blakenhurst, he will acknowledge that a lot of contracted work is taken in, which does not compete with local labour. Indeed, it forms the basis of much of the praise that has been lavished on that institution.
  It is not as though I have to say to the Home Secretary, "This cannot be done." Other countries have prison workshops that undertake real work that produces real wages, so if he is seriously saying that that ideal cannot be realised, I do not agree. I am well aware that such issues often get distorted, so I remind him of what I said by quoting back my own words: we will work towards a full working day in all prisons. I did not say that, in the first five minutes of taking over his job, which I am greatly looking forward to doing, I would produce 64,000 places for work. However, I could work towards achieving that, which is what I shall do.
  Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: Once more.
  Mr. Straw: I do not remember suggesting that such a thing would happen in the first five minutes, nor could it, under any Government. I am interested in the calculations that make the right hon. Lady think that it would be possible—after five years, for example—to make all those industries, which would involve 65,000 prisoners, entirely self-financing. I am asking her whether she will make those calculations public.
  Miss Widdecombe: First, Prison Service industries, which supply products for the Prison Service, will obviously not be self-financing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] No, because those goods are bought only by the public sector. As prisons Minister, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), knows that they employ only a small minority of prisoners, whereas I want all prisoners

  45
  to have the opportunity to work. Our solution will be to have prison workshops that are run on the same basis as any other small business.
  The word "calculations" has been used as though this proposal will establish a uniform business, uniformly applied in all prisons. I am appalled by the attitude of Labour Members who are not interested in this proposal: they despise it and do not want to do it. They have reduced the hours of purposeful activity in our prisons, but all they can do is sit there and say, "There ain't no solution", and they are not bothered about finding one. We have the solution, we will impose it, and it will be welcomed by the public and the Prison Service alike. The Government should be ashamed of the fact that there has been four years of wasted opportunity. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary seems to find that hilarious.
  Mr. Martlew rose—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall make some progress.
  The law already allows—
  Mr. Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it right for the right hon. Lady to say that she will allow me to intervene after she has taken an intervention from the Home Secretary, and then to refuse to give way to me, although she had agreed to do so?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): To whom Members of the House give way is entirely a matter for them.
  Miss Widdecombe: Thank you. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am afraid that the quality of interventions has not been so wonderful that I would encourage them, but just to be kind I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Martlew: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. I have listened carefully to her remarks, and I shall briefly recap. Prisoners will have to pay for their keep, pay compensation to their victims and pay for the upkeep of their families. What incentive will they have to work, or will the right hon. Lady make it compulsory and turn prisoners into slaves?
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes, I will nuke it compulsory. If a prisoner refused to work, he would be put on the basic regime and have no chance of being under the enhanced regime. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that his Front-Bench team are looking horribly embarrassed. He misunderstands the nature of prison work by his reference to "slaves". At the moment, prisoners work 22 hours a week for about £9.50, which could be called slavery. I propose that they should have the chance to earn a proper wage. When a Bill was introduced—it was in our time and with Government support—to allow deductions to be made, Labour Front-Benchers supported the proposal.
  Mr. Straw: We know that.
  Miss Widdecombe: I know that the right hon. Gentlemen knows that, but his hon. Friend does not, so I am just telling him.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: Well, okay.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Lady's proposition is very interesting. We are all interested in the detail. We presume that she has not launched into a tirade to make an irresponsible statement. Will she give us the figures? She must have worked them out. A paper giving the calculations must have been circulated among the Conservative shadow Home Office team setting out the basis on which she can draw these assumptions. We are genuinely interested. Can we see the data?
  Miss Widdecombe: I visited all the prisons in my time as the responsible Minister. If the hon. Gentleman were to do so, he would find non-uniformity in the lamentably few prisons that have such enterprises. That non-uniformity makes it impossible to say that we will have that business in every prison and how much it will cost. That is nonsense. It would be important to do that if we were proposing that this scheme should be funded by the taxpayer, but we have already said that it will be self-financing. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Labour Members have never run a business, so they have no idea how to make it self-financing. When one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents tells him "I want to set up a business that will be self-financing", he will ask "How?" It is such a startling proposition that the hon. Gentleman's mind cannot encompass it. The sooner we take the prison system out of the hands of Labour Members, who apparently do not even realise how anything can possibly be self-financing, the better.
  We will begin to restart the process of reform, which we did, after all, start and which has been squandered by this Government. We will try to rebuild a real service from the decline, confusion and stagnation that this Government have introduced into our prison system. This Government have presided over an increase in overcrowding, the return of slopping out in three prisons, a rise in the assault rate, an increase in the number of suicides and a fall in purposeful activity. They have let things become so bad that their own director general describes conditions as immoral, and they do not even apologise for that. Yet this is the Government, and this is the Home Secretary, who in opposition had the gall to condemn our record when we were progressing in leaps and bounds.
  Winston Churchill said that the test of a civilised society was how it treated its prisoners. The Government have failed that test, failed the people whom they should be protecting, and failed the offenders whom they should be reforming. They have also massively failed the thousands of decent, hard-working staff who struggle to do their jobs in impossible circumstances. They should give way to a party that cares enough to do something about the situation.
  5.6 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "supports the policy of Her Majesty's Government to make prisons work better to reduce reoffending and thus cut crime; welcomes the improved investment in the Service, and the improved performance

  47
  of the Service in terms of security, literacy and numeracy, offender behaviour programmes, the reduction in drug taking and in under-18 regimes; offers its gratitude to staff and the many volunteers attached to prisons; but notes the significant and unacceptable variation in the effectiveness of different Prison Service establishments as highlighted by the Director General and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, and endorses the measures being put in place to secure higher and more consistent standards across establishments.".
  I was grateful to the Opposition when I saw that they had applied for a debate on prisons, because it is important for the subject to be debated in the House from time to time. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was entirely right to say that our manifesto stated that I would take proper responsibility for the Prison Service, and that is exactly what I have sought to do ever since. I have sought to take responsibility for the good things that have happened in the service, for the not so good things, and for the bad things. I am responsible for the service, not least to the House.
  The right hon. Lady's speech was a parody of the director general's speech at the Prison Service conference, and also a parody of the record of both this Government and the Government of whom she was a member. She said that she would not go in for faulty recollection, and then suggested that during her time as prisons Minister—from five or six years after the publication of the Woolf report until May 1997—the service had progressed in "leaps and bounds".
  One of the striking things about the right hon. Lady is her absence of memory. Let me jolt her memory with a few quotations:
  "We created a false distinction between policy and operations which has reverberated around the whole of Whitehall, not just the Home Office;
  We severely damaged relations with the private sector;
  We have endured swingeing headlines in the press";
  and:
  "We left the Prison Service without a confirmed leader for five months, and we shattered its morale … And … did we eliminate disasters from the Prison Service? No … approximately 541 prisoners were released before the end of their sentences. They did not even have to break out."—[Official Report, 19 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 401.]
  That was the right hon. Lady in her first speech in opposition summing up the previous five years, during which she had been the prisons Minister. Her conclusion about the Prison Service that she had been running was, "We shattered its morale."
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman is being very slightly tendentious—I suppose I am not allowed to say "tendentious" in the House, but I think that he is. If he looked at the whole of that speech, he would find that I paid tribute to the immense progress that the service had made, that I was talking about one very confined period, not the five years that followed the Woolf report, and that I specifically said that, in those five years, we had made massive progress. I said that that was due both to the Government and to the Prison Service. The right hon. Gentleman should read the whole speech.
  Mr. Straw: The speech is rather too long to read it now, but I always do the right hon. Lady the courtesy of reading her speeches. It so happens that there were indeed
  48
  other parts where she talked about the achievements of the Prison Service. I also remember that she criticised us, probably fairly, for trying to take away from the achievements of the Prison Service during that period. The simple fact is that she went through one or two things in her speech on 19 May 1997, but she reserved her strongest prose, her greatest condemnation, not just for her right hon. and learned Friend, as it were, the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), her boss and the previous Home Secretary, but for the previous Government as a whole. She did not say, "We shattered its morale" with any qualification.
  There had been some achievements following the publication of the Woolf report. I am perfectly prepared—indeed, it was in my text before I knew what the right hon. Lady was going to say—to put those achievements on the record, but the other truth is that, thanks to the way in which she and the right hon. and learned Gentleman sought to run the Prison Service, morale was indeed shattered, the system was not working effectively and there was no proper ministerial responsibility or accountability for the service.
  Moreover, the right hon. Lady had agreed to a budget for 1997–98 and for 1998–99 that was so tight it would have led to catastrophe, had I not been able to persuade my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer very shortly after coming into office, following an agreement in the manifesto that we would audit the resources available to the Prison Service before sticking to the previous Government' s spending limit, that there should first be a £60 million uplift in 1997–98 and a further uplift, covering two years, of £112 million.
  The point that the director general made in his speech last week at the Prison Service conference is one that I have also made on a number of occasions and that, in her wiser moments—I am sorry that there were not any in the speech that she has just made—the right hon. Lady recognises: with the Prison Service, as with any other public sector institution and large private sector institution, we can put the same resources into establishments, establishments can deal with the same people and can have the same number of managers, yet they produce very variable performance.
  In the middle 1980s the previous Administration drew stark attention to that fact in relation to the performance of schools. Something that I did support in opposition was the introduction of a national curriculum and of testing because it was important to ensure that similar schools performed in a similar way. Indeed, when I was at the Inner London education authority, we did some research to draw that out. That should not be a matter of argument between the parties. The issue of raising the standards of all prisons in similar categories, first to the level of the average and then to the level of the best, is a central part of the strategy of the director general, which the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), and I have endorsed.
  The right hon. Lady mentioned various adverse reports by the chief inspector. I have a few comments on that, the first of which is that she forgot entirely to mention that, when I became Secretary of State, I found on my desk a pile of about a dozen reports from the chief inspector—some of which, as I recall, were well over one year old. Although I do not necessarily say that she was responsible for that, it is interesting that she said nothing at all about

  49
  it today. The reports had simply been shelved. They apparently conveyed embarrassing information and were shelved.
  Miss Widdecombe: What has the right hon. Gentleman been doing for four years?
  Mr. Straw: Almost my very first action on taking office was to say that a protocol would have to be agreed and announced between the chief inspector of prisons, the director general and me. It provided that, in very short order, report drafts would be submitted for factual accuracy to be checked; would go back to the chief inspector; and—unless there was a major argument on factual accuracy, not on the chief inspector's comments—would be published. If there was disagreement on factual accuracy, the draft would come back to me. I am pleased to say that that protocol has been very successful and we have ensured that reports are published.
  Miss Widdecombe: What have the Government done?
  Mr. Straw: Our first action has been to ensure that reports are published as quickly as possible. If reports were treated now as they were when the right hon. Lady was the prisons Minister, the public and Parliament would never know about bad prison conditions. The first thing that we have done is to shine light on those establishments, which the previous Administration refused to do.
  Secondly, where there have been adverse reports, we have sought rapid improvements. As the director general said in his speech last week, there have been improvements at Wormwood Scrubs, Wandsworth, Brixton, Portland and Leeds. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the director general and I were the first to say that, yes, change was too long a-coming at Brixton. Consequently, we said that that establishment would have to be market-tested. However, we have done more than that.
  Although I have publicly expressed my gratitude to the chief inspector for his reports on individual prisons and for his thematic reports, it became clear to us that we needed more than just those reports to ensure a continuous stream of information on the relative performance of establishments. That is being dealt with by implementation of the recommendations of Lord Laming's inquiry, which were published in July 2000. He has established that by laying the foundations for improving standards systematically and routinely, identifying under-performing prisons much earlier, and ensuring that robust remedial action is taken, there will, we hope, be fewer adverse reports from the chief inspector.

  I have already given the House details of the additional funds that we have provided over and above those provided by the previous Administration for 1997–98 and 1998–99. There were additional funds in the comprehensive spending review that was announced in 1998 and came into force at the beginning of 1999. For the three-year comprehensive spending review period that starts at the beginning of March 2001, we are providing an extra £689 million, with a 7 per cent. cash-terms increase for 2001–02 alone.
  The settlement will allow the service to increase capacity to cope safely with the expected prison population, which includes more than 2,500 extra places;
  50
  to upgrade health care centres; to enhance security; to maintain the very good record on escapes; and, significantly, to increase drug programmes and other regimes to reduce reoffending. In return, the service is signed up to challenging new targets on regime delivery.
  Among the right hon. Lady's non-answers to interventions by Labour Members, I noticed her very long non-answer to the question on whether she was committing the Opposition at least to maintaining the Government's planned spending. In all the ever-changing commitments from the shadow Chancellor, that question has never been answered. As the right hon. Lady knows, however, I am always happy to give way to her on this, or any other, issue.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): Does the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) have the answer?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is much more likely to have the answer, not least because he is a good friend of the shadow Chancellor. Whether the right hon. Lady is such a friend is open to doubt; it is a moot point.
  The right hon. Lady failed to mention that industrial relations were continually bedevilled inside the Prison Service by almost institutionalised conflict. I have worked hard to ensure that there is a new climate. That has required me—forcefully, at the beginning of my period in office—to make it clear to the Prison Officers Association that I considered there was no place within the Prison Service for industrial action. I am not talking only about strikes, but about other industrial action. On one or two occasions, that led me to seek injunctive action in the courts against the POA.
  We have moved on from there, and I am grateful to the leaders of the POA for their constructive approach. I am glad to say that last week I announced the creation of a new pay review body for prison governors and officers, which will be chaired by Sir Toby Frere. I fully expect this to lead to improvements in staff performance, and in response the POA has made a voluntary commitment never again to take industrial action.
  The right hon. Lady quite rightly tweaked me about my remarks in opposition about the idea of private prisons. I confess that I did not like the idea when it was first put forward. I thought there was a danger that profit would be put above the care of prisoners.
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind.
  Mr. Straw: As John Maynard Keynes famously said, "If circumstances change, I change. What do you do?" I confess; I have been informed by the facts. I plead guilty to that.
  Miss Widdecombe: In two weeks.
  Mr. Straw: It was not in two weeks. I spoke to the Bourne trust in 1995. [Interruption.] Of course I remember it; I remember a great deal. I was there, and my recollection is accurate. We shall come on to that later.

  51
  I changed my mind not least because, in March 1997, there was a unanimous report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs—involving Labour and Conservative Members—which provided a glowing endorsement of the conduct of private sector prisons.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am very interested in this chronology; it is fascinating stuff. March 1997 was two months before a general election. If the Home Secretary had changed his mind then, did he make sure that people knew that he had had that change of mind before the general election? Local POAs were telling me that they were still being assured as late as March that prisons would no longer be privatised and that no further contracts would be let by the Government.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady is quite right to ask me about that, because my speech in October 1995 was rehashed in "Gatelodge". I am sorry that it was, but these things sometimes happen in the swirl of an election campaign.
  Miss Widdecombe: So he did not tell the electorate.
  Mr. Straw: The electorate were told, as a matter of fact. I certainly did not dine out on the issue during the 1997 election. I can give the right hon. Lady more details about the provenance of the "Gatelodge" article, which I do not think was persuasive one way or the other in the election. We did say that we wanted a mixed economy in which both the public and private sectors could flourish. We did not want the one-way street that she proposed, involving transfers from the public to the private sector only. We wanted a two-way street where increasingly the public sector would be challenged by the private sector, but where it too could challenge the private sector. That has happened in respect of Buckley Hall, Blakenhurst and Manchester, where the public sector continues to run the prisons but with clear arm's-length agreements.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: This is a serious issue. In March 1997, the Home Secretary had changed his mind on whether the private sector should be involved in running prisons. However, he allowed the POA—the vital sectoral interest whose members might change their vote depending on the policies of the particular parties—to labour under the illusion that he was still in favour of the public sector running prisons. That is an example of how the Labour party has run all its policies.
  Mr. Straw: I do not think it is quite as significant as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I have already explained that the speech I made in 1995 was rehashed into an article in early 1997. I do not think that people were misled in the way he suggests. I have been as open as I can about the provenance of that, and about the fact that, yes, I have changed my mind.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I hope that the right hon. Lady will tell us whether she will commit her party to the same levels of spending. She is very welcome to ask me two questions, and I look forward to her intervention.
  Miss Widdecombe: We will spend what is necessary to supply the prison places.
  52
  May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the substance of the point that we are discussing, rather than what he may or may not have said before the last election? He has decided to bring both Blakenhurst and Buckley Hall, which have had favourable reports and are generally recognised as excellent, back into public sector control. Will he acknowledge that the private sector has a built-in guarantee of delivery in that if delivery does not take place there is a financial penalty in the contract, whereas there is no such penalty in any public sector contract?
  Secondly, and more important, if the public sector can do a better job of running two excellent prisons than the private sector which created the excellence, why is not the public sector doing that in its own prisons? Why did the right hon. Gentleman not accept that bid and say to the public sector, "If that's what you can do, go and do it for one of the miserably failing prisons in the public sector"?
  Mr. Straw: That is exactly what we are doing. There has been a service level agreement in Manchester, and we are seeking to roll that out in other prisons. Having SLAs and clear arm's-length relationships, with the people in the prison being on the line when it comes to delivery, is a very sensible approach for the public as well as the private sector.
  The competition for Buckley Hall and Blakenhurst was won fair and square. I am responsible for the decision, but it was made, quite properly, by the director general, as accounting officer. There are necessarily some differences between the public and private sectors because the public sector cannot go bust. However, so far as possible, we have ensured that the same disciplines will apply to the team running the Buckley Hall and Blakenhurst public sector arrangements as apply to the private sector.
  I note that again the right hon. Lady was silent on whether the Opposition will match our promises in respect of money.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the earlier exchanges, my right hon. Friend may have missed the shadow Home Secretary saying, "We will spend what is necessary to supply the prison places." Does my right hon. Friend read into that a substantial commitment to additional expenditure that has hitherto not been admitted in the House of Commons?
  Mr. Straw: If it means anything at all, it means a lot more money, especially as the right hon. Lady seemed to imply that she would seek to eliminate overcrowding and a great deal more.
  Let me deal briefly with overcrowding, health care, prevention of reoffending, suicide, race relations, young offenders and prison industries.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about finance and resources before he moves on to other important matters.
  The Library tells me that Prison Service expenditure from 1991–92 to 1999–2000 has risen from £1,462 million to £1,846 million. That is a 2 per cent. increase in real terms over nine years. In the same period, the prison population has gone up by 40 per cent. Are the Government prepared to make a commitment that, if re-elected, spend on the Prison Service will catch up with

  53
  what has fallen away and will keep pace with any increase in prison numbers that the Home Secretary appears to anticipate?
  Mr. Straw: One point on which I entirely agreed with the previous Administration was that the Prison Service was capable both of increasing performance and cutting unit costs. There was substantial waste, and we have continued to cut it. The figures given by the hon. Gentleman are correct, but they would have been lower if we had not had to put in additional resources—£60 million and £112 million—for 1997–98 and 1998–99. I have already explained that the further three years of the comprehensive spending review involve a substantial increase, and that will provide, among other improvements, an additional 2,660 places.
  We expect prisons to produce efficiencies, and I see nothing wrong with that. What was appalling about the pre-Woolf system was that it was both costly and poor. The increase in resources provided by the present Administration, particularly since the first comprehensive spending review for 1998–99, has been more satisfactory. I have sought to ensure that there are more resources. Numbers have risen, but at the same time all sorts of practices have improved.
  I shall deal with a few more points briefly in the knowledge that many hon. Members want to get into the debate. On overcrowding, nearly 30 per cent. of prisoners in 1990–91 were held two or three to a cell. That figure has fallen to 16.9 per cent., which compares with a target of 18 per cent.
  Some slopping out has been brought back, and that affects 123 prisoners at present. That differs from the arrangements that existed in 1990–91, however, because all those prisoners are able to obtain manual unlocking of their cells, so that they have 24-hour access, except if there is an emergency on their wing, to sanitation outside their cells.
  Miss Widdecombe: On overcrowding, the right hon. Gentleman said proudly that the figure for putting two prisoners in a cell designed for one had fallen to 17.2 per cent., whereas the target was 18 per cent. Will he acknowledge that the figure that he inherited was 15.5 per cent., and that there has therefore, been some deterioration?
  Mr. Straw: I cannot remember the exact figure—
  Miss Widdecombe: It was 15.5 per cent.
  Mr. Straw: If the right hon. Lady will hang on a moment, she will find that I am perfectly ready to accept her figures. There has been some downward change, and I regret it. However, that change has been in the context of a rising prison population. We have increased the numbers, but if the right hon. Lady wants to make a political point—
  Miss Widdecombe: No.
  Mr. Straw: She says she does not. Given that the right hon. Lady had planned much lower resources than we have put in, there would, under her plans, be many more people locked up two to a cell than is now the case.
  54
  Overcrowding is likely to remain a problem in prisons. It is not for me to set an artificial ceiling for the prison population, and I am not going to. We are putting in additional resources to ensure a considerable increase in the number of places available. I judge that sufficient places will be available.
  Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: Mr. Narey has called overcrowding in prisons a scourge, Lord Woolf called it a cancer and the former president of the Prison Governors Association called it an obscenity. Does my right hon. Friend accept that prison overcrowding has grave and damaging effects, and is it a priority of the Government to eliminate the problem?
  Mr. Straw: Other things being equal, I should prefer there to be no overcrowding or having two prisoners to a cell. However, we must ensure that enough places are available to meet demand, and that is what we are trying to do. We are putting a lot of extra resources into the prison system to increase the total number of places available. In addition, some other Prison Service establishments that are experiencing overcrowding produce a good standard of care for prisoners, while others do not. Overcrowding in itself cannot be used as an excuse for under-performance, and we will not accept that it should be so used. In any event, the situation is radically different from that which prevailed 10 years ago.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald mentioned suicides. I am sorry that she tried to make a political point out of one of the gravest issues that faces the Prison Service. She used out-of-date figures. The number of suicides fell last year, although that is of small comfort. That fall—to 81, not 92 as claimed by the right hon. Lady—is the first for five years. At the Prison Service conference, I announced a new, proactive strategy to try to turn around the service's record on suicides.
  We must work extremely hard to reduce the number of prisoner suicides, but we must work even harder to ensure that prisoners are safe in their cells. Last year, as everyone realises, the Prison Service failed in its duty of care to Zahid Mubarek. He was locked up, quite inappropriately, with a man who subsequently murdered him. The investigation revealed racism in the establishment—Feltham young offender institute. I both encourage and greatly welcome the investigation being conducted by the Commission for Racial Equality into racism in the Prison Service. When its recommendations are received, they will be acted on.
  Not only is there racism between staff and prisoners, but it is also carried out by white staff on black and Asian staff. I am determined that it should be eliminated—as are my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and the director general. One of the ways we are trying to do that is by establishing a race equality for staff—RESPECT—network for black and Asian staff in the Prison Service. The network was successfully launched by my right hon. Friend last month; the event was attended by 1,500 delegates. The Home Office's network now includes the RESPECT network. It provides an active voice for staff, so I know that it will be extremely important both in raising the concerns of black and Asian staff in the Prison Service and in ensuring a shift in approach and attitude.

  55
  The right hon. Lady mentioned health care. When the national health service was established in 1948, one of the few things that the then Government got wrong was that prison health services were not incorporated into it. Since then, the prison health service has been a Cinderella.
  Miss Widdecombe: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to change that?
  Mr. Straw: Yes. We have already announced joint working between the Prison Service and the NHS. In some areas, NHS trusts provide health care. In addition, £35 million has been allocated over the next three years to improve health care facilities.
  The Prison Service has increasingly suffered from the abject failure of the so-called care in the community policy implemented by the previous Administration—although I doubt that the right hon. Lady agreed with that policy. The closure of large mental institutions without the provision of alternative care was appalling; since the late 1980s, it has led to a sevenfold increase in the proportion of the prison population with moderate to severe mental health problems.
  Prisoners suffering from dangerous and severe personality disorders are among those with the greatest mental health problems. On 20 December last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health told the House of our joint proposals for managing that group. We have committed £126 million to fund a programme of pilot projects across the Prison Service and the NHS over the next three years, to research both a rigorous assessment tool and effective treatments.
  The next pilot will provide extra places at HMP Whitemoor, alongside the existing assessment pilot centre, where therapeutic interventions will be piloted and evaluated. In addition, two new units are planned at HMP Frankland in Durham. The units will be built within a secure perimeter and will provide 100 assessment and treatment places; they are due to open in early 2003. A 70-place unit will open next year at the Rampton high security hospital. A further 70 places are planned within the NHS by 2004.
  Purposeful activity is of critical importance. To make prison work, we must ensure that prisoners are better when they leave it than when they entered it—better educated and, as far as possible, better trained. They should receive advice and help to get them out of their offending behaviour.
  Mr. Edwards: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has previously heard me commend Usk prison for its training, education and sex offender treatment programmes. Will he be good enough to visit the prison? It could serve as a model for other prisons throughout the country.
  Mr. Straw: I should be happy to visit Usk prison. Given the long list of visits that I have promised to make and have yet to fulfil, it may take a little time, but I shall certainly do my very best.
  Purposeful activity has increased and the monthly figure for November was 24.6 hours. That is a steady improvement on last year, and we hope to meet the target that has been set.
  56
  Education is key. We have continued many of the good things that happened under the previous Administration—not the shattering of morale, which we have helped to restore. I am astonished that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald did not have the humility to recognise what had happened. We were determined to introduce a literacy and numeracy key performance indicator, which is now in place. By the end of this financial year, prisoners will have gained 9,000 full qualifications at basic skills level 2, making many of them employable on release for the first time.
  We are investing £18 million over the next three years to secure a 50 per cent. increase in the number of qualifications obtained by prisoners. We have also put much more money into accredited offending behaviour programmes—my right hon. Friend the Minister of State can deal with that later—and a lot of effort and money into custody-to-work programmes to ensure that people in prison receive much better preparation to get jobs. We know for certain that if prisoners have a job to go to, they are much less likely to reoffend, and far too many of them do not have jobs to go to.
  The last substantive point that I want to make is on prison industries. The right hon. Lady could not leave alone the issue of socks. [Interruption.] She is chuntering from a sedentary position that there are millions of socks. She suggested in her speech that 2.5 million pairs of socks had been produced in a year. In my world—perhaps not in hers—socks wear out, so if socks are not produced year by year, there is a really serious problem. All the sock production takes place in Gartree prison in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), which is the centre of the Leicestershire hosiery area. The industrial production of socks in the prison service is darn good value and we have developed a holistic approach, but I wish that the right hon. Lady would stop putting her foot into the matter.
  Some 600,000 socks a year are produced in prison industries to meet the demand inside the Prison Service. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady says from a sedentary positions that there are 65,000 people in prison, but she does not understand that many people leave prison within much less than a year, so the turnover of prisoners is much greater than she thinks. She keeps talking about early release, but every prisoner, apart from the 23 whole lifers, is eligible for early release.
  Miss Widdecombe: Do they take the socks home with them?
  Mr. Straw: No, I do not think they take the socks with them, although I am sure that they are not stripped of their socks as they leave prison. That minor, but important industry in Gartree is run for the benefit of the rest of the Prison Service.
  I shall make some general remarks about industries in prison. Subject to meeting prisoners' other needs, the purpose of prison—apart from punishing prisoners with the loss of their liberty—is not only to have them producing things, but to try to make them better people so that they are less likely to reoffend. It cannot follow that the only way to achieve that is to give prisoners full-time work, because many of the functions that they undertake would not be ones for which they would find jobs in their own area when they come out. There must

  57
  be a balance, so I cast doubt on whether it is possible or sensible, within the overall aim of reducing reoffending, for every prisoner to be engaged full-time in work because there would be no time for anything else; it would be an inappropriate use of their time.
  Yes, we should like more prisoners to be engaged in productive work. There is no argument about that. However, I have read the remarks that the right hon. Lady made on the subject at a Conservative party conference. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is aghast at the idea. However, the more that I listen to the right hon. Lady on the subject, the more I think that her idea for a self-financing plan to provide work for everybody is as well constructed and put together as the announcement that she made at the most recent party conference. I am sure that other countries also lock people up for their second minor offence of possessing cannabis. We can also find a state in the United States where people are locked up for life if they commit three tunes offences such as stealing a pizza.
  It is always possible in matters of penal policy to find some administration somewhere that has come up with a more crackpot idea than the right hon. Lady. She can be assured of that.
  Miss Widdecombe rose—
  Mr. Straw: Let me finish my point. However, by crackpot, I was referring to her ideas on cannabis.
  Prison industry is a difficult issue. A Conservative Member raised the issue of our plans to expand the prison industry in his constituency with the director general. I shall give the right hon. Lady the hon. Gentleman's name in private because I have not asked him whether he is willing to have this case made public. The plan was far advanced, but the hon. Gentleman wrote in privately to suggest that it would seriously disrupt industries that pay its workers and he asked us to back away from the plan. Wisely in the light of the representations, the director general decided to do that because a serious number of jobs would be lost.
  Some prison industries compete not with industries in this country, but with those abroad. For example, in data inputting—this may not be pleasant—we are competing with industries in the far east. That case does not create industrial relation problems or raise the issue of loss of profit here, but it is a difficult issue.
  I am happy—this is a genuine offer—to sit down with the right hon. Lady to consider her calculations and examine how we can take her plan forward. We can argue about whether the figure is 65,000 or 30,000 full-time places, but we have a long way to go, so if we can create another 10,000 places, that is fine. However, she needs to be careful about making large promises that cannot and will not be fulfilled.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: Although other people are beckoning me to finish, I shall give way to her for the last time.
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall be swift. Whenever the Home Secretary says that he is willing to consider an idea,
  58
  that heralds the fact that he has stolen yet another jolly good idea from us. However, on this occasion, I am very happy to discuss the issue with him, because I am aware of the case that he has quoted. If he studies my speech, he will see that I was very careful to say that it is possible to develop prison industry without competing with local labour. It is possible and the right hon. Gentleman knows that. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Hon. Members keep yelling "How?", but I suggest that they go to have a look at what happens in Blakenhurst.
  Mr. Straw: If the right hon. Lady thinks that she can do what she says, let us try to pin the issues down. However, we must consider the calculations.
  The right hon. Lady has suggested that none of us has ever run a business, but that is not true of many Labour Members—they have run businesses. However, one thing that I know for certain is that a number of my constituents are about to end up in the bankruptcy courts because they did not produce proper calculations when they went to see the bank manager to take out a loan. Calculations are critical to the running of a business. It does not matter which side we are on; it boils down to a consideration of the calculations and whether it is possible for the plan to be self-financing.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend give way on this point?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, but then I must conclude my speech.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is there any need to beat about the bush? Is not the reality that the shadow Chancellor has told the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that he is not prepared to give her any more money, so she had to find a ruse to convince the public that more resources would be available? She has come up with an idea that she grossly exaggerates. Those are the facts, so why cannot we spell them out?
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend could be right. For me, the jury is out.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: It will not be a jury trial.
  Mr. Straw: I think that this case requires a jury trial. I wait to see the calculations.
  When my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the director general and I spoke at the annual conference of the Prison Service last week, we all emphasised the need to drive up performance and to maintain the pace of change in the service. The work done in prisons is difficult and I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the dedication of governors, prison officers and other staff and to the work of the many volunteers who help bridge the gap in the community. I also pay a personal tribute to the Director General of the Prison Service and his staff at its headquarters for their excellent leadership.
  The facts reflect my belief that conditions for the vast majority of prisons are improving. Understandably, we hear about the reports that the chief inspector of prisons produces on failing prisons, but we hear much less about the

  59
  many more reports in which he praises prisons for adequate, good or excellent performance. We all recognise the need to continue to improve the performance of some prisons but, above all, we need to remember that it is the purpose of prisons to prevent offending and reoffending. That is the goal of our strategy.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: We welcome the opportunity to have such an important debate. Like the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the Home Secretary, we are glad to have a few hours in which to raise some of the issues, even if we do not receive all the answers. On a more mischievous note, I wondered whether the right hon. Lady had thought of becoming self-financing herself, which might be in everyone's interest.
  The past few weeks have been vital for the debate on the Prison Service. The Lord Chief Justice made an important contribution in his lecture 10 years after the Woolf report and the director general made a crucial speech at last week's Prison Service conference. In addition, today's press includes an important article by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham. He has been assiduous in making his views clear and has used his independence to do his job very well, as did his predecessor.
  The Select Committee on Home Affairs made three initial proposals in its third report of this Parliament in the 1997–98 Session. It acknowledged that
  "The increased prison population places enormous strains on the Prison Service and, given the budget constraints in which it operates, has an adverse effect on prison regimes and the amount of rehabilitative work which can be done in them."
  It proposed a much better target for purposeful activity. In its second proposal, it confirmed:
  "The rapidly escalating prison population makes it of paramount importance to investigate credible alternatives to custody and to use them wherever appropriate."
  With regard to its third proposal, it said:
  "We note the insistence of the HM Chief Inspector of Prisons that there are many people in custody who do not need to be there."
  All those statements reflect Liberal Democrat concerns.
  However, none of us underestimates the difficulty of running the Prison Service, whether as a Minister, Home Secretary, director general or anyone else who is involved in its management. It is a hard, but vital, job, and we thank those people who are involved in the service. I pay tribute to the governors whom I have met on my visits to prisons in the 15 months since I have had responsibility for home affairs. I appreciate the hospitality of their management and staff, who were willing to answer all questions. Almost without exception, I found them impressive and encouraging. They certainly know what they want to do and it was interesting that they often gave similar messages about where improvements could be made.
  I want to single out one or two people. I had an interesting conversation with the president of the Prison Governors Association when I visited Durham prison a few days ago, and I intend to deal with two of his concerns. He made clear the widespread view that many
  60
  people should not be in prison and that the service is unable to cope well with them. He explained that there may never be adequate resources to manage people who stay in prison for only a short time and who the service cannot prepare for life back on the outside.
  I visited the women's high-security section of Durham prison. One woman told me that she should not be in prison because she stabbed someone after being mentally ill for a number of years. She said that she should be receiving treatment in hospital. Although I understand why the decision was taken to put her in prison, many people in prison have been failed by our mental health services. Hospital would have been a better place to deal with that woman.
  I visited two very different prisons in a short time—Lancaster, which I think is the oldest prison in the country, and Doncaster, which, as one of the newest prisons, is also doing a particularly good job. I have changed my view on private sector prisons and believe that it might be appropriate for them to exist, provided that they have suitable, enforceable contracts with the public sector. It is useful to remind the public sector that the private sector offers an alternative and can set an example for it to follow. I accept that it is easier to produce better services in a brand new prison than it is in a very old prison such as Lancaster, which is hundreds of years old. However, even some old prisons do excellent work. Lancaster runs extremely good sessions on the rehabilitation of sex offenders and how prisoners can deal with drugs, alcohol and anger management. The fact that it is an old prison does not mean that it cannot follow good practice.
  I have also seen transformations in London, although plenty still need to take place. Wandsworth prison has improved significantly, but that is not the case for Brixton. I am probably in and out of Brixton more than any other prison. I should make it clear that that is always for constituency reasons—colleagues know that I am here far too often for there to be any other explanation. Brixton prison is not only overcrowded but unable to cope properly with the pressure that is placed on it. Many of its prisoners are on remand and should not be there.
  Leeds prison made the strongest impression on me. According to the league table, it has the greatest overcrowding of any prison in England and Wales. I visited it a few weeks after the new governor was appointed and could see the difference that Mrs. Stacey Tasker had already made. I did not know the previous governor, but little changes had apparently made a huge difference. Daily morning meetings allowed the management to exchange their experiences of what had happened the day before. The new governor decided to move the previous governor's office from the prefab outside the prison building to the middle of the prison, so that every time she went in and out of her door she could see what was going on. She also decided to walk around without colleagues, which made her much more free to talk to prisoners. I pay tribute to such innovative governorship, which should be seen more often.
  I should also like the Minister to know that I was privileged to visit Leeds prison for two days when the prison inspectorate was carrying out an inspection. I think that I am the first Member of Parliament to participate in such a visit. It did an excellent job and I pay tribute to it.

  61
  Its staff were courteous and helpful, and effective across a range of activities. I enjoyed my time with them and thank them for that opportunity.
  Prison numbers are rising significantly. There has been a 40 per cent. increase in the past nine years. We have more prisoners per head of population than any European country except Portugal and a large number of remand prisoners, although that has dropped slightly in the past couple of years, even though 50 per cent. of remand prisoners do not receive custodial sentences. It must be wrong to lock up so many of them before they are tried when the courts subsequently decide not to imprison so many of them.
  The Home Secretary knows that I am concerned about Prison Service expenditure. In nine years, there has been a 2 per cent. increase in expenditure for a 40 per cent. increase in numbers, which cannot be explained by the service becoming more efficient. It is impossible to get 38 per cent. efficiency savings in that time. The Director General of the Prison Service made it clear how he and his colleagues had resisted the efficiency savings that it was unreasonable to ask them to make.
  As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald explained, prisoner activity has, sadly, been reduced. I was encouraged to hear from the Minister that purposeful activity has increased in the past few months. However, a parliamentary answer from the prisons Minister to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 12 December shows that since the Conservatives left office, purposeful activity has decreased, which is inexcusable. The figures vary widely throughout the prisons estate, but on average prisoners spend only 23.7 hours a week on such activity. Prisoners are not prepared for release and a constructive life outside if they spend half their time locked up with nothing to do.
  The statistics for the amount of time spent on education, on farms and in industries seems to show a decrease while the prison population has gone up, which is a tragedy. [Interruption.] I say to the Minister that I am aware that figures differ throughout the service, and some prisons are better than others. That is true of all the prison statistics. Some prisons have no overcrowding, and others, such as Leeds, have 800 prisoners living two or three to a cell. The last statistic revealed by parliamentary answers that I should like to refer to is that the number of hours spent outside the cell varies hugely too.
  That leads me to my first conclusion about what has been going wrong. The director general said that he was not willing to go on making excuses for what happens in the Prison Service. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of management and Ministers to deliver consistency throughout the service. Although there has been improvement in some areas, many things have gone wrong in many places over the past four years. The director general admits that there has not been a general improvement.
  Some of us believe that there are too many people in prison, and that we ought to try to reduce that number. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), told me that there are comparable reoffending rates for those who have been inside and those who have not. Figures are difficult, and I do not want to make the matter too complex, but the ball-park figures are that 57 per cent. of those who go to prison reoffend within two years, which is not a great
  62
  success rate, and those who receive sentences that are a good alternative to custody, such as community sentences, have a less than 50 per cent. reoffending rate. Good alternatives are therefore much more successful than wasted time in prison.
  Lord Chief Justice Woolf made it clear that we often send people to prisons that have totally ineffective regimes for dealing with them, whereas a constructive alternative outside prison would be far better. We ought to ask ourselves who is in prison who ought not to be. There are many women, people with mental illness, prisoners on remand and people serving short sentences who should not be in prison. If policy makers considered those four categories of people, we could significantly reduce the prison population and introduce a sentencing regime that keeps many people out of prison while more effectively preventing them from reoffending. In prison, often little is done to prevent that, and sometimes positive harm is done by keeping people locked up.
  In his lecture the other day, the Lord Chief Justice, referring to a comment made by Churchill when he was Home Secretary, said that one of the tests of a civilised society is how we look after our prisons.
  Miss Widdecombe: Exactly.
  Mr. Hughes: Before the right hon. Lady gets too carried away in agreeing with me, I point out that another test is how we treat asylum seekers and refugees. The real tests are the difficult issues and the difficult people, and we are currently failing those tests.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but sentencing is ultimately a matter for the courts. The courts are not constrained to send people to prison, save in exceptional circumstances. When they send people to prison they are reflecting public opinion. The real task, therefore, is to change public opinion.
  Mr. Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is very knowledgeable and I accept his point. I remind him, however, that in opinion polls the public say that sentences should be tougher. However, all surveys show that members of the public grossly underestimate the length of sentences. Public opinion is based on an inaccurate understanding of the facts. If the public knew how long sentences are, they would not call for them to be longer.
  I am sure that the public want a better system for reducing reoffending rates. Prison governors are agreed that it is a priority to have regimes within prisons that hugely reduce the chance of people reoffending when released. There are only two ways of doing that. The first is to have a good purposeful activity regime of sport, work, training or education. The second method is to prepare people effectively for release. I have not found a prison in the country—a local prison with other responsibilities—where the staff have not said, "We have no time to prepare short-term prisoners for release. They have no training. They come in and go out before we can do anything with them because we are concentrating on long-term prisoners." It is those short-term prisoners who reoffend most often: they burgle; they go into prison and come out again; they burgle again and go back to prison. We are

  63
  failing many of the people whom we put in prison. Sentencing is a matter for the courts, but they hope that when people are in prison, something will happen to persuade them not to reoffend. Nothing happens to them. They are locked up and then sent out with no assistance.
  Mr. Stinchcombe: The single greatest factor in determining whether someone is likely to reoffend on release is whether he has a stable family life to return to. The lack of that increases the chances of reoffending by as many as six times. In light of that, is the hon. Gentleman disappointed that 26,000 prisoners are still held more than 50 miles from the Crown court where they were committed?
  Mr. Hughes: I am disappointed. The hon. Gentleman is right, and I saw those figures in the Lord Chief Justice's report. Many people have made the point that we must move towards having community prisons for all but the most high-risk offenders. The director general said that that was still a dream. It should not be a dream. [Interruption.] I say to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald that I know that it is a difficult matter. As a south-east of England Member, as she is, I know that there are many prisoners from the south-east, but not enough prisons in the region to cater for them, so they get dispersed throughout the country. None the less, we must try to ensure that prisoners are kept as close to home as possible.
  People must not only be prepared for release, but supported after release. If a prisoner has a family, work, a home and support to prevent him from going back to drug and alcohol abuse, he is far more likely to get back on the straight and narrow rather than to get into the reoffending cycle.
  My conclusion is that the Prison Service delivers no consistency of standard throughout the prison estate, as is clear from the chief inspector's report. There is a lack of resources. That situation may be improving, but it is still appalling. My hon. Friends and I think that automatic mandatory sentences are wrong, but if the prison population is to increase, the Government must provide resources not only to build prisons but to do the rehabilitative work in the prisons too.
  We must seek answers on overcrowding. The Home Secretary did not give a single specific answer about that. The Lord Chief Justice's question, which was also posed by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) and others, asked what the Government will do to tackle overcrowding. When will they tackle the problem? Do the Government accept that it is the overwhelming priority, and will they give it the attention that the Lord Chief Justice called for? When will we have a full constructive activity regime over the 35-hour week? When will pre-release preparation be provided for every prisoner who is about to leave?
  We all agree about the objectives, but we disagree on specific answers. The Minister said, sotto voce, that the Government must be congratulated on better working between the Prison Service and the health service. I congratulate them on that, but I fail to understand why the NHS cannot run the prison medical service. I have not met a single prison officer who does not agree with me
  64
  about that. The Government have been weak about this for a reason that I do not understand. We need only an announcement that the national health service will take over running the prison medical service. It is not difficult because only one agreement is needed. The move would provide much better career prospects both for those working outside prisons and those inside them. A much better service would be provided for prisoners and prisoners' families in the prison estate.
  In the sentencing review that is approaching, we must allow courts to be able to impose community sentences and licences and probation for two years, no matter how short the prison sentence is. At present, I believe that a short sentence cannot have a community condition attached to it. That is nonsensical. The sooner that is changed, the better. Greater flexibility will keep many more people outside prisons.
  We must aim at more community prisons, and we must not be dogmatic about whether they are run by the public service or the private sector.
  I say carefully, but equally strongly, that prison officers must be much more progressive in many cases and much less conservative. There are some very good prison officers but they are hardly the vanguard of reform of the Prison Officers Association. I may not be loved for saying this, but when Mrs. Tasker took over in Leeds, I believe that she found that the gym was not able to be used for much of the day because the officers would not manage the prisoners to use it. Workshops were lying idle for much of the day because officers would not manage movements in and out of them. When education facilities exist, but are not being used, it is nonsensical. Management, working with progressive leadership in the Prison Officers Association, must change the defensive regime and have innovative, constructive and maximum utilisation of the prison estate.
  I hope that the Minister will give us targets for reducing the numbers of prisoners who should be imprisoned. I hope also that he will give us targets for achieving full and purposeful activity. In addition, I hope that he will answer the question posed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about when we shall have a real reduction in overcrowding. Liberal Democrat Members are sad that the Government appear to be accepting what I thought was a Tory view, not a Labour view, that there will be an ineluctable rise in the numbers of people in prison. We think that the numbers should not be increasing to the extent that the Government are predicting. If we try to keep as many people out of prison as we can rather than put more and more people into prison, it is likely that we shall be serving the public interest far better.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Huw Edwards: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who speaks with authority given his experience of prisons in the south-east, especially Brixton. He has a liberal approach, which I would commend.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made some powerful points. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department also made some powerful points about the need for mental health prisoners not to be in prison. He spoke also of the problems of overcrowding and the

  65
  need for the medical service in the Prison Service to be taken into the national health service. The right hon. Lady made some important and powerful comments about Brixton and Feltham, with which I could not disagree. These are scandals and there needs to be a public debate about them.
  My experience of the Prison Service is restricted to my constituency, and that is as a visitor. I have visited Usk prison on about six occasions. I have also visited one or two constituents in other prisons. That is the limit of my knowledge of the subject.
  I well remember the Woolf report, which made some important recommendations. One of the first times I visited Usk prison was soon after the Woolf report was published. It is a category C prison. Also in my constituency is the Prescoed young offender institution. Usk prison now contains mainly sex offenders. That follows the concentration of sex offenders after the Strangeways riots, including the riots in the 1980s.
  As I have said, I have visited Usk prison about six times. A couple of years ago, I was there when His Royal Highness Prince Edward visited. I was, too, on another occasion, when Her Royal Highness Princess Anne visited. However, I also visited only three weeks ago, and that was prompted by three distinctions that the prison had achieved. I am grateful to the governor, Ray Coomber, for the invitation and for the opportunity to discuss matters with him.
  The first distinction for the prison was to be awarded the Investors in People award. It is the second time that that has happened in Usk. I well remember meeting the prison officers who achieved the award only a few years ago. There is tremendous camaraderie among the prison officers and a great sense of humour. They say that everything we ever saw in "Porridge" can be confirmed by prison life.
  Recently, Usk prison was awarded a charter mark. Most importantly, it had a successful inspection report. The inspection was undertaken between 13 and 17 March 2000. The inspector identified what he called the Welsh dimension. In Wales, we have four prisons—Usk, Cardiff, Swansea and the private Parc prison at Bridgend. One of the problems is that we do not have a prison in north Wales. Another is that we do not have a women's prison. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey have spoken of the importance of prisoners serving sentences as close as possible to where they live. Prisoners from north Wales, many of whom will be Welsh speaking, will have to go to prisons outside Wales.
  The inspector commended Usk prison, saying:
  "In taking forward this role for the prison"
  that is, specialising in sex offender treatment programmes—
  "the Governor and his staff have developed very effective procedures for dealing with this particular group of offenders, who have certain specific characteristics, including the facts that they tend to be unpopular, ageing and compliant. Impressively, the whole staff of the prison is involved with their treatment, every Department including the Chaplaincy and the Board of Visitors, playing its part. Sentence Planning supports throughcare and resettlement rather than being an exercise in itself. Education is the main provider of work, due to the lack of other facilities."
  It is important that those other facilities be developed.
  66
  Later on, the inspector said:
  "The result is a most impressive degree of support for programmes in their widest sense—and the staff who deliver them—which we highlight as good practice.
  The Director General of the Prison Service, Martin Narey, commented on the report:
  "I would like to praise the Governor and staff for the excellent work which is being carried out at HMP Usk and HMYOI Prescoed, and commend the staff's enthusiasm in making it possible to carry out the Operating Standards Audit without any reduction in the regime."
  The sex offender treatment programme has developed significantly over the past few years. About three years ago, three members of the staff were specialising in the programme. There is now a section of about 11, consisting of psychologists, probation officers and prison officers who undergo specialist training.
  Given what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said about the progressive attitude of staff, it was interesting to listen to prison officers who described their attitudes when they first entered the service and how they have changed. They have become more progressive and more rehabilitative. They now realise, significantly, that offenders need not reoffend. They have an important role not only in punishing prisoners but in rehabilitating them for the society that they will invariably rejoin.
  I remember one prison officer saying, "I was a hard-nosed screw when I came here." He is now involved in sex offender treatment programmes and other rehabilitation programmes.
  I shall quote one of the prisoners who has gone through the sex offender treatment programme. It is called "Steve's Opinion", and the assessment is publicly available. It reads:
  "The Core Programme … gave me an understanding of the ordeal that I put my victims through. I saw how my victim blamed herself for my offence, how afraid she was of telling anyone what had happened to her in case she was not believed, how her self-confidence was destroyed and how frightened she was of ever seeing me again. These are just a few of the things that I put my victims through."
  He concluded:
  "In short, I would say that to offend was the worst decision of my life; to attend the Core Programme was the best decision of my life. Having now completed the Core Programme, I would now go as far as suggesting that any sex offender who claims to regret his actions owes it to his victims and to himself to attend the Core Programme."
  Nothing can condone what some offenders have committed. However, it is important that they have the opportunity to undertake sex offender rehabilitation programmes. I understand that the non-reoffending rate of prisoners who have gone through such a programme is 46 per cent. That is particularly significant, but it would be more significant if it was nearer 100 per cent. That programme needs to be developed throughout the whole Prison Service.
  When I was last in Usk prison, I met prison officers and prisoners who go out to meet children and young people in schools and try to deter them from offending. I pay particular tribute to one prison officer, Ian Sandigate, whom I would describe as a rather rough-looking prop forward and someone who would frighten young people, but perhaps also a gentle giant. I also commend the prisoner whom I met; he is known as Mossy and he accompanies Mr. Sandigate on those visits. They work together and go to schools to give children and young

  67
  people a realistic idea of what prison life is like. They will describe, not necessarily Usk prison, which may not be typical, but local bang-up prisons of which they have both had experience.
  I saw the importance of the education and training programme at the new designated NVQ centre. Many prisoners at Usk are unlikely to get normal employment again, given their record. They are developing skills so that they can take up self-employment. I saw the information technology provision and the literacy programme, which is being organised through Coleg Gwent, the local further education college. I saw the IT facilities: the prisoners have much better IT facilities than the staff who are working on administrative affairs at the prison, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into that. I visited the farm, and saw the work that some prisoners are doing there. They are developing skills through the woodland strategy, which encourages them to understand woodland nature and to develop their own businesses in sustainable wood production.
  In conclusion, the director general's recent report and speech were particularly significant. I hope that Usk prison will be regarded as a model for the country to follow. I accept that the nature of the prisoners there may make it distinctive, but it is important that the Prison Service gets the balance right to protect the public, provide punishment, provide disincentives to crimes that require that people go to prison, and rehabilitate people for the society to which they will return.
  6.22 pm
  Sir Peter Lloyd: Like the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), I have visited Usk prison. I thought that it was very good, and I am glad that it is keeping up the standards that I observed; but many prisons are hopeless and degrading places, and many have always been so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) quoted Winston Churchill; it is nearly a century since he said that a test of a civilised country is the way in which it treats its prisoners. The Lord Chief Justice, the chief inspector of prisons and the Director General of the Prison Service—in a passionate speech only last week—have all reminded us of how bad prisons can be. No doubt some tabloid editors who would, by implication, dismiss Churchill as a wimpish do-gooder, regard prisons as holiday camps. I do not believe, however, that most of the public do.
  Whatever the arguments on civilisation and morality, it makes no sense for society to spend—or, as the Government would say, invest—so much on or in a system that produces over 50 per cent. reoffending, in the case of adult prisons, and over 80 per cent. in the case of young offender institutions. In reality, those figures are even worse than they appear, because crime is generally a young person's occupation, especially young people from fractured homes. Most of them grow out of crime by their early 30s, leaving the suspicion that those who do not have become embedded in a criminal substratum because of, not in spite of, their experience in prison.
  Of course, there is a huge number of dedicated people throughout the Prison Service running excellent programmes and producing a positive effect on the
  68
  prisoners in their charge. Quite rightly, the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend have quoted them. However, by looking on the bright side and constantly doing justice to them, it is dangerously easy to obscure quite how negative and third-rate much of the system is. I am certain that no Minister, whether in this Government or the previous one, wants it like that. It is true that some of my colleagues in the previous Government thought that prisons should be austere—which is how most prisons remain—but they always preceded that adjective with "decent", and they meant it. The reasons why the problem nevertheless remains intractable are many and difficult.
  First, there is overcrowding. As has been said many times in this debate and outside the House, there is a major impediment to constructive work if prison officers are obliged simply to run a convict warehouse. The Government's answer, like the previous Government's, is to build more prisons. However, that should not be their top priority; they should look at sentencing first. Short sentences, in which the prisoner is inside for only a few weeks or months, are pointless. They simply ensure that the prisoner loses his job, if he has one, and possibly break up his family, if he has one; the retention of both being key factors in his keeping out of trouble in the future. What is more, rapidly bringing him in and out of prison creates maximum disruption for the Prison Service, and does not give it time to do any remedial work.
  On the other hand, long sentences, which drive up the prison population, have become increasingly common. There is no sign that, as deterrents, they are any more effective than rather shorter ones. It is plain that, even if the right programmes were available in prison, sentences are frequently far longer than is necessary to produce the maximum beneficial impact. Indeed, past a certain point, prisoners become institutionalised and are less able to lead a law-abiding life on release than they would be if released earlier. In practice, sentencing is a crucial process, but to me it seems hopelessly crude.
  For the most part, judges are intelligent and thoughtful. However, when it comes to sentencing, they seem to be saying little more than "What do we usually give in this sort of case?" They increase the sentence by 20 per cent. for a bad example of the crime, and knock off 20 per cent. for extenuating circumstances. It is good that John Halliday at the Home Office and Lord Justice Auld are looking separately at that issue. I hope that they will go back to first principles and, in particular, do that which is seldom done: consider the effect that the sentence is supposed to have on the prisoner on whom it is passed.
  I said that prison building ought not to be the priority. Of course, there is sense in building new prisons to replace those that were constructed in a way that makes it hard to provide the range of activity essential for a good regime. However, what is really needed, if conditions are to be improved, is the building of secure hospitals, in which the large number of severely mentally disordered prisoners can be properly treated. That would give them a far greater chance of recovery than they have in the prison system, which simply cannot cope with them, and would make it possible for prison staff to concentrate much more singlemindedly and effectively on those prisoners who remain more or less in touch with reality.
  I was glad that the Home Secretary said that co-operation between the national health service and prisons is much closer than it was. However, that is an area in which completely joined-up government is

  69
  essential, and we have not got it yet. Plenty has been said about the lack of education, skills training and drug, alcohol and offending behaviour programmes, and about the need for real work. The situation is much worse than it appears from the figures, because sometimes programmes that are recorded as being offered do not function, sometimes they are available only to a limited number of prisoners—indeed, that is generally the case—and many are not well run.
  Disciplined, paid work, which my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary would put at the centre of the regime, has a lot of attractions and it would be interesting to see how much it can be developed. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not go too far down that route when she is Home Secretary. Inevitably, paid work in prison will be limited in range and skill content because of the size of prisons and the turnover of prisoners. What should be at the centre is a flexible range of programmes, directed at the needs of the individual prisoner and at those problems of skill, motivation and personality that get in the way of his capacity to lead a law-abiding life on release.
  It is important, not just for the prisoner, but even more for the society that he will rejoin, that prison regimes address the individual prisoner's needs and problems, which should be identified in good sentence plans but often are not. What is most wrong in many prisons is not the poverty of the various programmes, but the fact that, too often, the prevailing atmosphere and relationships are conditioned not by the policies of the governor and his staff, but by the nastiest prisoners. It makes the work of well-meaning officers ineffective, and ensures that frightened and bullied prisoners cannot easily respond positively. There are some prisons where the governor's decisions and policies are carried through, and other prisons where they run into the sand or, at best, have a muffled and distorted impact somewhere down the line.
  That is a major managerial problem in the service. Its solution must involve winning the understanding and full co-operation of more junior staff. Few mistreat prisoners, though some do, but far too many do not see it as their role to get to know the prisoners in their charge, to treat them with respect or to provide them with the positive encouragement that they need to make full use of the opportunities offered by the prison.
  If prisoners are to learn to respect other people, and their persons and property when they come out, that is how they must be treated inside. What is the good of sending criminals to prison, undermining their dignity, winding them up in numerous petty ways and then turning them out into society angrier and more inadequate than when they went in? There needs to be far more training and retraining of prison staff at all levels, with much more serious oversight of their performance and a determination, however difficult and expensive, to terminate the services of those who cannot contribute to improving the way in which their prison runs and the prisoners in their care are treated.
  Finally, I do not believe that Ministers of either party have ever appreciated how complicated the Prison Service is or how difficult it is to run. Prisons are a budget hotel chain, a string of training centres a collection of mental hospitals, remedial schools and workshops in which guests, trainees, pupils and patients all badly want to be somewhere else. That is why the service is flooded with so many priorities, all making sense in themselves,
  70
  but this week's one inevitably militating against the effective execution of last week's—and in its turn destined to be overtaken by next week's.
  It is impossible for Ministers, even those who have the administrative skills, to run the system, as they have manifold other responsibilities and can attend to prisons for only part of their time. When I was at the Home Office in 1993, we set up the agency, which was intended to give professional managers the scope to manage well. It has had some success, but less than I had hoped because we did not go far enough—indeed, events subsequent to its setting up drew the Prison Service back more closely into the Home Office.
  The time has come for Ministers to do that which Ministers find hardest—to surrender their daily power to intervene. That would leave Ministers free to concentrate on what they are really for: broad policy issues, of which there are more than enough in the Home Office requiring their attention. That would enable the Select Committee and Parliament to provide a continuing oversight. Above all, it would give management the chance to emerge completely from ministerial shadow, to provide the leadership and continuity that the organisation badly needs, and to embark on long-term institutional reform. If such a system is to be sustained, it will inevitably be long term—far longer than the term of office of even the longest-serving Minister.
  The Government who devise such a robust and long-sighted system will do more to improve permanently the quality of what is done in the prison system than any number of well-meaning policy initiatives or short-term crisis management. I look forward in hope to what the Minister says in his winding-up speech.
  Before I sit down, one other thought occurs to me. It has always been a source of frustration to those who want the prisons to serve the community better that community interest in the criminal justice system seems to stop at the prison gate. It is surely time for prisoners to be able to vote. It would certainly draw all candidates inside and be an education to them, their local parties and, through them, the wider public. As the number of prisoners is small compared with the number of voters outside, there is no chance that the interests of prisoners would be preferred to those of the rest of the electorate, but it would help to point up where the long-term interests of prisoners and society at large coincide, to the real benefit of both.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: I agree with the last point made by the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd)—prisoners should be able to vote, and I see no argument against that.
  The Director General of the Prison Service made a courageous speech, and I suspect that that was the reason for today's debate. As I said in an intervention, I am, for once, in a charitable mood towards the Opposition. The Prison Service should be the subject of debate. I believe that this is the first time that the Opposition have raised the topic in this Parliament. Be that as it may, we have a responsibility, especially as so many of our prisons are an utter disgrace.

  71
  In his speech, the director general said:
  "Year after year, governor after governor"—
  he was not speaking of just the past four years
  "inspection after inspection, prisons like these have been exposed. Year after year the exposure has led to a flurry of hand wringing, sometimes a change of governor, a dash of capital investment, but no real or sustained improvement."
  In the short time—three minutes—at my disposal, I draw to the attention of the House the level of violence, bullying and physical abuse that occurs in prisons and has done for so many years. The House should be extremely concerned about that. Sometimes, the physical abuse is carried out by prison staff. Former prison staff from Wormwood Scrubs were jailed only last year. More often, however, bullying and violence are carried out by prisoners themselves, which make life that much more of a hell for other prisoners. The aims of rehabilitating prisoners and helping a good number of them to lead a law-abiding life when they leave prison is undermined by what takes place day in, day out in prisons.
  I shall make a few brief points before the Opposition claim their time. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who spoke for the Opposition, disagreed about the number in prison, but I agree with what has been said by others, particularly the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). For many prisoners, there is no alternative to prison, but where there is a reasonable chance that the community will not be harmed, we should increasingly consider non-custodial sentences.
  There is no chance, in my view, of substantial prison improvement and reform if prisoner numbers keep on rising. It is easy to send a person to prison and to believe that the community will therefore be safe, but what happens when prisoners other than those serving a life sentence are released? As a former Home Secretary, Lord Hurd, said, it is important to bear in mind that those who go to prison will eventually come out.
  Finally, I have the greatest respect not only for the Director General of the Prison Service—I wish that he had spoken before—but for the chief inspector of prisons. Time and again, Sir David Ramsbotham and his predecessor spotlighted the failings. Yes, that embarrassed the previous Government and no doubt it embarrassed my Government, but I believe that what the chief inspector did was essential. I regret that Sir David is not being reappointed and I understand that an advertisement will be placed in the press to publicise the vacancy. The new chief inspector will not fulfil his duties properly if he does not speak out with the same courage and independence as the current chief inspector and his predecessor.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This may be as much a point of frustration as a point of order, but is it not regrettable that, as a consequence of the Government making an education statement on an Opposition day, only one Conservative Back Bencher has been able to contribute to the debate? I feel slightly annoyed about that because I believe that I am the only Member who intended to participate who has sentenced someone to prison. I also happen to have two prisons in my constituency. It is
  72
  regrettable that I have been unable to catch your eye, but is it not also regrettable that the Government have taken up an hour, which has truncated the debate in a thoroughly unsatisfactory manner?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): That is not a point of order for the Chair, but I note the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: We have had a good if all too brief debate and the complaint made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) testifies, if testimony were needed, to the Government's grossly insensitive handling of their business, which has deprived us of a proper opportunity to discuss our motion.
  The debate was magnificently opened by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary. In a thoughtful, impassioned and statesmanlike speech, she made it abundantly clear that there was not a golden age for prisons under our Government. We acknowledge that prison conditions were poor, but they were improving then, so it is incumbent on the Government to recognise that they are worse and deteriorating now. That is the significant point.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a characteristically sincere, reflective and constructive speech and although I do not agree with all his remarks, I respect them none the less. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) gave a timely warning against complacency from the vantage point of someone with real and direct experience of the system. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) legitimately pointed to improvements in service in his constituency, and he was justly proud of those. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), with whom I rarely agree, nevertheless made a fully civilised speech. He spoke with conviction and passion, but I am afraid that I profoundly disagree with him on the entitlement of prisoners to vote.
  The facts in Her Majesty's inspector's reports speak for themselves. That on Brixton of June 2000 describes a service going "steadily downhill", conditions that are "totally unacceptable" and no workshops or education facilities worthy of the name. That on Feltham of September 1999 talks of only 15 hours purposeful activity a week instead of the target of 23.5 and of 90 people in full-time education and 700 receiving no education at all. Kids expect to be incarcerated for 23 out of 24 hours a day and get no fresh air for days on end.
  At Portland, as the November 1999 report all too eloquently testifies, the conditions were, in the judgment of the inspector, "nothing short of scandalous". He observed, and all Members of the House would agree, that it was
  "outrageous that young people and children should be required to live in such conditions."
  If all that is not a sorry enough tale, the position at Wandsworth is equally bad. We are told that there is a "pervasive culture of fear" and an attitude that is "callous and uncaring".
  What emerges from all the reports and the testimony of independent witnesses, who advise Members of the House, is that, too often, education in prisons, which

  73
  should be the route to reform and future hope, is grossly inadequate, poorly structured, rarely co-ordinated and therefore inevitably defective in the results that it produces. Too often, young people, chronically and almost criminally, I dare to say, are moved from one institution to another before they complete the courses on which they have embarked, the results of which could benefit them and the wider community. Indeed, in many examples it is sad, but, nevertheless, salutary to recall that people in prison can acquire doctorates only in barbarism and criminal study. That is a tragedy and a damning indictment of the Government, who have had four years to translate their highfalutin words into meaningful and purposeful reality.
  Assaults on prisoners are up 25 per cent.; assaults on staff are up 20 per cent.; and incidents of self-harm in prisons and young offender institutions stand at 7,398, which represents a 35 per cent. rise. The Home Secretary cannot gainsay the fact, no matter how he tries to quibble, that prison suicides have soared under this Government. Appalling conditions are inadequately attended to and Ministers are grossly complacent, but still they busily implement the home detention curfew scheme, which has released 31,000 serious offenders, typically before they have served even half of their sentences. We know that, as a result, about 1,000 extra offences, including two rapes and several assaults on policemen, have been committed.
  I say to the prisons Minister that those incidents have happened on his watch. They should be on his conscience, for the blood that has resulted from those early releases and violent offences is surely on his hands. Prisons should be places for reform, not ruination; for deterrence, not degradation; for punishment, not purgatory. The director general has challenged the Government to make a reality of the rhetoric of decency and of dignity. It is nevertheless sad to recall that the Government, as we see in example after example after example, are preoccupied with the trappings of office and the perks of power. They are all too remote, I regret to say, from the failures of their policy and the damage done to victims as a direct consequence of that failure.
  The Government, the Home Secretary and the prisons Minister have failed prisoners, failed victims, failed hard-working staff and failed the public. Wherever we look, we see purposeful activity declining. The quantity and quality of education is inadequate. The increase in slopping out is deplorable. The morale of those charged with delivering the service has been depressed and is probably worse than it has been in a generation.
  I suggest to the House and the prisons Minister, who should have a full opportunity to reply, that there has been a litany of woes from a smug, self-satisfied and complacent Government who have failed to deliver. After four years of consistent inadequacy and repeated failure, it is time for a Government with an insatiable thirst for public office to give way to an Opposition with an insatiable thirst for public service.
  6.48 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): An Opposition with a great deal of brass neck! The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) comes to the Dispatch Box to deliver a speech that does no justice to the serious debate that we were having. The reality is that the Government have begun to address,
  74
  in a determined manner, the underlying problems that have bedevilled the Prison Service for many, many years. Let us cool it for a moment and take a more reflective look at the seriousness of the task in hand.
  The overriding Prison Service priority for any Government must be, first and foremost, the protection of the public. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about the overriding priority of this Government—it is the protection of the public, which is best secured by holding prisoners in safe and decent conditions and addressing the underlying causes of their offending. About that, we are all agreed. That should underpin the vision that any Government have for their Prison Service. We will be judged on the extent to which we have met the objectives that we have set ourselves in that regard.
  We should consider what has been achieved. The present Opposition have rightly and understandably fallen into the trap, because they are doing what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) castigated the House for doing in March 1997, when she referred to the
  "endless catalogue of damnation by the Opposition, who do nothing but point to the bad news."—[Official Report, 20 March 1997; Vol. 292, c. 1067.]
  She is now doing exactly the same.
  Let us stand back and examine what has been achieved. There have been improvements in security. There were 232 escapes from prison in 1992–93, on the Conservatives' watch, compared with 11 escapes in this financial year—232 to 11. We are entitled to be proud of our record. The right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Buckingham talked about the importance of constructive activity in prisons. We are addressing the causes of offending through offending behaviour programmes—we cannot be any more constructive than that. Total completions of such courses are up 240 per cent. from 1,373 in 1996–97 to 4,664 last year. [Interruption.] The Tories do not like hearing the good news, but they are going to hear it whether they like it or not. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boateng: No. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has a right to reply.
  Mr. Boateng: As for education in prisons, more than 32,000 full qualifications have been achieved in prisons since April 2000. The number of teaching hours increased by 10 per cent. The Government need no lessons from the Opposition on the importance of ensuring that prisoners work. The turnover from prison industries and farms in 1999–2000 was the highest ever at £53 million—up from £51.4 million in 1996–97. Judge us by the turnover from industry and farms, because it is up.
  On sales of products, the right hon. Lady went on about socks, but they are given away, so let us consider what is sold. Sales of products from prison industries and farms to external customers rose from £6.7 million in 1996–97 to £10.45 million in 1999–2000. That is the difference between Conservative rhetoric and the Labour

  75
  party in government delivering work and industries in prisons. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham will have his chance in due course.
  I want to examine the serious points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) and the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd). They addressed two crucial issues. Rehabilitation is vital, and must be at the heart of what we are trying to do in prisons. My hon. Friend referred to the work in Usk. Rehabilitation of prisoners must lead to an understanding of the impact of their crime on their victims. We are addressing that in the work taking place in prisons. We are getting prisoners to see the harm that they have done to their victims and to confront what in their conduct has caused so much trouble and misery to others. [Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Member for Buckingham saying from a sedentary position that this has been going on for years. We should compare the Government's record with what our Conservative predecessors achieved. We are achieving change and giving prisoners the opportunity to change their lives, whereas the Conservatives consistently failed to do that.
  Mr. Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boateng: No.
  We are making the important link between what goes on in prisons and what goes on in the community. The right hon. Member for Fareham, in a serious and considered speech, referred to the importance of ensuring that we address not only the issue of work in prisons, but the link with work outside prisons. The charity that he chairs does sterling work in that regard. We are now trying to build on the work of the voluntary sector to enable voluntary institutions to work more closely with prisons and to establish real links between prisons and the community.
  Mr. Garnier: On the subject of those links, I was informed by the director of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders at a JSB conference on Saturday that 50 per cent. of those leaving young offender institutions do not know where they are going to sleep on their first night of freedom. What is the Minister doing about that?
  Mr. Boateng: I was in Pentonville prison just a few weeks ago to launch a new project. NACRO and the housing associations are involved in that work. We want to ensure that before prisoners leave an institution they have been given advice on benefits and their housing needs have been examined, so that they do not go out into the wider world without certainty of a roof over their heads and the means to pay for it.
  Serious resettlement issues need to be addressed. The Prime Minister has launched his initiative from the social exclusion unit to ensure that we get the policy right. There are no easy solutions: glib answers are not enough. The problem requires hard work and effort. The director general is bringing pressure to bear on the Prison Service to improve management. As our amendment points out, there are discrepancies in what can be achieved with the same resources between one institution to another. We were given examples of such discrepancies in the debate.
  76
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey described his visit to Durham, deals with some difficult, damaged and distressed prisoners. All the evidence shows that when the national health service works alongside prison health care and prison officers are able to train and obtain officially recognised NHS accredited qualifications—which we have enabled them to do—we better focus resources on the needs of individual prisons. That helps better to protect the public, because it ensures that the mental health and other health needs of prisoners have been assessed before they leave prison, and they are more likely to maintain their links with the NHS and so are less likely to offend.
  This is about management and building partnerships between the NHS and the Prison Service, utilising the voluntary sector. Importantly, as we have shown in the four years in which we have had the stewardship of the Prison Service, as a result of those partnerships we have improved the conditions of many people in prison, and we have begun to address the issues that were neglected for so long by the Conservatives.
  Mr. Bruce: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has visited a number of the prison establishments on Portland. Has he examined the change in regime at Portland young offender institution, which seems to have caused more problems than it has solved?
  Mr. Boateng: Indeed, I have examined the change in regime, and with the help of the youth justice board we are improving conditions in Portland. Any objective examination of that institution will show that to be the case.
  This issue is about investment, management, partnership and, above all, avoiding the glib strictures that characterised the Opposition throughout their stewardship of the Prison Service. We are working hard to improve management, we are better focusing resources and we are improving conditions in all our prisons. That is what the Government have achieved, and what the Conservatives failed to achieve.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 248.

  Division No. 114]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Allan, Richard

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Amess, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Burnett, Jhon

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Burstow, Paul

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Butterfill, Jhon

  Baldry, Tony

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Bercow, Jhon

  Cash, William

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Capman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Boswell, Tim

  Chidgey, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Chope, Christopher

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Brady, Graham

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Brake, Tom

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Collins, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Breed, Colin

  Cotter, Brian

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Cran, James

  77

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Madel, Sir David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Maples, John

  Duncan, Alan

  Mates, Michael

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Evans, Nigel

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Faber, David

  Michie Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fallon, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Feam, Ronnie

  Oaten, Mark

  Flight, Howard

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbuty)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Öpik, Lembit

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Page, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Paice, James

  Gidley, Sandra

  Pickles, Eric

  Gill, Christopher

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Prior, David

  Gray, James

  Randall, John

  Green, Damian

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John

  Rendel, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hammond, Philip

  Ruffley, David

  Hancock, Mike

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Harvey, Nick

  Sanders Adrian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hayes, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Soames, Nicholas

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spring, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Steen, Anthony

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Streeter, Gary

  Hunter, Andrew

  Stunell, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Johnson Smith,

  Syms, Robert

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Typsell, Sir Peter

  Keetch, Paul

  Taylor, Jhon M (Solihull)

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Key, Robert

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Townend, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Trend, Michael

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tyler, Paul

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Viggers, Peter

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Walter, Robert

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lansley, Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Letwin, Oliver

  Whittingdale, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Lidington, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Willetts, David

  Livsey, Richard

  Willis, Phil

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Loughton, Tim

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Luff, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  and

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Banks, Tony

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Barron, Kevin

  Allen, Graham

  Bayley, Hugh

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  (Swansea E)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Ashton, Joe

  Bennett, Andrew F

  78

  Benton, Joe

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Best, Harold

  Grocott, Bruce

  Betts, Clive

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Blackman, Liz

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Healey, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Heppell, John

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Hill, Keith

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Browne, Desmond

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Hood, Jimmy

  Burgon, Colin

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Caton, Martin

  Illsley, Eric

  Cawsey, Ian

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Clapham, Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Jamieson, David

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Clelland, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Coleman, Iain

  Joyce, Eric

  Connarty, Michael

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Corbett, Robin

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Corston, Jean

  Kemp, Fraser

  Cousins, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cox, Tom

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Lammy, David

  Cummings, John

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Laxton, Bob

  (Copeland)

  Lepper, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dalyell, Tam

  Levitt, Tom

  Darvill, Keith

  Linton, Martin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Love, Andrew

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  McDonnell, John

  Dobbin, Jim

  McFall, John

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McIsaac, Shona

  Doran, Frank

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dowd, Jim

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  MacShane, Denis

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  McWalter, Tony

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  McWilliam, John

  Edwards, Huw

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Efford, Clive

  Mallaber, Judy

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Ennis, Jeff

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Etherington, Bill

  Marshall, David (Shetteston)

  Fisher, Mark

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Martlew, Eric

  Flint, Caroline

  Maxton, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Follett, Barbara

  Merron, Gillian

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Moffatt, Laura

  Godsiff, Roger

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  79

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Snaps, Peter

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Soley, Clive

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Spellar, John

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Olner, Bill

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  O'Neill, Martin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pearson, Ian

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pickthall, Colin

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pike, Peter L

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Pond, Chris

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pope, Greg

  Pound, Stephen

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Tipping, Paddy

  Purchase, Ken

  Trickett, Jon

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Truswell, Paul

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rapson, Syd

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Tynan, Bill

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Watts, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Salter, Martin

  Wilson, Brian

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Winnick, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wood, Mike

  Sheerman, Barry

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Woolas, Phil

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wray, James

  Singh, Marsha

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House supports the policy of Her Majesty's Government to make prisons work better to reduce reoffending and thus cut crime; welcomes the improved investment in the Service, and the improved performance of the Service in terms of security, literacy and numeracy, offender behaviour programmes, the reduction in drug taking and in under-18 regimes; offers its gratitude to staff and the many volunteers attached to prisons; but notes the significant and unacceptable variation in the effectiveness of different Prison Service establishments as highlighted by the Director General and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, and endorses the measures being put in place to secure higher and more consistent standards across establishments.

"Shifting the Balance"
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I inform hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.15 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the First Report of Session 1999–2000 from the Liaison Committee, Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive, HC300, provides the right basis for the further development of the Select Committee system as a means of increasing the scrutiny and accountability of Government; and invites the Liaison Committee and the Government to bring forward the necessary Standing Orders for detailed consideration by the House.
The motion has been tabled in the names of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, of me as shadow Leader of the House, of three Select Committee Chairmen and of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
The debate is unusual for two reasons. First, the Conservative party has been concerned that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been denied the opportunity to vote on the substantive motion on the Liaison Committee report, which seeks to shift the balance of power from the Executive, especially from the party Whips, to democratically elected Members who are not part of the Executive.
Secondly, the motion is not party political. Its wording comes from the second Liaison Committee report of 20 July 2000: it appears in the recommendation in paragraph 76. During business questions last Thursday, the Leader of the House said:
"Of course it is for the Opposition to determine topics for debate on Opposition days, and it is for the country to judge whether the Opposition's priorities reflect public concern."—[Official Report, 8 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 1075.]
I suspect that tonight's debate is not necessarily the subject on which many people outside the House will be focused, but it is of great importance to the democratic rights of the people who represent them: Members of the House.
It is surprising that the Leader of the House should have said that because, in May 1997, when things could only get better, the Government said in their manifesto:
"We believe the House of Commons is in need of modernisation and we will ask the House to establish a special Select Committee to review its procedures."
There was no asking. I and other Conservative Members believe that the Committee that was established by the Government undermines the role of the Leader of the House.
A Conservative Government will expect three things. First, we will expect the Leader of the House to reflect the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House in respect of House matters and Standing Orders. Secondly, we will expect a genuinely free vote on such a motion—not just lip service, but an opportunity for hon. Members to exercise a vote on House matters such as the Liaison Committee report.

81
At last week's business questions, the Leader of the House pointed out to me the vagaries of the free vote. She said less than a week ago:
"I point out that not all her colleagues will enter the Lobby to support the report if they are given a free vote.—[Official Report, 8 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 1071.]
Let me say immediately that I not only accept but respect that. That is what the Leader of the House or shadow Leader of the House is expected to recognise.
Thirdly, under a Conservative Government, a Conservative Leader of the House will respect Back Benchers. It was a Conservative Government who introduced Select Committees, and it is a Conservative Opposition who are giving the House the opportunity to vote today. After the next general election, it will be a Conservative Government who will shift the balance.
I do not intend again to go through all of the Liaison Committee report, which we debated on the Adjournment on 9 November 2000. The report is the considered view of no fewer than 33 hon. Members, from all parties, many of whom are eminent Chairmen of Select Committees. Their views are very clearly stated and have already been debated by the House.
Mr. John Healey: The hon. Lady has just told us that 33 very senior Members support the report. Does she accept that, when the Liaison Committee considered the report, only 22 of the 33 Chairmen were present? Is she saying that the report is fully supported—to a man and to a woman—by the 11 Chairmen who were not there and did not vote on it?
Mrs. Browning: I am not aware of a minority report. The usual procedure of Select Committees is that, when there are clear dissenting voices, those whose names are not listed as supporters of the report issue a minority report stating their views. Conservative Members on the Modernisation Committee have done precisely that in this Parliament. Although I realise that the hon. Gentleman is a relatively new Member, I hope that he will recognise that those Members had every opportunity to dissent from the report, had they wished to do so.
On 11 May 2000, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) drew to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that he had 203 signatures for his early-day motion 476, which stated:
[That this House warmly welcomes the first report of the Liaison Committee, published on 2nd March, which observes that the membership or select committees is effectively under the control of the Whips and that this has led on occasion to long delays in setting up committees at the start of a parliament and in replacing members thereafter and that members have been kept off committees because of their views; agrees that this is wrong in principle; and believes the implementation of the report's recommendations would strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive to the positive benefit of both.]
Mr. John Redwood: I am glad that my hon. Friend has already reached the subject of the Whips. Has she noticed that the Government Whip on duty has twice scoffed at her remarks—when she said that we are debating not a party political matter but a House of Commons matter, and when she said that the House
82
would be treated with more courtesy by a different Government? Will she bear it in mind that that is why Whips are not suited to making those appointments?
Mrs. Browning: The very reason that we are having this debate—[Interruption.] Regardless of which party is in office, the system in this place has to change and become more democratic.
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Browning: Yes, but I want to make it clear that I do not intend to give way many times. As the hon. Lady will know, I usually give way frequently. As today's debate is for Back Benchers, I shall say what I have to say and then give hon. Members an opportunity to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair.
Mrs. Fitzsimons: In the light of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), does the hon. Lady appreciate the incredulity of some new Labour Members when listening to her remarks? Although Conservative Members had 18 years in government to make those changes, it is only now that they are in opposition that, suddenly, they allegedly see the light.
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Lady was rather self-effacing by saying that she is a new Member, which she is. I remind her that it was a Conservative Government, under the great Margaret Thatcher, who established Select Committees in 1979.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The hon. Lady should be a little more accurate. She might be right about the structure of departmental Select Committees, but they go back much further than that.
Mrs. Browning: I am sorry that the right hon. Lady is still in the same mood as she was in last Thursday. I hope that, by the end of today's debate, she will recognise the importance of Select Committees, and the fact that the previous Conservative Government demonstrated that we wanted to make them more accountable to ensure that hon. Members can use the Select Committee structure to call the Executive to account.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Browning: As it is the hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous member of various Select Committees, I shall give way just once more.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Lady talks about making Select Committees more accountable, but does she remember what happened to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)? He was Chairman of the Health Committee, but the previous Tory Government removed him because he objected to Government policy. How can she make such a speech when her party is riddled with hypocrisy on these matters?
Mrs. Browning: On the contrary, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has signed

83
today's motion. I have made it very clear that I do not care which party is in office, but I want democratic change to the way in which Whips and the Executive control Committees of the House. [Interruption.] That is the whole purpose of this debate.
The Government have been pressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially by the hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), to allow the House to have a vote on this very important report.
The Government's response to the Liaison Committee report was very critical. They had clearly not spent much time on it. Indeed, on the Cabinet Office press release, the Liaison Committee itself was prompted to say that
"its description of the contents and effect of the Government Reply was remarkably selective … this was presentation, but not of a type which the Government should employ in its relations with Parliament."
If today's debate is about anything, it is about the relationship between the Executive and Parliament.
The hon. Member for Thurrock has been quite assiduous in raising the issue. One sensed his frustration, however, at his not being given a vote on the report. Earlier, I heard the Government Whip accuse me of duplicity. Perhaps he will listen to the words of the hon. Member for Thurrock. Last year, in a question to the Leader of the House, he said:
"Has my right hon. Friend heard the cruel and callous rumour, which is full of calumny, that the Government might try to kick into touch any consideration in Parliament of the Liaison Committee's report 'Shifting the Balance'? Can she give the House an assurance that, despite the fact that there are varying views on the report's contents and recommendations, the Government intend to bring the matter to a head and allow hon. Members a free vote..?"—[Official Report, 25 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 897.]
Later, when I deal with the matter of a free vote, we shall see where the duplicity lies.
As I said, I do not intend to deal again with all the contents of the Liaison Committee report, which we debated on 9 November 2000. Despite the overwhelming response of hon. Members on both sides of the House to today's debate and vote, we did not receive an assurance that there will be a free vote. Although the wording of our motion is not party political, Labour Members will still not be allowed a free vote on it. The wording has been presented to the House by members of the Liaison Committee, on which all parties are represented.
Today's debate should send warning signals that although the Prime Minister says that there will be a free vote the Government will twist and turn to deny one. Is he not the same Prime Minister who has promised the people of the United Kingdom a free vote on keeping their own currency?
Last July, in an exchange with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister claimed on the Floor of the House—as hon. Members have reminded the Leader of the House on many occasions—that there would be a free vote on the report. However, the Government have taken every opportunity to ensure that hon. Members are denied the opportunity to exercise that right.
84
Fortuitously, earlier today, on a ledge in the House, I noticed a bright pink piece of paper showing this week's Labour Whip. I notice that, far from having a free vote tonight, Labour Members are subject to a three-line Whip at 10 o'clock.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: It is an Opposition day.
Mrs. Browning: Interestingly, the Whip on duty says more from a sedentary position to defend the Whips Office and the Executive, than I have heard a Whip say in many previous debates.
Conservative Members expect the Prime Minister's word to be his bond. As the Whip has pointed out, this is an Opposition day debate, so the Prime Minister's promise to hon. Members does not count any more. When the Prime Minister said that there would be a free vote, he did not mean on an Opposition day. That was not pointed out last summer. That promise does not count today, even though the motion is not an Opposition motion but one from the Liaison Committee. The Prime Minister's word does not hold good.
That begs the question, when does this man's word ever hold good? I hope that not only hon. Members but people outside will learn the lesson. We have seen how the Government have twisted and turned to deny their Back Benchers a free vote. How much easier will it be to twist and turn to deny the people of this country a free vote when it matters?
Is not this the Government who, under the chairmanship of a Cabinet Minister, forced changes to the Standing Orders of the House under the guise of modernisation? Is not this the Government who espouse the philosophy of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and Mr. Alastair Campbell—that the days of democratic representation are coming to an end? Is not this the Government who hold their own Back Benchers in contempt, including those who hold office as Select Committee Chairmen? Is it not time for a Conservative Government to restore democracy to the Benches of this House?
7.32 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"notes the First Report from the Liaison Committee, Session 1999–2000, Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive, HC300, and the Government response thereto, Cm 4737; considers that the Select Committee system has proved its worth as a means of increasing the scrutiny and accountability of Government, endorsing in particular the Liaison Committee's judgment of the value of Select Committees (in particular paragraphs 4, 5 and 24 of the Committee's First Report); commends the initiatives already taken by the Government and by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to improve the accountability of Ministers to Parliament, including the provision in Westminster Hall of the opportunity for some 200 extra back bench debates each Session, and over 20 debates on Select Committee reports; but does not believe that concentrating patronage in the hands of three senior Members of the House would increase the transparency or effectiveness of the Committee system.".
The Opposition motion invites the House to agree that the Liaison Committee report should form the basis of changes in the way in which the House approaches its

85
Select Committee work. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, this is the second opportunity the House has had to discuss these issues: the first was a debate on the Adjournment held last November to give the House a preliminary opportunity to examine the report and consider its implications. Unfortunately, by the time that debate took place, the Leader of the Opposition had already committed his party, as a party, to accepting the report. He seemed to do so on the grounds—here I paraphrase—that the Government exercise unprecedentedly large power and so must face unprecedented restrictions on that power: restrictions never placed on any Conservative Government.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Tonight I have a free vote, as printed on the Whip issued by the shadow Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). I do not believe that that is true of Labour Members. Given that the terms of the motion are precisely those issued by the Liaison Committee, should that not be the case if the Prime Minister's word is to be his bond?
Mrs. Beckett: I think that the hon. Gentleman was in his place at business questions on Thursday, and he will have heard that question put to me repeatedly. He will also have heard my answer: this is Opposition business, not House business, and Opposition business is whipped.
Mr. James Paice: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: If it is on the same point, I will not. I can come back to it later if the hon. Gentleman wishes, but I want to make a little progress.
I shall come in a moment to the substance of the report and its proposals, but first I want to dispose of the canard that in some way the Government are unprecedentedly abusing power and so must be unprecedentedly restrained. There are some things that are unprecedented about this Parliament; one is that, sadly, so few Members on the Conservative Benches have any experience whatsoever of Opposition.
When that is coupled with a collective bout of total amnesia about the record of past Conservative Governments, it leads to the repetition of a series of claims levelled without reference to the facts—claims about the size of the Government's programme, the length of recesses and the number of guillotines. Claims are made about all manner of House business, which are all claimed to be unprecedented when, in fact, none of them are.
Mr. John Bercow: Is.
Mrs. Beckett: All right, "is"— if the hon. Gentleman wants to be picky about the grammar.
One of the interesting aspects of recent genuinely thought-provoking debates on these issues has been the assertion by Opposition Members that we should return to a time when the Government did not set the agenda for the House. When challenged, most admit that such a time has never existed and that what they demand today are fetters on us that were never placed on them. To be fair, in November, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford
86
(Mr. Wells) did identify a golden age when, he claimed, Parliament was truly sovereign. It was apparently during the Cromwellian period, some 350 or so years ago. I am no historian but I presume that that was before Cromwell just dismissed a Parliament. It was certainly before any of us would even have had the vote, which rather dampens my enthusiasm for the parallel.
Let us be perfectly clear: the proposals contained in the Liaison Committee report are certainly interesting, but they are not modest, they are not simple and they do not return us to anything at all. They are profound, they are complex and they carry the potential for a substantial change to our constitution; and, far from taking us back to a lost idyll, they take us forward into completely uncharted waters.
The proposals seem to me to fall into four broad categories. There are those that are already within the power of the Committees themselves or of the Liaison Committee. Many relate to best practice and, although the Government are sympathetic to them, they do not require us to act. Where they impact on Government, such as in the review of Select Committee recommendations, we have issued guidance to ensure that Government Departments co-operate.
There are uncontroversial suggestions that the Government are happy to agree for better practice on our part—suggestions for more effective dialogue between Government and Committees, for how we carry out pre-legislative scrutiny, for joint working or for secondments. Again, here we have common ground.
There are then two other sets of proposals where there are differing views: first on how members of Select Committees are appointed and, secondly, on expanding in a number of ways the roles the Committees exercise. It is in these two areas that we see some proposals that are without precedent.
The acceptance has always been hitherto that the role of Select Committees is to scrutinise the work of the Government, yet in the report we begin to see proposals to substitute their judgment for that of the Government. In this Parliament, members of the Executive must be Members of Parliament. Their accountability for what they do as Ministers is direct and personal, in their capacity as members of this body. They are not apart, or separate.
However, the report proposes, for example, that by statute we set up confirmation hearings for public appointments. Where such appointments are made by Ministers, accountability to the House is through the Minister, not the individual; the appointee is responsible to the Minister and the Minister to the House. It is not clear, at least to me, what the line of responsibility will be if a Committee has a statutory role.
The report suggests a substantial expansion of control over the agenda of the House; for example, extra days on the Floor for Select Committee debates, a takeover of the Tuesday slot for ten-minute Bills now available to Back-Bench Members—thus relegating Back Benchers to Mondays—debates on Select Committee reports to be on substantive motions; and the ability to change the context for other debates by deciding to tag to them specific Select Committee reports. That includes debates initiated by the Opposition or by Back Benchers in Westminster Hall. All that is in the context of the call for a more specific career

87
structure and role for members of Select Committees—a role intended to carry with it greater powers and interest than that of an ordinary Back Bencher.
Mr. Bercow: I would like to probe the right hon. Lady on the Liaison Committee's recommendations on the appointment of members of Select Committees.
Whips are like sewers—they perform an important function, but they should not be idolised. In inviting the right hon. Lady to stand back, just for a moment, from her usual role of democratic centralist, which she performs in exemplary fashion, I ask her to say why members of Select Committees should not be appointed by independent persons rather than by the agents of patronage.
Mrs. Beckett: With deep respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), I have never heard of anybody idolising the Whips. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is timely, but perhaps marginally premature, as I was about to come to precisely that point. I refer to the fourth area, on which I have the greatest reservations about the effect, as opposed to the intention, of the report's proposals.
Let me first do what the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton did not, and remind the House of what is proposed. Three Members, said to be characterised by their seniority and impartiality, shall, at the outset of a Parliament, be chosen by the House. Those three will then appoint every member of every Select Committee. They will seek self-nomination, as we do in the Labour party. The hon. Lady was silent on the procedures followed in her party. They will have regard to experience and to interest, but they will choose the names that they put to the House.
From those so chosen, each Committee will elect its Chair and they will join the initial three as the Select Committee Panel. A smaller group from among them will form an executive of that Committee. They may seek more detailed day-to-day control of the whole budget for Committees, not just of travel. They will administer discipline, appoint replacements to fill vacancies, and so on. The Chair of the Committee will, after the Queen's Speech, advise the Government what legislation he or she feels the House should see in draft, thereby exercising an influence on the timing and hence the content of the legislative programme.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: On the selection of the members of Committees, the panel would suggest names in a more meaningful way than at present, when the Whips decide. It would be for the House to decide to accept any recommendation. I suggest that that acceptance would be much more meaningful because Members could vote against it. They would be voting not against the Government but the panel, however it was constituted.
Most important, is it not wrong for the Government to decide the members of Committees that are set up to criticise and examine the Government? Should the Government decide the appointments of people who are to scrutinise the work of the Government?
Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend knows that I hold him in great respect and esteem.
Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Lady was born there.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right: I was born in my right hon. Friend's constituency, of which he is a distinguished servant. However, I say to him with the greatest respect that, certainly in our party, the Whips do not decide who is appointed. I cannot speak for the Conservative party, and I notice that nobody does on this point.
I take my right hon. Friend's point that it would be wrong for the Government to appoint those who scrutinise them. The Government do not appoint; they do not appoint, for one thing, members from other parties. They do not even appoint members from their own party.
Our procedures are imperfect, of course; they are open to question, of course. However, it is open to members of our party to self-nominate, not least when there are vacancies, but even at the outset of a Parliament. Those names go to the parliamentary Labour party and have to be agreed within that party. Only then are they put forward by the Whips. It is not a matter of the Whips choosing the names that they will put forward—at least, not in our party.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman is about to tell me how the Conservative party appoints members of Select Committees, I shall be most interested to hear from him.
Mr. Grieve: I seek some clarification from the right hon. Lady. She told us a moment ago that this was a serious constitutional change, yet in her answer to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), it became apparent that it was a minor change of procedure, with no constitutional significance. Will she explain why she said earlier that it was a major constitutional change?
Mrs. Beckett: Indeed. First, I think that the hon. Gentleman might have misunderstood me. The constitutional change to which I referred is twofold, but I accept that the most significant part is that to which I have already referred—substituting the judgment of Select Committees for that of the Government rather than their scrutinising matters. However, I do not regard the changes proposed to the way in which we handle the appointment of membership as a matter of triviality. I notice that, yet again, the hon. Gentleman failed to say how Select Committee members are appointed in the Conservative party. Given that we had this discussion in November, and everybody waxed very eloquent about the virtues of the proposed system, they have had plenty of time to change the system in the Conservative party. I take it from the silence on the Conservative Benches that they have not done so, which casts an interesting light on the sincerity with which the motion has been moved.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I thank my right hon. Friend for reiterating what is in the Liaison Committee report about the way in which the Chairman of Committees and the two Deputy Chairmen

89
would be appointed. Can she also clarify whether the two Deputy Chairmen would be allowed to be Chairmen of Select Committees?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an incestuous aspect to the relationship? To be elected as Chairman and Deputy Chairmen, candidates would presumably have to solicit the votes of Back-Bench Members of Parliament who would be likely to ask what they would get in return. Far from independence, there would be a network that would favour Members of Parliament who had been present in the previous Parliament rather than those, of any party, who had only just arrived and were not involved in the highly developed networks among existing Back Benchers.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. One aspect of the proposals on which I had not previously focused is the fact that the three who were elected would all chair Select Committees and presumably, at a later point, it would be decided which Select Committee they would chair.
I repeat that I genuinely hold my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne in affection and esteem, and I am sorry that he is retiring from the House. We shall miss him. I know that he will not take it personally when I make two observations on these proposals. First, not even into his hands would I casually give the proposed powers. Secondly, as he is retiring, this may be the last occasion on which, if the original motion were carried today, Members might feel wholly free to challenge the exercise of power by the Chair of the Liaison Committee.
A couple of days after his election, Mr. Speaker, with the kindly smile with which we are all becoming so familiar, assured an hon. Gentleman who raised an issue that he was sure that he intended no offence. "Everybody", he said, "likes the Speaker." With regard to these proposals, everybody will like the Chair of the Liaison Committee and his or her two senior colleagues. They will be beset by friends. They will control membership—choosing, if they wish, a pro or anti-European majority for the Treasury or Foreign Affairs Committees. They will have the capacity to punish non-attendance. They will control travel, they could control funding, they could control staffing, and they could control time in the House as well as in Westminster Hall. As in the United States, seniority would bring with it not only respect but real and lasting power.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) said, such a structure would require information to assist in reaching a judgment on members. There will be channels of information; there will be channels of advice. It is said—my right hon. Friend repeated it—that the system would be more transparent than it is now because the relevant motions would come before the House and could be amended, but those are the procedures in place now. It does not happen often, but amendments can be moved, and have been during the time in which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and I have been in the House.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: In 1992, I was appointed by patronage to be a member of the Select Committee on Transport. By a revolt against pressure by the Labour Whips, Labour Members supported the late Robert Adley as Chairman of that Committee—and how
90
right we were. The point is that undue pressure was placed on me and my colleagues to abide by a grubby carve-up between those on the two Front Benches. The power that my right hon. Friend refers to would be power for Parliament, taken away from the choreographers of the Opposition and the Government, who are both to blame and both the same in this matter.
Mrs. Beckett: With respect to my hon. Friend, who knows that I have genuine respect for him, he has just made a point opposite to that which he intended. As he has just said, it is, within the structures that exist at present, open to the House to overturn any recommendation from any quarter. Given that Robert Adley, a most distinguished and skilled Member of Parliament, was a Conservative, it was presumably the Conservative party—the born-again devotees of democracy sitting opposite me tonight—who wanted Mr. Adley's nomination to be opposed.
Mr. Bercow: We were not all here then.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is quite right; some of them were not here.
Mr. William Cash: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must press on.
Mr. Cash: The right hon. Lady has given way twice to those on her own side.
Mrs. Beckett: How shocking.
Mr. Cash: Twice.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is being a little silly given the well-known views of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would my right hon. Friend care to make it a third time?
Mrs. Beckett: How can I resist?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Many of us want reform, as my right hon. Friend knows. We want to strengthen the powers of Select Committees and to give them a greater element of independence. However, who will measure the basis of qualifications and suitability? Who will measure work commitment? Are the three people to take it on themselves to decide such critically important issues? What knowledge would they have? The recommendation is nonsense, and the Select Committee should start over. The objective is excellent, but the route is rubbish.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and he is well known not as a born-again devotee of either democracy or the rights of Back Benchers, but as one who has pursued both assiduously for a long time.
Mr. Cash rose—
Mrs. Beckett: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Cash: I am deeply grateful to the Leader of the House, after all that.

91
The right hon. Lady said that it would be possible for a person to be chosen to chair a Committee or be a member of a Committee on the basis of pro or anti-European views. Although I make the point with humour, I intend it seriously when I ask how, during the whole time since the European Communities Act 1972 was enacted, chairmanship of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny—previously the European Legislation Committee—was always in the possession of the Opposition until it came into the possession of the present Government? Why and how did that happen? I mean no disrespect to the present Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee by saying that, whether the Government, the Whips or someone else decided that that should happen, it undermined scrutiny by the House.
Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman said, no one disputes the way in which the European Committees operate, and no suggestion has been made that scrutiny has diminished. I remind the hon. Gentleman that one change made by my Government is a substantial expansion of the role of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny. There is no longer one Committee, but three. [Interruption.] With respect to Opposition Members, that is the point. Under the previous Government, which the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) supported, many areas of European business were excluded from scrutiny by the House. In particular, the by no means insignificant area of legislation initiated by the Commission and the proposals that came from the pillars of, say, justice and home affairs, were all excluded from scrutiny by our Committees. This Government brought those matters under scrutiny.
Mr. Richard Page: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must make progress. I have given way a great deal, and, like the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, I do not want to take too much time so that there is time for Back-Bench speeches.
Mr. Bercow: But we are enjoying it.
Mrs. Beckett: I am delighted to hear it.
I tell the House bluntly that, whatever claims may be made for the new system, within a short period—perhaps as little as six weeks—of such a structure being set up, no one who has failed to achieve the appointment that he or she sought will believe in its transparency. All the talk will be of who is friendly with whom, and of who has the ear of the Chair. Before anybody claims that those arguments are heard now—I fully accept that that is so—let me remind the House of one simple, and perhaps to some unpalatable, fact. Whips come and go. Chief Whips come and go. Prime Ministers come and go. All of them come and go with much greater frequency than Chairs of the Liaison Committee.
It is only because my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is retiring that we shall shortly have a third Chairman of the Liaison Committee—if he were staying on, I doubt that anyone would imagine but that he
92
would hold the position for another 10 years. During the terms of office of the last two people to chair the Committee, we have had eight holders of the office of Government Chief Whip.
Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: With respect, I must get on.
That brings me back to how the three original wise persons will be chosen. They will be chosen by a motion before the House. It appears in the report to be assumed that three suitable candidates will emerge, and that the motion or motions will be put and can be amended. I surely cannot be the only person who notices a strong resemblance to the method by which we have in the past chosen a Speaker.
No doubt I shall be told that that is just a basis, and that each major party could choose its own candidate and would choose an acceptable person. However, I mean no discourtesy to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—I am sorry that he is, uncharacteristically, not in his place; I have considerable respect for his skills as a parliamentarian—when I say that it is by no means inconceivable that a majority in his party might regard him as a suitable candidate to be one of the three wise persons; or his party might consider some other senior Member, such as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).
Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: With respect, no. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his points later.
I understand and sympathise with the wish—I am at one on this with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—to see the work of Select Committees being esteemed and influential. I remind the House of the improvements that the Government have already made. As I have already said to the hon. Member for Stone, the remit of the Committees charged with scrutiny of EU business has been expanded, so that all business can be covered—no ifs, no buts, but a permanent change.
While the Liaison Committee was discussing the proposals in the report, and before it had had a chance to reflect on them, the Modernisation Committee was proposing extra sittings in Westminster Hall, and those have since been expanded still further. That is an experiment, but it is not the Government side that doubts the worth of the experiment. We believe that experiments have value and provide something on which we can build.
Mr. Page: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mr. Graham Brady: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: I will give way to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) because he has been standing for ever.
Mr. Page: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. She has spent most of her speech addressing the issues in the Liaison Committee report and making it abundantly clear that she, on the Government's behalf, is opposed to the

93
report. Bearing in mind that she and the Prime Minister offered a free vote on the substance of the report, and given that the Government are not providing Labour Members with a free vote on that tonight, should we assume that the Government decide their position not on the content or substance of a motion, but according to who moves it?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman merely reiterates a point that has already been made. In my remarks tonight, I suggest to the House that the right course for us to follow is to continue and build on those experiments; they already give Select Committees greater power and more time.
I urge the House—not least some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock—not to fall into the poll tax trap, with which Conservative Members will be painfully familiar: to make the leap from perceived flaws in what we do at present to the assumption that absolutely anything would be better, especially if that anything is described in terms as attractive as "independence" and "transparency".
Our Select Committee system enjoys justified respect. Let us strengthen it where we can by giving much greater time to the debate of its reports. To leave those reports languishing and undebated can only be much less effective. Let us see how we can build on the strengths of the system to contribute to pre or post-legislative scrutiny. Let us see how we can adapt its structures to cross-departmental working—sadly, the Liaison Committee report said little about that. However, let us not rush to bind the House to new processes and procedures whose consequences might be much more far-reaching than Conservative Members are likely to claim today.
8.1 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: If the Leader of the House had a case, she seriously overstated it. The suggestion that the Liaison Committee proposal is revolutionary and unprecedented is no more unprecedented than was the initial decision—taken more than 20 years ago—to set up Select Committees.
If the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues had introduced the motion in a partisan spirit and a contentious manner, one might have had more sympathy for the right hon. Lady's knockabout reply. However, the motion is extremely serious; it relates to recommendations made by some of the most experienced parliamentarians among us—many of whom have held high Government office. Most of them have Front-Bench experience and are not unaware of the needs of the Executive.
In the stand that she has taken today in her attempt to control the House, the right hon. Lady reverts to the worst centralism. That runs right against much of the Government's constitutional programme during this Parliament. It could surely be said that the devolution of power from this place to Scotland and Wales was without precedent; but, in most quarters, it is regarded as a great success. The argument that something is unprecedented is not an argument against its weight.
The right hon. Lady seems to exaggerate when she suggests that the Liaison Committee's recommendations on how Select Committee members should be appointed would tend to substitute the judgment of Parliament for
94
that of the Government. That is not a necessary consequence of the recommendations. She overstates the constitutional doctrine when she suggests that the Government propose and that Parliament disposes—or that, inevitably, the Government must always have their way without regard to the views of Parliament.
Normally, the Government command majority support for their point of view. Party loyalties are strong in this place. However, on some occasions, it is helpful to the Executive to hear the voice of the Chamber and to hear the voice of Select Committees that have deliberated carefully on the matters under their scrutiny.
During the 35 years that I have served as a Member of the House, I recall several occasions when the House as a whole has voiced a view that modified that of Executive. For example, the report of the Roskill committee on the treatment of serious fraud cases proposed that certain matters should be decided in court by a judge and assessors instead of being dealt with by a jury trial. The then Government were minded to accept that recommendation and said so publicly. However, during a debate in the Chamber, 10 of the 11 Members who spoke were against the proposal, so the Government dropped it and it never resurfaced. That was not an attempt by Parliament to substitute its judgment for that of the Government; it was an attempt by Parliament to advise the Government as to how to proceed. That is what this place is about.
The difficulty with proffering advice in this place, however, is that so many of our debates are of a generalised nature. They may well conclude with the comments, "We have heard many points of view. Thank you all very much indeed. The Government will do what they intended to do in the first place." The attraction of the Select Committee system is that it contains the possibility of focusing debate sharply on issues of concern to Members of Parliament and to members of the public.
If we took the advice of the Liaison Committee that Select Committees should be allowed to put substantive motions to the House, we could even more effectively target debates and give the House a much clearer opportunity to express its views. Not only is that bound to be of direct assistance to Governments, by helping them to avoid traps that they may not have seen; it would also sustain the reputation of the House, which, as the Government not infrequently remind us, is in some disrepair.
Some of the issues considered in the Liaison Committee report were canvassed earlier in the debate. They are extremely modest proposals. One, which has not figured large in the debate so far, is that a half-hour debate should be held following the publication of a Select Committee report that has urgency and immediacy. Such reports should not be considered long after the event, but as soon as the findings have been published.
The right hon. Lady produces no significant argument of substance against that proposal. She suggests that, by moving ten-minute Bill debates from a Tuesday to a Monday, one is taking a shocking constitutional step. I cannot understand that at all. To downgrade Mondays rather than Tuesdays is a novel constitutional doctrine.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman may not have been able to be present when we last debated those issues—I do not criticise him for that. On that occasion,

95
I said rather more on my views on that aspect of the Liaison Committee's proposals. I do not want to be repetitious, but I make two brief points.
First, as the right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly well aware, half an hour on the Floor of the House in prime time is not at all insignificant. Half an hour of such time each week takes up time that could otherwise be occupied by a whole piece of Government legislation. That is not unimportant for Government business managers.
Secondly, prime time on a Tuesday afternoon is available to Back-Bench Members at present. Given that the report has so many references to strengthening the role of Back Benchers, it is not insignificant that it is they who will lose out if those debates are moved.
Mr. Maclennan: First, I did read what the right hon. Lady said and, even more importantly perhaps, I also read what she said in detailed response to the Liaison Committee's views on the subject, and I am bound to say that it was distinctly unpersuasive. She seemed to take the view, which she is repeating to an extent today, that half an hour of Government business is, ipso facto, of greater importance than the deliberations of a Select Committee. If we were talking about the procedure every day of the week in prime time, frankly, she might have a point, but half an hour on Tuesday? Her objection calls in question the peroration of her speech, in which she suggested that the Government are seriously interested in what Select Committees have to say in their reports.
As a former, long-serving member of the Public Accounts Committee, I believe it very important that such debates are held soon after the completion of the original inquiry. The problem with the annual Public Accounts Committee debate is that it is not so attached in time or immediate and, therefore, it does not receive hon. Members' focused attention; nor can it be so sharply pointed as the departmental Committee reports, because it suffers, too, from the defect of which I have already spoken—the one-day debate involving, to an extent, a tour d'horizon.

Acceptance of the proposals will give real substance to the Liaison Committee's recommendations and show the country that detailed matters of policy are being considered in a detailed and responsible fashion. That does not necessarily mean that the proposals are hostile to the Government's interests or necessarily adversarial in their approach; nor does it mean that the Minister will be required to give an instant response. If the issues raised are complex, it may be necessary to allow some time for proper consideration.
On the nomination of members, I am bound to say that a fair amount of humbug has been spoken by the Leader of the House about how they are chosen and the beauties of the present system. It appears to be quite plain that the Whips and the usual channels play a controlling part in those nominations. To some extent, the beans were spilled by the former Conservative Member of Parliament for Brigg and Cleethorpes, Mr. Michael Brown, who now writes in The Independent. In an article, he said:
"I certainly recall, as a government whip, doing my utmost, when a new vacancy occurred on a select committee, to nominate only MPs who knew nothing about the subject and who simply wanted
96
to be 'helpful' to the government. I would even successfully persuade them, against their will, to go on a committee in which they had absolutely no interest. My desire, on behalf of my superiors, was simply to block far more effective and knowledgeable MPs. I have no reason to believe that Labour Government whips do not behave in precisely the same fashion."
Mrs. Beckett: With respect, that is a disgraceful assertion. I am happy to say that I have no knowledge of how the Conservative party chooses members of Select Committees—although I have a good idea—but such comments cast some light on Conservative Members' honesty in this debate. As the right hon. Gentleman ought to be aware, there is a proper structure of nomination in the Labour party. That structure has to be approved by the parliamentary Labour party. Indeed, the parliamentary Labour party rules state:
"For all Select Committees, the Chief Whip shall consult the Chair of the PLP, the Front-Bench Spokesperson if appropriate, the Chair of the appropriate Departmental Committee"—
the Back-Bench Committee—
"and prepare from the records kept by the secretary … a list of names to go forward to the House, or the Committee of Selection, as appropriate.
The lists of suggested nominees should be placed before the PLP in good time before any decision is made by the Committee of Selection or Motion taken by the House."
Of course, it is in order for that to be referred back or amended. I simply tell the right hon. Gentleman that that procedure may not obtain in Liberal Democrat party or in the Conservative party, but why should we change the rules of the House because those parties' procedures are totally undemocratic?
Mr. Maclennan: I simply make two points in response to that somewhat lengthy riposte; its very length suggests that the right hon. Lady is a little sensitive on the point. First, the words that she quotes refer to the Labour party's Front-Bench spokesmen. That suggests an oppositionist attitude, which does not reflect the reality of the Labour party in government. No doubt, the person who decides who sits on the respective Select Committee is the very Cabinet Minister whose work will be examined after the event. She makes precisely the argument for not following the, procedure.
Mrs. Beckett: I simply say that it is perhaps time that the right hon. Gentleman ceased to make suggestions about the way in which the Labour party's structures work. What he says is totally incorrect. There is no question whatever of the Cabinet Minister of the day suggesting who should sit on Committees. Does he think that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) would be on a Select Committee if that were the case?
Mr. Maclennan: I am more interested in examining the constitutional procedures of the House than the internal affairs of the Labour party, but I was merely referring to what the right hon. Lady had said. She referred to the Labour party's Front-Bench spokesmen. If their selection does not involve Cabinet responsibility, perhaps we might invite her to tell us who is involved; we should be delighted to hear. Is the Whip answerable to the Cabinet Minister involved? Is she suggesting that that interposition in some way distances the appointee from the control of the Executive? The answer is fairly

97
clear to the House: the Government simply wish to ensure that such matters are managed by the party business managers.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the hon. Gentleman is so sure of what he says are facts, why has there been a string of reports from Committees with Labour majorities, attacking Government policy during recent months? Last week, the Treasury Committee produced a critical report. A couple of weeks ago, the Home Affairs Committee report on asylum seekers was also critical of the Government. Labour-dominated Committees have repeatedly criticised the Government, so what is the problem?
Mr. Maclennan: Members of the Committee, when appointed, exercise a certain healthy, robust independence. Perhaps, in some cases, the Government are simply making assurance doubly sure by seeking to appoint their friends, or those whom they want to satisfy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Maclennan: I had better make a little progress, as this is, to an extent, a Back-Bench debate.
One of the most attractive arguments in the Liaison Committee report is the notion that there should be a separate career for Members, which would be distinct from the route to high Executive office. That is what the report is most likely to result in if it is implemented, and the House ought to grasp that.
I very much regret that the Government have not yet given us the opportunity to vote on such matters in the normal way. It is unsatisfactory that such matters have been debated on an Opposition day, but I do not blame the Conservative party for that; it is the Leader of the House who has failed to take earlier opportunities to table substantive motions to reflect the wishes of the Liaison Committee. Indeed, in evidence to that Committee she said that those opportunities were likely to be provided in last year's spill-over period. That undertaking has not been met, which is why we are debating the matter tonight. Whatever the outcome of tonight's vote—I profoundly hope that the House does not simply split along party lines—these issues test the sincerity of the Government in seeking to modernise Parliament and make it more effective in its scrutiny and control of the Executive.
The House will have to return to these matters time and again. I hope that, before too long, the recommendations are accepted and that what the Government perceive to be revolutionary will be taken as the natural way for a modern legislature to proceed.
8.19 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) was right to draw attention to Norman St. John-Stevas and the epoch-making role that he played in bringing about the departmental Select Committees. The idea was put forward by John Mackintosh, who unfortunately died rather young, and David Marquand. Eventually, Norman St. John-Stevas was able to introduce them in the early years after a change of Administration.
98
That is the best time to act, and we might have been better placed if we had made further changes in the early years of this Administration.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons quite rightly said in The House magazine on 29 May last year that she would like to go down as a reforming Leader of the House. I hope that eventually she will. However, it saddens me to disagree with her, because she has a love and affection for Ashton-under-Lyne that equals mine, and I have admired her work greatly in the various roles that she has played.
I am sorry that the debate is taking place on an Opposition Supply day. By its very nature, it will be a party political debate and it would have been much better if the Government had tabled the substantive motion that we asked for again and again.
We are trying to show that Back Benchers have a role to play when they enter the House. However, many who come here have no role outside the House in the way they did when I first came here many years ago. They therefore try to find a role for themselves, and that is not easy. However, the Select Committee provides such a role; and it is a rewarding task to be able to go into the detail of policies in a way that it is not possible in the Chamber. One can discover all sorts of things that are not easy to discover here.
In particular, members of Select Committees can return to a question again and again until they receive an answer. I remember the best question I ever heard was asked in the Public Accounts Committee by the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Back in the mid-1960s, when I was one of the first members of the Committee, serving on it was not a very attractive job. In fact, its members were pressed men and women—and nearly all men—because the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee ran the show.
I became the Committee's Chairman because I wanted to ensure that the National Audit Office got off to a good start, and I limited my role. However, the NAO's existence enabled us to generate greater interest in the Committee's work and as, the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross knows, I limited the speeches of members of the Committee to 15 minutes. They were shown a card to let them know when their time was up.
The present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was pursuing a question under that system and was repeatedly being blocked by an astute civil servant. Finally, my right hon. Friend—the House knows his character so it will appreciate this point—banged the table and said, "I've only got one minute; I am going to get an answer. Yes or no?" "Yes", came the reply—my right hon. Friend had got his answer. The Select Committee system can provide answers. Committee members can become knowledgeable on the detail, and the House does not normally give one the chance to do that. We want to improve the system so that Members can obtain the answers and become much more knowledgeable.
All of the more than 600 reports produced by the Public Accounts Committee were unanimous. They were genuinely unanimous—not fudged. It is the task of a Select Committee to face the facts. Its members start off bound by their own political dogma, or whatever it may be. However, as time goes on, the Committee's Chairman must make sure that its members begin to respect each

99
other. That means that, when they look each other in the face, they must not resort to the dogma of political life but be determined to discover the facts. That produces something that is really worth while—politicians considering the facts and coming out with them in their reports.
As soon as a Select Committee report is published, there should be an input. That is why the idea of a half-hour debate is one good way—if not the only way—of providing such input. The Chairman would be able to present the report—five minutes is all he needs—and the Minister could take five minutes to give the Government's official reaction. That reaction very often appears in the press, but there is no reason why it cannot be given in the House. A few comments would be made and, although no decisions would be taken, the issues would be given an airing at a time of maximum interest.
The detail is what counts. The eighth report of the Public Accounts Committee considered a decline in the standards of probity in relation to regional health authorities in the west midlands and the Welsh Development Agency. We drew attention to that decline, but the then Prime Minister was not very enthusiastic about the report that we produced. However, he later became enthusiastic, because he realised the value of a Select Committee considering detail outside the Government machine. Civil servants are mired in Whitehall, but ordinary Members of the House, with their knowledge of their constituencies and their understanding of ordinary people, are able to examine the detail. As a result of their greater understanding, they are able to produce a valuable report that is different from the type of report that the Government machine would produce.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) introduced some good changes to the system—for example, confirmation hearings. Although they have no power, they mean that someone who is appointed by the Government has to come before a Select Committee and justify himself. That is a useful weapon in ensuring that minimum standards are maintained. In addition, weekends when the members of a Committee bond together are also enormously important. They mean that its members begin to respect each other. When they have respect for each other, they tend to have respect for the facts and the truth. That is another great advantage of the system.
Mr. Blunt: I, like almost every Member of the House, have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman. He is making a decent and courteous case for his Committee's reports. He put to the Leader of the House the words of Peter Riddell, a cheerleader of the Blairite project, who said in response to the first report of the right hon. Gentleman's that it was "arrogant, mendacious and contemptible". In putting this case so decently, is the right hon. Gentleman not frustrated that he is dealing with an "arrogant, mendacious and contemptible" Government?
Mr. Sheldon: I do not know about that, but it is important that Select Committees acquire such information in a different way from the Government machine.
If the Committees are going to act as outside bodies that gather facts and information and put their opinions in a concerted form, with Labour, Conservative and Liberal
100
Democrat Members reaching agreement, then their members must be free from Government interference. It is clearly wrong that the Government should choose Committee members whose purpose it is to examine the Government. My right hon. Friend is right; it is possible to deal with such issues in a less direct manner, but perception is important. There needs to be a greater remoteness from the Government machine.
The issue is not without importance. I hope that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will contribute to the debate. He was a distinguished Chairman of the Health Committee. As a result of his outspokenness, his party devised a system to debar hon. Members from spending more than two terms in post. I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for four Parliaments and was pleased that the contagion did not spread from the Conservative Benches.
Labour Whips are not bad people, but they have a role that could be carried out by the House as a whole. Perhaps we need to consider the system in a different way. That is just an idea. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, the crucial consideration is the objective, which must be that the House should detennine the composition of the Committees. There needs to be an alternative career for people who are not going to get into government. That is especially relevant when the Government have a large majority. I understand that hon. Members believe they are most fulfilled when they are invited to join the Government, even at a lowly level. I am sorry about that, because we lose some good people. However, hon. Members who stay as Back Benchers should have a means of influencing the way the country is run.
Select Committees will monitor the work that has been done. Every year the National Audit Office tells the PAC how far it has succeeded in influencing the change in Government procedure. We want Select Committees to participate in similar monitoring. I can see no real objection to the many changes that we are suggesting. They might need to be modified and perhaps different methods of approach should be considered, but they are all possible.
Mrs. Browning: The right hon. Gentleman says that modification might be necessary. Does he recognise that the motion suggests that both the Government and the Liaison Committee introduce proposals for discussion by the House? Even with the reservations that the Leader of the House expressed, that gives them the chance to work in partnership with the Committee to iron out some of the differences.
Mr. Sheldon: I have no objection to the wording of the motion, but the debate is taking place on an Opposition Supply day. Perhaps I have been in the House too long, but such days have a certain connotation for me. Although I shall not be able to vote for the motion, I shall not vote against it either. I hope that early in the next Parliament we will reconsider the issues in a more relaxed manner, so that we can manage to get closer to the Liaison Committee's recommendations.
8.32 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: Twenty years ago, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and I went to China

101
together. When the general election comes, we will sail into the sunset together. That will be as much a pleasure as it is to follow him in the debate.
I have various interests to declare. I am a signatory of the motion and a member of the Liaison Committee. In light of the observations made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) about how people become members of the Committee, I should explain that I was a perfectly innocent and ordinary Back-Bench member of the Health Committee, minding my Ps and Qs, when I was put in an armlock by the Front Benches on both sides of the House and frogmarched into the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Not all of us get on a Committee by the processes that she described.
I was a member of the Norton commission and, once, a Whip. Without idolising me, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said that I was the best pairing Whip he had ever experienced—[Interruption]—up to that moment. As the Leader of the House alluded to the number of people on the Conservative Benches who have been in opposition before, I should declare another novel interest: I was one of them. As she led with her chin, I recall when I won a place in that antique ballot for speaking on the Consolidated Fund in the middle of the night. She was Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science at the time, and dispatched her private secretary to ask me to withdraw from scrutinising the Executive at that inconvenient hour.
The Leader of the House's speech tonight leads me to recall the episode of Winston Churchill shooting at Blenheim. The gamekeeper said to him, "Mr. Churchill, that hare four fields away, at which you are taking aim, is really outside your range." Churchill replied, "I just wanted that small animal to feel that it had some part to play in our proceedings." A number of the targets that the right hon. Lady selected tonight were the same distance from the agenda of the motion as the hare was.
I spoke in the debate on 9 Noveinber, to which allusion has already been made. I shall quote the final sentence of my speech. The House will realise that my speech was foreshortened because it was the last before the wind-ups, and was therefore somewhat elliptical. I said:
"I wanted to say something about the influence of the Whips on the composition of Select Committees, and specifically about the disappearance of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) to be Mayor of London and the fact that he was not replaced by someone of comparable political views—the use of the Whips is extremely dangerous when it excludes people who could make a contribution to the Committee—but as we are pressed for time, I shall now sit down."—[Official Report, 9 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 535.]
I am in the debt of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), because by securing this debate she has enabled me to say what I would have said if I had had slightly more time. The Clerk of the Liaison Committee, on which I serve, implied that he had the sense that I was participating in a serial story in a ladies' magazine, and that it would be necessary to wait for the next instalment.
The next instalment is what I would have said if I had had slightly longer. I want to dwell on the loss of only one member of the Select Committee: the hon. Member for Brent, East, who left to seek the mayoralty of London. I congratulate the Government Whips on having
102
appointed him. He added enormously to the Committee, because the nature of his views on Northern Ireland widened the spectrum of views on the Committee and gave much greater authority to the Committee's views. His appointment could be argued as proof that, as paragraph 9 of the Government's response to the Liaison Committee's first report says, the Government are not seeking to ensure
"a docile set of Select Committees."
Four Labour Back Benchers have been appointed to the Select Committee since the hon. Gentleman left. I remark neutrally that, individually admirable though they have been, and of course they are ornaments of the Committee, none has replaced the hon. Gentleman and thus restored to the Committee the authority that he conferred on it. That is why I want the Whips' role to be removed.
The late Ward McAllister decreed that since only 400 guests could be accommodated in Mrs. Astor's ballroom, there were only 400 people in New York. Whatever the result of tonight's Division, let no one in the Government Whips Office imagine that, on a free vote, the result would be the same as will be secured tonight by the law of Mrs. Astor's ballroom. On free votes, and the Government's commitment to them, the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister remind me of the man who returned to a car park, where, in his absence, his car had been damaged, to find a note on his windscreen that read, "As I write this, there is a large crowd gathering around me. They imagine that I am writing down my name and address, but you and I know different, don't we?"
I offer the Leader of the House, through her deputy, the advice of Mark Twain:
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest."
If we cannot have a free vote tonight, let us have one before the general election while the members of the Liaison Committee that made these proposals still sit in the House.
8.39 pm
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: I congratulate my fellow north-west MP, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, on his work and on restoring to the debate the tone that is needed for the discussion of the Committee's report. I agree with him that if Opposition Members wanted Labour Members to enter into the debate, they should not have tabled it as an Opposition Supply day debate, with all the connotations that a Member of his lineage has identified.
Mrs. Browning: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Fitzsimons: No, I shall make some progress first.
My right hon. Friend has been prayed in aid as someone who has given many years of service to the House. He has noted that if more genuine comments were wanted rather than partisan politics, the issue should not have been handled as it has.
Mrs. Browning: Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell me how I might have tabled a substantive motion. We tabled

103
a motion on the Adjournment of the House. What else is open to the Opposition if we are to have a debate that is not in Opposition time?
Mrs. Fitzsimons: Opposition—I hope that the hon. Lady gets used to being in opposition.
I have listened to many Members who have been in this place much longer than I have. I speak from the experiences that I have had so far in the House. I concur with the idea of an alternative career route. It would provide an alternative way of dedicating ourselves to the service that we are elected to undertake in this place. There are great merits in increasing the resourcing of Select Committee Chairs and Select Committees themselves.
The Government should be given some credit for increasing the access that Select Committees have to parliamentary time through Westminster Hall and other means since 1997. It is now possible to refer to many more Select Committee reports than hitherto. The reports were obscure and there were few references. It is cynical of the Opposition suddenly to jump, as though on a life raft, on the Liaison Committee's report. In 18 years of government, they did not advance the agenda. Some Opposition Members are slightly cynical.
It is incumbent upon us to be honest. The motion suggests that we swap one form of patronage for another. Three wise men would preside over the selection process—those Members would probably be men because men constitute the majority in this place. The majority of Chairs of Select Committees are men. There is no more democracy in that process than in the present system.

The bottom line currently is that the House decides. The usual channels, based on the numbers proportionately of Government Members and Opposition Members decide on the allocation. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, the matter goes first to the parliamentary Labour party for reference, and it is then put to the House. The Conservative party nominates Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats and Unionists, for example, decide who they will nominate. Thereafter, the Labour party decides who it will nominate through our democratic processes. There can be objections. There have been many debates about who should serve on Committees and who should be selected as Chairmen. Some Back-Bench Members will be aware of that. I hope that the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats have had similarly vigorous debates. Some of my hon. Friends will have memories of the PLP and vigorous debate.
Mr. Brady: Are not Select Committees supposed to decide for themselves who will be their Chairmen? The hon. Lady has given a revealing insight into the extent to which the parliamentary Labour party tries to control the appointments of Chairmen.
Mrs. Fitzsimons: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is agreement on both sides of the House through the usual channels. Why do you think that we have
104
Opposition Chairs? The Select Committee on Social Security is one example. There is agreement and you know that and I know that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady keeps using "you". She must try to use correct parliamentary language.
Mrs. Fitzsimons: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Chair—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Opposition are trying to suggest that the Government have sought to manipulate and belittle Select Committees and have given Back-Bench Members fewer rights on them. That belittles the truth since 1997. Any member of a Select Committee will be aware that, with pre-legislative scrutiny and extra sittings in Westminster Hall, there is, rightly, far more ability to publicise a Select Committee's work than there ever has been before. I come back to my point about patronage. The bottom line is that it is disingenuous itt the extreme to suggest that nominations by the Chairman and two Deputy Chairmen, as proposed in the Liaison Committee report, would be more democratic or more fair.
Mr. Grieve: Is there not the following distinction? When patronage comes from Back-Bench Members, I accept that there will be some patronage in all cases. However, it would be much more open to the House than it is at present to challenge decisions collectively if it was not satisfied with the way in which the system was being conducted. Effectively, the buck currently stops with the Executive, who control the whole decision-making process.
Mrs. Fitzsimons: That is simply not true. If the House wishes to object, it can do so. In talking about the usual channels abusing the position, we could refer to the debate in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) objected to the recent appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner. Members who objected to the usual channels' nominations decided to debate them. The rules as they stand therefore allow Parliament and Back Benchers to object. The fact that we choose not to do so, for most of the time, is down to Members. Within the parliamentary Labour party, there have been debates about the way in which Members are selected and the balance on Select Committees.
To suggest that three wise people, as proposed in the report, would be more democratic and have less patronage is wrong, misleading and cynical. People outside who are watching our debate and are not familiar with the strange proceedings of the House of Commons may think that the proposal includes more democracy than the current arrangement. I contend otherwise. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne agreed that the proposal needed to be developed; he said that it contained flaws, but was a suggestion or start. I am worried that the report does not make provision, as there currently is, to hold Members to account for nominations and the process of membership of Select Committees.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Fitzsimons: No, I have been generous and other Members wish to speak. I have given way to several Conservative Members.

105
Because of the cynical way in which the subject has been introduced in an Opposition day debate—
Mr. Bercow: How else?
Mrs. Fitzsimons: None the less, it was done that way.
I agree with the worthy intent at the heart of the Liaison Committee report to increase the expertise on Select Committees by inducing Members to stay with a Select Committee, rather than take the only way out currently available to Members seen to be doing a good job—the ministerial route. There is great merit in that. However, the matter has been introduced in a partisan way, with scant consideration for the past 18 years and the previous Government's blatant disregard for Select Committees. As has already been suggested, the Opposition changed the rules on how long one could be a Chairman because they disagreed with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, on which I serve. It is therefore extremely cynical to use the matter in a partisan manner.
Only a few other things need to be put on the record concerning my disagreement with the motion and decision to vote against it.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Fitzsimons: No, I will not.
At the end of the day, it is worrying that the administering of discipline was slipped into the report. I find it worrying that there is suddenly reference to other bodies apart from Parliamentary Commissioners having responsibility for discipline. Perhaps there is more than meets the eye in the intention of some to pursue the report. Perhaps they are seeking to set up a patronage substructure that would undemocratically suggest the membership of Committees and seek to discipline members. No reference is made to how that would happen and by what criteria.
I cannot support the motion because, as I said, it is an Opposition motion, and also because we would be adopting a form of patronage that would be less representative than the system that we have.
8.50 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When I first learned that the matter was to be debated this evening, I was tremendously encouraged. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate my commitment and dedication to the House of Commons. I felt that this would be a cross-party House of Commons debate—not a debate with the Opposition seeking to score points off the Government, not an occasion for the Government to score points off the Opposition, but an occasion when hon. Members could debate restoring to the House power, authority and integrity, to enable the House to hold to account the Government of the day, of whatever party, and to monitor the Government and their policies.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who chairs the Liaison Committee with great distinction, will recall that following a Liaison Committee meeting last week, before the business of the House had been announced, I advised him that it was my understanding that the debate on the Select Committee reports, entitled "Independence or Control?" and "Shifting
106
the Balance", would be the second debate on the Opposition Supply day today. I said that I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might be able to support the motion and be a signatory to it.
I also approached the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who chairs the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. She, too, was tremendously encouraged that the debate was to take place. I approached the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who chairs the Select Committee on Social Security, so that there would be cross-party support for a debate in the House on a matter that is of considerable importance to the House.
I did not want to score political points. I wanted to put to the House ways of restoring its power and authority so that it would be meaningful, acting as we are on behalf of the people, in holding the Government of the day to account and monitoring their progress and policies.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne for indicating that he will not vote against the motion. I believe that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, likewise, will not be in the Lobby tonight. These right hon. and hon. Members who chair Select Committees have been leading members of the Liaison Committee and appreciate what they put their name to. It would be utterly wrong and dishonest if they voted down a motion to which they had agreed in the report that was sent to the Government and presented to the House.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) is a hard-working, assiduous member of the Select Committee on Procedure, which I have the honour to chair. May I tell her that there are very few ways in which the Opposition can table subjects for debate, other than on Supply days? That is the only opportunity that Her Majesty's Opposition and other Opposition parties have to raise issues. The Leader of the House has frequently said from the Dispatch Box that the Opposition have an opportunity to bring before the House matters that they consider to be important, and that they should use their Supply day debates to do so. That is precisely what we are doing today.
I have the greatest regard for the Leader of the House, but I do not think that in the future she will be proud of the speech that she made in this debate. She added little to the debate. Many of her arguments were disingenuous and, I believe, inaccurate as they referred to matters that were not even discussed in the Liaison Committee reports, and she sought to misrepresent some proposals.
As one or two Members have said already, the motion asks the Government to work with the Liaison Committee to introduce new structures to the House along the lines that we suggest. We do not expect every recommendation to be accepted, but we believe that the House, rather than the Government exercising their influence through a three-line Whip, should have an opportunity to decide whether the report "Shifting the Balance" provides a case on which the Government and the House should negotiate. I believe that it does and hope, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said, that we can still have a full debate on a substantive motion before the end of this Parliament so that the whole House, on a free vote, can decide whether the decision of the Liaison Committee is acceptable not to the Government, but to the House of Commons.

107
One or two Members have referred to my experience. I say to the hon. Member for Rochdale in particular that I became a member of the Health Committee when it was established in 1990, following the splitting of the Social Services Committee between social security and health. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) took the Chair of the Social Security Committee; I took the Chair of the Health Committee. I did that against the votes of my party, but with the support of the Labour and Ulster Unionist parties and through my own vote.
My party would have preferred a good friend of mine, Sir David Price, who was a member of the Social Services Committee and in his last Parliament, to chair the Health Committee, but the Committee decided that it wanted me. I enjoyed the job and my work on Select Committees has been the most rewarding work that I have done in the House.
Of course, in 1992, when the Select Committees were reappointed, the Whips Office—the usual channels of my party—in collusion with the Labour Whips decided not to reappoint me for the reason, right or wrong, that it did not like me doing the job that the House of Commons wanted me to do. A Select Committee Chairman who undertakes an inquiry must base his report on the written or oral evidence that he is given and must not allow personal prejudice to prevail. That did not suit my party, which was in power. I think that it was wrong and that that decision brought it a great deal of unpopularity.
Mr. Bercow: Discredit.
Mr. Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend. The decision did bring my party some discredit.
I say to the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office that I believe that my party has learned from that, which is why we have used this opportunity to introduce a debate on a substantive motion on restoring to the House of Commons its integrity and its independence. I repeat that the second report, which comments on the Government's reply to our first report, is entitled "Independence or Control?". If I asked each Member in the Chamber, "Do you want Select Committees to be controlled by the Government or be independent and representative of the views of the House?", every single one would say, "We want Select Committees to be independent of the Government of the day." That is what the two reports are about.
Mrs. Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) made? If Select Committees are not independent, why have so many of their reports in recent months criticised the Government? If the hon. Gentleman's assertion is correct, why are Select Committees so publicly critical of the Government? Their reports are also debated in Westminster Hall, which the hon. Gentleman chairs, so there is greater opportunity to criticise the Government.
Mr. Winterton: Fortunately, a majority of Select Committees have been prepared to base their reports on the evidence given to them. There is nothing they can do if the evidence is critical of either a Conservative or a
108
Labour Government. They are obliged to publish their reports accordingly, and to reflect that criticism in their conclusions and recommendations.
Mr. Cash: The shenanigans of the Select Committee on Education and Employment the other day suggest that some Select Committees sometimes go deeply off-message.
Mr. Winterton: I have quite a few jobs in this place, and I have not been following the shenanigans—as my hon. Friend puts it—of the Education and Employment Committee, but I shall certainly read its report with interest when it is published.
Membership of Select Committees must be taken out of the hands of the Whips and the usual channels. The Chairman of Committees and two Deputy Chairmen would have the integrity, experience and ability to nominate members to Select Committees and, if necessary, to advise, but each Committee would appoint its own Chairman. The nominations made by the Chairman of Committees and two Deputy Chairmen would have to be confirmed on the Floor of the House. At present, a motion is tabled by the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, which sadly is dominated and influenced by the usual channels. The recommendation is that a motion would be tabled by the Chairman and two Deputy Chairmen to the House, and Members could decide on a free vote who they wanted and could confirm the membership of a Committee.
Mrs. Fitzsimons rose—
Mr. Winterton: I shall not give way again, as the hon. Lady has spoken and 1 want to finish my remarks.
Some hon. Members have talked about the co-ordination of departmental Select Committees. I can tell the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who chairs the Liaison Committee, that we dealt with that issue in paragraphs 64 to 69 on joined-up Committees. We recommended a structure that I believe would be ideal to handle this situation, and I ask the Government to give it serious consideration.
I am a House of Commons man. I have been in the House for almost 30 years. I have never been on the Government or Opposition Front Bench, although on two or three occasions when we were in opposition between 1974 and 1979 I spoke from the Front Bench, as part of the agriculture team, late at night on milk orders and other such issues. I have never been a Front Bencher, and I suspect that, sadly, I never will be. I am keen that the House should provide an alternative career structure for some Members, most of whom will be long-serving Back Benchers, but some of whom will have had service on the Front Bench, such as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who was a distinguished Treasury Minister. That would enable those Members to have a meaningful career that is recognised by right hon. and hon. Members in this place. That is highlighted in paragraphs 29 to 34 of the report.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will admit that it is about time that those who serve this place should be given a role. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who is sitting next to me, has given tremendous service in this

109
place. We should not have to stoop and creep to become Ministers. We should be honourable Members standing up for the integrity of the House of Commons.
9.4 pm
Mr. John Healey: I had not intended to speak, but I was disturbed by the speech of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). I was disturbed in the same way when I listened to the exchanges that opened the debate on 9 November. Moreover, I consider this issue to he fundamental to all Members.
I have another reason for wishing to speak. Like the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), whom I am pleased to follow, I have served on the Employment Sub-Committee of the Education and Employment Committee. I must say that this is one of the most worthwhile things I have done during my short time in the House. We developed a specialist knowledge of our subject, dealt in detail with issues presented to us on the basis of hard evidence, expressed criticism and were able to push the Government further.
There were, I think, two hallmarks of our success. One was able chairmanship, for which I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster); the other was constructive cross-party co-operation, for which I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). I am glad to see that that provided a launch pad for a further step in the hon. Gentleman's career, and that he is now on the Opposition Front Bench.
This is an important report, featuring a number of dimensions with which I find myself in strong agreement. It sets out effectively the need to reinforce the place of pre-legislation scrutiny, and proposals to make joint—or joined-up—Committee working easier. It also presents an effective argument for the need to improve presentation, publicity and the provision of public information. The problem of slow or superficial Government responses to Select Committee reports needed to be criticised, and is criticised forcefully in the report The case for better back-up resources seems unarguable to me.
When I checked the sessional returns for 1998–99—the last available—I was staggered to find that the entire work of our Select Committees was supported by 77 members of staff, not counting out-and-out secretarial staff, and that the total cost was only £4.6 million. That is £300,000 less than the Short money that we paid to Opposition parties last year. I leave Members to make up their own minds about which is better value for money.
Let me return to the debate that took place on 9 November. I was dismayed by the way in which it was dominated by the Chairs of Select Committees who were responsible for the report. I note from the sessional returns that in 1998–99 no fewer than 388 Members served on Select Committees. I was disappointed then—I am slightly less disappointed now—that more Members did not choose to become involved in the debate on these matters. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said on 9 November, the proposals that we are debating
"would impinge on the role of every individual Member in the House".—[Official Report, 9 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 480.]
There are, however, two major points on which I have some disagreement with the Liaison Committee's report. The first relates to the selection of Committee members.
110
It must be said that, if the report's recommendations on the Select Committee panel were accepted, a very small number of people would be given formidable powers in relation to parliamentary appointments and the business of the House. I strongly object to the proposal that three Members, however senior and however wise, should decide Select Committee membership, should largely determine the distribution of Select Committee chairmanships and should largely control replacements when vacancies arise.
The report does not make the case for that step; and it is not self-evident that three people, rather than the Liaison Committee, will produce a process that is more transparent, less susceptible to patronage or more likely to lead to more effective operation of Select Committees. Simply asserting this, as paragraph 20 does, is no substitute for arguing the case. The report fails to do that.
Mr. Bercow: I have a high regard for the hon. Gentleman, but he is repeating the point that was made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons). Does he accept this proposition? Although, inevitably, a panel of independent persons will be subject to attempts by the unctuous and sycophantic to get on to Committees, it will be able to resist that pressure. The key difference between the panel of independent persons and the Whips as the determinant of the composition of Committees is that the panel will have no interest whatever in a Member of Parliament's record of being malleable and in whether that person intends to be malleable in future. That is how it is distinctive from and to be preferred to the Whips for that purpose.
Mr. Healey: My concern about the proposal is that it would replace, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) said, one form of patronage with another. It is likely to be less transparent and it will not necessarily lead to more effective Select Committee work. I appreciate the concern about the independence of Select Committees, which underlies the recommendations and the hon. Gentleman's intervention. That is important to our Select Committee system, but I am still not convinced that the problem of independence is of a scale that the report's sledgehammer proposal suggests.
Mr. Cash: Having listened to a great deal of the debate—time is getting on—I would like to pose one question. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is only one way to deal with the power of the Whips and patronage? Having been at the rough end of that in the Maastricht debates and on many other occasions, perhaps I have some authority to speak on the matter. If Standing Orders made it a contempt of the House for a Whip, or any other person, to seek to influence an hon. Member in the conduct of, for example, his role on a Select Committee, it would sort the matter out once and for all. Without doing that, venality, patronage and the desire for appointment or otherwise will always prevail.
Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman suggests an even larger sledgehammer to crack the problem, which I am not convinced is on the scale that even the Committee's recommendations warrant. I notice that even the hon. Member for Macclesfield winced a little when he made his point. The Select Committee corridor is some distance from the Whips room. In my experience, the knowledge

111
and expertise that Select Committee members build in taking and sifting evidence gives strength to the judgments that are reflected in reports. A number of notable all-party reports have criticised Ministers and Government policy. That belies the idea that Select Committees are falling far short in their duty to subject Government to independent scrutiny.
The proposals on the selection of Committee members ignore one of the fundamental realities of our Parliament and its Select Committee work. The Liaison Committee report acknowledges that in paragraph 9, which says that
"operating within the political framework, select committees are to some extent affected by party loyalty and organisation, which structure the way in which Parliament and its institutions work."
We cannot escape that reality, to which the Committee directs our attention.
I turn to the opportunities for the House to pick up on the work of Select Committees in reinforcing the scrutiny that they conduct on our behalf. The Committee and the report make some very real points on that matter.
Just before the November 2000 debate, I asked the Library to analyse the number of Select Committee reports that were published and the number of reports that were debated in the House, excluding reports from the Public Accounts Committee, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the European Scrutiny Committee. In 1997–98, 157 reports were published, but only 16—about 10 per cent—were debated. In the following year, 182 reports were published, but only 26 were debated. I am not including the reports—comprising about 17 per cent. of the total—that were dealt with by being "tagged" as relevant in other motions.
Westminster Hall has certainly been helpful by allowing a detailed and deliberative airing of some of the issues raised in Select Committee reports, but what counts is not the general link with the House but the specific link with this Chamber. Debate is not the best format to ensure enhanced scrutiny of Government. Paragraph 40 of the report recommends weekly half-hour debates after Question Time. However, not only is half an hour too short for a decent debate, but a debate is the wrong method to use if we are more effectively to hold Ministers to account.
I propose that, instead, we have a half-hour Question Time in which we deal with reports and the Government's response to them on major issues. A Question Time could give priority to Select Committee members, but would also allow other hon. Members to exercise their scrutiny function. It would also rightly raise the profile of the work of Select Committees.
In conclusion, I pray in aid part of paragraph 8 of the report. I agree strongly and fundamentally with the assertion that
"After two decades—and especially in the present climate of constitutional change—we think it is time for some further reform and modernisation."
I believe that it will be more important in the next Parliament for the Government to grasp the challenge of reinforcing the scrutiny role of Select Committees. I urge my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House not simply to pick out the parts of the report with which they can agree and react to the specifics, but to accept the general challenge
112
of maintaining the Government's modernisation initiative and consider their own proposals in the areas in which there is a well-founded case for strengthening the work of our Select Committee system.
9.17 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) made a very thoughtful speech, and his suggestion to have a half-hour Question Time rather than debate is well worth considering. Indeed, it fits entirely with the motion that we are debating, which states that the report
"provides the right basis for … further development".
We are asking the Government to give serious, positive and constructive consideration to a very thoughtful report. I well understand why the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) feels unable to vote today. Although I greatly regret that and know that he will be with us in spirit in voting for the motion, I realise why he feels that it is essential to sit on the Bench while we vote. Nevertheless, I join him in saying that it is a great pity that we have had to use what is still commonly called an Opposition Supply day to debate the report. Although I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on choosing the subject for today's debate and am delighted that she did, it is a damning indictment of the Government that the Opposition have had to find time for it.
Although I have a personal regard for the Leader of the House, which the Parliamentary Secretary knows to be genuine and true, and I dislike criticising people in their absence, I think that she made a shoddy and shallow speech today that did not do her or her office any credit whatsoever. She did not face up to the issues that the House is addressing. The way in which she dismissed the suggestion for half-hour debates was in marked and shameful contrast to what we have just heard from the hon. Member for Wentworth. On balance, I would still prefer a half-hour debate, but he has made a suggestion that is well worth considering. It is the first time that I have heard it and I would like to reflect on it.
I am absolutely convinced that when colleagues—the 388 who, according to the hon. Member for Wentworth, have served on Select Committees in this Parliament—have worked hard on Select Committees, investigating crucial subjects in depth and reporting thoughtfully to the House, normally on the basis of a unanimous, cross-party report, it is appalling that their reports are pigeonholed.
I accept that that has not happened only under this Government. I have suffered from the malign influence of the Whips Office in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—who, as always, made a very good and rumbustious speech—at least did get to Chair a Select Committee. I served on the first Select Committee on education in 1979, as what was called the ranking Tory Member. When the chairmanship changed—Christopher Price lost his seat in 1983—I had certain expectations. I knew that I was not going to be climbing the ministerial career ladder and I thought that being Chairman of that Committee would be rather agreeable.
I was told by one of the Whips, in no uncertain terms, that I was not reliable enough. We had approved a number of reports that were mildly critical of Government policy. Sir William van Straubenzee, who had not sat on the Committee, was asked whether he would come in. I did

113
not challenge that, because I had such a genuine affection for the late Bill van Straubenzee—who served with great distinction in Northern Ireland—that I did not wish to find myself in conflict with him. I withdrew from the Committee.
That illustrates the power and influence of the Whips in a Select Committee. The Leader of the House protested far too much tonight when she brought out her rule book and read chapter and verse what the Labour party does and does not demand. Everybody knows that the Whips have a very real influence and that that is where patronage truly lies.
I disagreed with the first part of the hon. Member for Wentworth's speech, in which he spoke of an alternative patronage. If there is an alternative patronage, I would much rather that it were exercised by independent-minded senior Members on both sides of the House—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: People like you.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes, people like me, and people like my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The three of us would certainly decide without fear or favour who were the most suitable people. We would take into account the credentials and CVs of those who wanted to serve on Select Committees so that we did not have the absurd situation in which somebody with a detailed knowledge of, say, transport was kept off the Transport Select Committee, as happened in the past.
I have a real regard for the hon. Member for Wentworth, but I say to him that it is far better to have that patronage exercised in House of Commons matters by House of Commons men and women—who are answerable to this House for their every action and their every recommendation—than by the Whips Office. Just as I will rethink my support for debates in favour of questions, I ask him to rethink his support for Whips' patronage in favour of a different sort of patronage.
Much has been made of the three wise men or women making decisions. However, it does not have to be three, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton agrees. If, after consultation, it were decided that this would be far better done by a wholly independent selection committee of six or eight, my hon. Friend would accept it, I would accept it and I strongly suspect that the Chairman of the Liaison Committee would accept it.
Mr. Sheldon indicated assent.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman is indicating as much as I speak.
We are concerned not about how many there will be, or even who they will be, but about how the appointments are to be made. If Select Committees are to maintain their tradition of independence and to provide the alternative career ladder that is so important, we need to reform the manner in which appointments are made.
There was a time when to come to this House was the summit of most men and women's ambitions. To represent a constituency in this kingdom was an honour than which there was no greater. Far too many people now come at a very young age. One remembers the quote about every private having a field marshal's baton in his knapsack. Members behave as if the briefcase in the boot
114
of their Ford Cortina were a ministerial red box—or a ticket to exchange it for one. They come here with ministerial ambitions and are often rather muted in their criticism of their party, whether in government or in opposition, because they have aspirations.
I would like to see more people coming to this House who merely want to serve here, but of course they want to exercise their talents, develop their gifts and progress. There is no better way of doing that than via the Select Committee system, particularly as the Chairman of a Select Committee.
I believe that this report, "Shifting the Balance", creates the opportunity for that to happen. The final paragraph of the Liaison Committee's second report, "Independence or Control?" says:
"There has been much discussion about shorter sitting hours, and more family-friendly scheduling of business in the House. This may be all very well; but any real modernisation of Parliament must provide better accountability and tougher scrutiny of the Government of the day. This is our aim. We believe it is the test by which the public will judge the effectiveness and value of Parliament. This is not something that will go away."
What wise words. The Leader of the House talked rather disparagingly of this debate in business questions last week. She should have read those wise words.
There is no more important subject for the health of the body politic than the effectiveness of the parliamentary system, and particularly of the place of this House within it. It is extremely important that the Government attach importance to those words.
The Prime Minister may shortly decide that he will not complete the five years that he said he would complete. He may decide to cut and run and hold an election. If he does, he will hope to come back with another majority. We shall to our best to ensure that he does not. However, if he is ever in a position of authority again, he should recognise that the strength of a Government is measured not by the size of their majority but by the quality of their legislation. The quality of their legislation and their actions is largely determined by the effectiveness of scrutiny in this place. It is crucial, therefore, that we give to Select Committees—which are, of all bodies, the best equipped to scrutinise—a new and revived authority.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has, for all the inconvenience it may cause him, pledged himself to accept this report. Even at this late stage, I urge the Minister, when he winds up the debate, to say that he will tell the Leader of the House that we have had a debate in which only one Member has supported her line uncritically. The House of Commons demands to be heard and it wants, before the election, free votes on substantive motions in Government time on these issues.
9.29 pm
Mr. Derek Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). I had not intended to speak, but it struck me that this is one of the most crucial debates in which someone who loves the House of Commons can take part.
I inhabited the sewers of Westminster for 10 years as Opposition Chief Whip. I had to do many of the shabby things that have been referred to, although much of what I did was entirely honourable, such as the defence of Back Benchers against the undue influence of certain members

115
of the party leadership. If I had not done that, those Back Benchers would never have been appointed to Select Committees. That story has never been told, and may never be told or written, but one of my functions, I took it, was to ensure that every Member from my party should have the opportunity to serve on a Select Committee, no matter what the wishes of certain individuals.
One thing that I learned—very painfully—during 18 years in opposition was that most of the cards are stacked on the side of the Executive, no matter which party is in power. Perhaps under the previous Government, that was not quite so: their majority was 22 and fell to just one. At that time, the House of Commons began to take some powers.
Our dilemma is that the country often wants strong government, which means a strong Executive who can have their way most of the time. Sometimes, however, the country falls out of love with a strong Government, deciding, for example, that although it wanted Lady Thatcher to do some things, it did not want the poll tax and she had had far too much power. Indeed, many say the latter of the present Prime Minister. They ask why the House of Commons does not use its powers to bring the Government more to account. It is a good question, to which we have no very good answer at present.
The Liaison Committee report, of which I am proud to be a signatory, was an attempt to shift the balance, only marginally, from the Executive and towards all the Members of the House of Commons. It is a little strange for people to argue superficially—perhaps in the hope of congratulations from the Whip on the Front Bench—that the Committee was arguing not for Back Benchers, but from some other motive. Our motive was to enhance the position of Parliament vis-a-vis the Executive, and it is important that we should achieve that.
Our solutions may not be the best possible. I strongly favoured taking the power of appointments from the Whips. I reached that conclusion after exercising that very influence for 10 years. I did not reach that conclusion before I stopped being Chief Whip. I admit, but towards the end of my tenure of that job, I concluded that one of the best ways to enhance the powers of Select Committees would be to remove appointments from the power of the Whips. That is because we want those appointments to be independent. It could well be that the Whips Office exercises its control over the appointments extremely responsibly, but there must be a perception that the people who scrutinise the Government are appointed by people who are independent of the Government. That perception is important both for the country and for Members of this place.
We may not have come up with the best solution, but the motivation is right. We want to achieve that end, and with the good will of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office we could play a historic part in enhancing the power of the legislature against the Executive. With a majority of 180, the Executive have nothing to fear. That is why it is so important to take such steps during this Parliament. The Executive have nothing to fear from the enhancement of the power of Parliament.
I shall join my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) when we vote this evening, but I want my right hon. and hon. Friends on the
116
Treasury Bench to realise the motivation of their colleagues in advancing and signing the report; it is not against the Government, but to ensure that the Executive, whoever is in power, are brought much more to account by Members of the House.
9.36 pm
Mr. William Cash: I shall speak only briefly, as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will make important contributions. I have little to add to the remarks that I made on the Whip system in a debate last July.
The quality of this debate has increased dramatically towards its end. I was disappointed that the Leader of the House engaged in no more than some rather unnecessary party politics. She made some good points—from her point of view—but the debate is of immense importance, as is the report of the Liaison Committee.
I was very taken with the speech of the former Labour Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). He understands that the Government will have problems in accepting the recommendations of the report, but that, if there is good will on all sides, many constructive results could emerge from it.
However much we examine the issue, it is ultimately about accountability, scrutiny and questions. The House depends entirely on the ability of its Members to call the Government to account. We can do that only by asking questions. There is a difference between debate and questioning. A debate can take the form of a question, but questions are the bottom line. If we are to ask questions of people with enormous power and influence, who know things that we do not know, and if we have to scramble about to get the answers to those questions, we need people who know what they are talking about. We need people who are prepared to dedicate their time and their lives—some call it a career, but I prefer not to do so—to ensuring that the Government are properly held to account.
The appointment of Select Committees by Government Whips, by agreement between the usual channels or by the Whips on both sides of the House is not the best way to proceed. That point is the jewel in the crown of the report. It is vital that such an important report was produced. It is an enormous pity that the House as a whole could not have had a free vote on the subject.
I have been a member of a particular Select Committee since 1985. As someone who has been excluded from its chairmanship—perhaps by virtue of my long tenure but perhaps also because of the long-standing knowledge of my views on its subject—I believe none the less that it is vital that the essence and reasoning behind the report of the Liaison Committee should be accepted by the whole House.
Lastly, as I have previously proposed, Standing Orders should exist to deal with any undue influence exerted on Members of Parliament, by Whips or anyone else inside or outside the House, so that the people who exercise that undue and unfair influence could be brought to book. I emphasise the fact that that no real distinction should be made between external and internal influences on matters that could affect the effectiveness of the House in bringing people to account. This is a debate about scrutiny, and it should not be determined by the Whips. The most

117
astonishing aspect of this debate is that it represents a three-line attack on the House's scrutiny, and I find that a very extraordinary proposition.
9.40 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: This has been a worthwhile and, indeed, fascinating debate. I find it particularly so because, looking at the pile papers on which I have noted the comments of the contributors, which I normally separate into two halves—those with whom I agree and those with whom I disagree—it is apparent at the end of this debate that, with the exception of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) and the Leader of the House, I found myself agreeing with the vast majority of speakers.
The hon. Member for Rochdale provided us with the most fascinating insight into the mindset of what appeared to be a cloned member of the parliamentary Labour party. She described a system under which agreements and decisions are taken entirely behind closed doors and how, once those decisions have been taken, the corporatist instinct involves a carve-up between the Whips. She offered us the Panglossian suggestion that this was the best approach to take in the best of all possible worlds. It was a most depressing contribution, but it simply echoed entirely that of Leader of the House, who has treated us—it was sometimes difficult to keep straight face—to a series of pronouncements on the fact that we were all taking leave of our senses by suggesting that the present system should be changed and, moreover, that what we are proposing represents a huge constitutional change. That seems rather odd, given that it comes from a party that has introduced more huge constitutional change in three years than perhaps any other, especially as, in fact, all that has been suggested are changes in the procedures of the House designed to try to enhance the way in which we work.
As for the contributions that I find it easy to support, even if I disagree with them in part, I hope that I may be excused if I start with that of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), because I found his speech extremely interesting. He made a thoughtful speech and his proposals, for example, that we should have a further half-hour Question Time on Select Committee reports and the Government responses to them, made a great deal of sense. However, I disagree that the proposals for the appointment of Select Committees are like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I appreciate, however, that they caused him anxiety.
In response to the hon. Gentleman, first, the Liaison Committee report says that the proposals represent the basis for the future, not the detail of the future. That is what we are being asked to consider this evening. Secondly, I ask him to consider the point made by numerous of my hon. Friends—such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Stone (Mr. Cash)—that the mischief of the present system is that whenever we disagree with the way in which the Executive ultimately control such appointments, it becomes an issue of confidence in the Executive. We all know the reality; the House operates under a system of party politics. We are constantly asked to temper our views so as not to rock the boat. Indeed, the system of government could not operate
118
unless that were the case; it is an important discipline for us. However, when the House considers issues that, frankly, do not relate to any fundamental matter at all, is not it desirable and sensible that we should alter our procedures to remove the Executive's hold and to allow more informed discussion?
Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. Let us suppose that somebody disagrees fundamentally with the way in which a Select Committee membership has been set up. To question that if one is a Government or Opposition Back Bencher means questioning those in authority in one's own party and the discretion that they have exercised. There would be no need for that to happen if the system that has been proposed by the Liaison Committee's report were to be followed. I suggest that it would then be very much easier for anyone in the House to ask questions precisely because those questions would not touch upon a confidence in either the Government or the Opposition. That is where I see merit in the proposals that have been made.
It has been argued that the proposals will create patronage. Of course, everyone can exercise patronage; anybody who can exercise power can grant patronage. However, I would be much happier for that power to be exercised by someone whom can I question, I can team up with Opposition Members or Government Back Benchers to table a motion and criticise and, ultimately, I could remove without bringing down the whole pack of cards of government. Surely, that is a better way to proceed, and that is what the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and the members of his Liaison Committee were proposing.
I draw the House's attention to some of the Government's responses to the report. They show an extraordinarily blinkered frame of mind. The principle at the nub of our debate is the question of who does the appointing and paragraph 11 of their response to the Liaison Committee report says:
"The Government believe it is right that the opposition should supply the chair of some Committees, and cannot accept a system which might place this in jeopardy."
I shed tears over those remarks. Do the Government seriously think that we will be concerned if the members of an independent panel, who command the trust of the House because of their personal standing, make appointments even when that might mean that, at times, the appointments of the chairmanship do not follow the hallowed processes that the Leader of the House has put forward?
I need think only of the Committee on which I sit, the Environmental Audit Committee. It has a Chairman who is an Opposition Member, but I recollect that, at the time of his appointment, some members of the Committee felt great anxiety about his appointment. However, because of his standing and the way in which he has conducted the Committee, the problem disappeared. We all know the reality: if people get on to Select Committees and do a good job and if the Chairmen are impartial, the truth is that, as numerous Members have said, we start to operate on a cross-party basis. Because the remit of Select Committees is scrutiny, they frequently tend to ask the Executive awkward questions about how they are carrying out what they say they are carrying out. The Committees do not necessarily question wider areas of policy.
As the House approaches the decision that it must take at 10 o'clock, I am mindful of the fact that this is a Supply day and this is an Opposition motion. I recognise that

119
some Government Back Benchers might feel embarrassed about going into the Opposition Lobby, but does that not precisely illustrate the point that I have been making in the past few minutes? It is high time that we took this issue away from the realm of party politics. That is feasible.
Mr. Dennis Turner: If the hon. Gentleman wants to take the issue out of the realm of party politics, why has he chosen to debate the matter under an Opposition day motion? Does he not think that that has done great damage to the cause that is being espoused?
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman was not here for the debate, so I have to tell him that we have had no other opportunity to hold this debate on a motion with a Division. Therefore, having asked repeatedly for such a debate, we thought it fit to bring the matter before the House. I am truly sorry that the motion is an imperfect mechanism, but it is the only one at our disposal.
I very much hope that the debate persuades hon. Members on both sides of the House to implement the proposals. I am certain of one thing—I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has a deep and heart-felt commitment to restoring the ability of the legislature to scrutinise the activities of the Executive. We set that out clearly in our paper on reforming Parliament, and when we get back into office, we will do just that.
9.50 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The debate on the Liaison Committee's first report has been lively. In many respects, it parallels the previous debate in November because the arguments rehearsed then have been re-run this evening. Apart from some different shades and emphasis, it is fair to say that little new has been added. However, there is one exception: my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made clear the way in which the Labour party proposes names for Select Committees. It is a much wider process than many believe.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
Mr. Tipping: Although I usually give way to the hon. Gentleman, I cannot tonight because time is tight.
Given the challenges of the Opposition parties, it is interesting that darkness and cloudiness surround the way in which they select names for Select Committee membership. It may well be that the role of the Whips is more prevalent and heightened in those parties.
Given the tone of the debate, I wonder why the Opposition have decided to table the motion. The debate has been about process rather than product. It has focused on the way in which we run our business instead of concentrating on the outcomes of our activities. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said that the issue would not command public interest because it is a House matter. However, I suspect that the Opposition are reluctant to discuss outcomes because we have a stable and growing economy; spending per pupil
120
has increased; infant classes are smaller and standards are rising; there is extra capital spending in the national health service and reduced waiting lists; and, since the general election, there has been a fall in crime.
Sensing that there is the possibility of embarrassment, the official Opposition have tabled a motion on a House matter. It will come as no surprise, therefore, that, in the face of mischief-making, the Government are taking a strong line against it. My right hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) clearly recognised that position.
Let me be unusually combative and tackle two fundamental issues directly. The Government do not agree with the methods that the Committee suggests to increase the independence and influence of Select Committees. We reject the notion that giving power to a small group—however senior—over whom Back Benchers have no hold will increase the status or effectiveness of Committees. I think that the Committee's premise has been distorted by people outside the House who may not understand that there is two-way traffic between Back Benchers and the Whips. To be blunt, any Whips Office that forgets the nature of this relationship is in for a shock.
A sub-theme of the debate is an understanding of how the Whips Office works. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) referred to the former hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, who now writes for The Independent as, I should explain, a humorist. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said that Whips were not idols. I agree entirely.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland confessed to being a super-sewer. He would say no more on that, but perhaps the book will be written one day. As someone who has experienced his black arts, I look forward to reading it. We consider that although there may be disadvantages to the current method of selection, it has produced Committees that are effective and independent of Government. The Liaison Committee reports are in themselves proof of that.
Although the Liaison Committee believes that greater debate on substantive motions would increase the Committee's profile and effectiveness, we believe that it would bring party politics into the heart of the Committee system. Some may consider that today's debate shows that we are right to be concerned.
More positively, although we disagree about the methods for producing an effective Select Committee system, the Government want Committees that are independent and effective. The Liaison Committee is in danger of selling the existing Committees short. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross talked about sharpness of focus and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne talked about best practice in Select Committees. The Committees can do much of what he advocated within their present remit.
We agree wholeheartedly with the Liaison Committee's basic premise that the 1979 Committee system has been a success, that it is, and should continue to be, an entrenched part of our constitution and that the Committees perform a valuable role in holding the Executive to account. We can never agree on the present proposal on appointments or on motions on the Floor of the House, but let us set those questions aside. Let us consider matters on which we do agree.

121
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) recognised that the Liaison Committee's report contained areas of agreement. Committees should have greater resources. That is primarily a matter for the Commission, and the Government will certainly not stand in its way. I understand that there are continuing discussions on that matter.
There should be increased scrutiny. The European scrutiny system has been reformed and extended. We have accepted the Procedure Committee's recommendations on the scrutiny of treaties. Departments have been instructed to co-operate in any review of recommendations that a Committee may make. Pre-legislative scrutiny will continue. I hope that we will be able to do more, and I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth in desiring that.
Committees should have more influence. The Government have accepted the Procedure Committee's recommendations that if a Committee recommends a debate on a treaty, that will normally be granted. Select Committees will win respect by the force of their arguments—that point was made several times tonight. Westminster Hall ensures that Ministers will not be able to avoid those arguments.
I have already dealt with the substantive motion. I do not believe that transferring a debate from Westminster Hall to the Chamber would increase attendance. The Liaison Committee itself notes:
"Debates are an extremely effective way of focusing the minds of Ministers and officials on a report, and the need to justify the Government reply."
Thanks to Westminster Hall, more Select Committee reports are being debated than ever before, and that number will increase. Overall in the previous Session, 28 Select Committee reports were debated. So far in this Session, a further five have been debated. That represents debating time beyond reformers' wildest dreams. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) dreams on and asks for more debating time I hope that in time we will be able to help him.
Committees should have greater powers to work together. We have undertaken that any request from the Liaison Committee for an ad hoc Committee will be seriously considered. Whenever a Committee has requested powers, we have tabled a motion to grant that request. I have been happy to speak to two of those motions. Sadly, as colleagues will have noted, there has been difficulty in getting certain business through the House. I make no complaint about that, but I regret that the difficulty that we have encountered in dealing with minor matters has meant that we have not yet been able to introduce the more radical changes to Standing Orders that I foreshadowed in my earlier speech. Only last week, the Chairman of the Liaison Committee requested a change in Standing Orders to enable a sub-Committee to be established. If he looks at today's Order Paper, he will see that we hope to oblige him.
The last time the Liaison Committee's report was debated, I said that it was important to recognise that the balance had already shifted in favour of the Committees. Indeed, it is likely to shift further in future—
Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 280.

Division No. 115]

[10.2 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Gill, Christopher

Allan, Richard

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Amess, David

Gray, James

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Green, Damian

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Greenway, John

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Grieve, Dominic

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Baldry, Tony

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Hammond, Philip

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Hancock, Mike

Bercow, John

Harris, Dr Evan

Beresford, Sir Paul

Harvey, Nick

Blunt, Crispin

Hawkins, Nick

Body, Sir Richard

Hayes, John

Boswell, Tim

Heald, Oliver

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Brady, Graham

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Brand, Dr Peter

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Brazier, Julian

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Breed, Colin

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hunter, Andrew

Browning, Mrs Angela

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Jenkin, Bernard

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Burnett, John

Burstow, Paul

Key, Robert

Butterfill, John

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Kirkwood, Archy

Cash, William

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Lansley, Andrew

Chidgey, David

Letwin, Oliver

Chope, Christopher

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Clappison, James

Lidington, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Livsey, Richard

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Llwyd, Elfyn

Collins, Tim

Loughton, Tim

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Luff, Peter

Cotter, Brian

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Cran, James

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Day, Stephen

McLoughlin, Patrick

Duncan, Alan

Madel, Sir David

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Maginnis, Ken

Evans, Nigel

Malins, Humfrey

Fabricant, Michael

Maples, John

Fallon, Michael

Mates, Michael

Fearn, Ronnie

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Flight, Howard

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

May, Mrs Theresa

Foster, Don (Bath)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Moore, Michael

Garnier, Edward

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Moss, Malcolm

Gibb, Nick

Norman, Archie

Gidley, Sandra

Oaten, Mark

123

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Syms, Robert

Ottaway, Richard

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Page, Richard

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Paice, James

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Pickles, Eric

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Prior, David

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Townend, John

Rendel, David

Trend, Michael

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Tyler, Paul

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

Viggers, Peter

Ruffley, David

Walter, Robert

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Waterson, Nigel

St Aubyn, Nick

Webb, Steve

Sanders, Adrian

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Sayeed, Jonathan

Whittingdale, John

Shepherd, Richard

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

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

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Soames, Nicholas

Wilkinson, John

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Willetts, David

Spicer, Sir Michael

Willis, Phil

Spring, Richard

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Yeo, Tim

Steen, Anthony

Streeter, Gary

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stunell, Andrew

Sir George Young and

Swayne, Desmond

Mr. Nicholas Winterton.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Ainger, Nick

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Alexander, Douglas

Clelland, David

Allen, Graham

Coaker, Vernon

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

Coffey, Ms Ann

(Swansea E)

Cohen, Harry

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Coleman, Iain

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Colman, Tony

Ashton, Joe

Connarty, Michael

Atkins, Charlotte

Cooper, Yvette

Austin, John

Corbett, Robin

Banks, Tony

Cousins, Jim

Barnes, Harry

Cox, Tom

Barren, Kevin

Cranston, Ross

Battle, John

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Bayley, Hugh

Cummings, John

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

Begg, Miss Anne

(Copeland)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Dalyell, Tam

Bennett, Andrew F

Darvill, Keith

Benton, Joe

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Bermingham, Gerald

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Best, Harold

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Blackman, Liz

Davis, Rt Hon Terry

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

(B'ham Hodge H)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Denham, Rt Hon John

Bradshaw, Ben

Dismore, Andrew

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Dobbin, Jim

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Donohoe, Brian H

Browne, Desmond

Doran, Frank

Buck, Ms Karen

Dowd, Jim

Burgon, Colin

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Edwards, Huw

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Efford, Clive

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Cann, Jamie

Ennis, Jeff

Casale, Roger

Etherington, Bill

Caton, Martin

Fisher, Mark

Cawsey, Ian

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Clapham, Michael

Flint, Caroline

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Flynn, Paul

124

Follett, Barbara

Mallaber, Judy

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Gapes, Mike

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Gardiner, Barry

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Martlew, Eric

Godsiff, Roger

Maxton, John

Golding, Mrs Llin

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Meale, Alan

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Merron, Gillian

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Grocott, Bruce

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Moffatt, Laura

Hanson, David

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Moran, Ms Margaret

Healey, John

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hendrick, Mark

Morley, Elliot

Hepburn, Stephen

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

Heppell, John

(B'ham Yardley)

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

Hill, Keith

(Aberavon)

Hinchliffe, David

Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Mudie, George

Hoey, Kate

Mullin, Chris

Hood, Jimmy

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hopkins, Kelvin

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Howells, Dr Kim

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Hoyle, Lindsay

O'Hara, Eddie

Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

Olner, Bill

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

O'Neill, Martin

Humble, Mrs Joan

Organ, Mrs Diana

Hutton, John

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Iddon, Dr Brian

Pearson, Ian

Illsley, Eric

Pickthall, Colin

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Pike, Peter L

Jamieson, David

Pollard, Kerry

Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

Pond, Chris

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Pope, Greg

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Ms Jenny

Powell, Sir Raymond

(Wolverh'ton SW)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Prosser, Gwyn

Joyce, Eric

Purchase, Ken

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Keeble, Ms Sally

Quinn, Lawrie

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Rapson, Syd

Kemp, Fraser

Raynsford, Nick

Kilfoyle, Peter

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Robertson, John

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

(Glasgow Anniesland)

Lammy, David

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Laxton, Bob

Rooney, Terry

Lepper, David

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Leslie, Christopher

Rowlands, Ted

Levitt, Tom

Ruddock, Joan

Linton, Martin

Ryan, Ms Joan

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Salter, Martin

Lock, David

Sarwar, Mohammad

Love, Andrew

Savidge, Malcolm

McAvoy, Thomas

Sedgemore, Brian

McDonagh, Siobhain

Sheerman, Barry

Macdonald, Calum

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McDonnell, John

Singh, Marsha

McFall, John

Skinner, Dennis

McIsaac, Shona

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McNamara, Kevin

Smith, Miss Geraidine

McNulty, Tony

(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

MacShane, Denis

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McWalter, Tony

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

McWilliam, John

Snape, Peter

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Soley, Clive

125

Southworth, Ms Helen

Tynan, Bill

Spellar, John

Walley, Ms Joan

Squire, Ms Rachel

Ward, Ms Claire

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Wareing, Robert N

Steinberg, Gerry

Watts, David

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

White, Brian

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wicks, Malcolm

Stinchcombe, Paul

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Suteliffe, Gerry

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Wilson, Brian

Winnick, David

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wood, Mike

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Woodward, Shaun

Tipping, Paddy

Woolas, Phil

Touhig, Don

Wray, James

Trickett, Jon

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Truswell, Paul

Wyatt, Derek

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Tellers for the Noes:

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Mrs. Anne McGuire and

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 164.

Division No. 116]

[10.15 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Caton, Martin

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Cawsey, Ian

Ainger, Nick

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov"try NE)

Clapham, Michael

Alexander, Douglas

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Allen, Graham

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Ashton, Joe

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Atkins, Charlotte

Clelland, David

Austin, John

Coaker, Vernon

Banks, Tony

Coffey, Ms Ann

Barnes, Harry

Cohen, Harry

Barron, Kevin

Coleman, Iain

Battle, John

Colman, Tony

Bayley, Hugh

Connarty, Michael

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Cooper, Yvette

Begg, Miss Anne

Corbett, Robin

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Cousins, Jim

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Cox, Tom

Bennett, Andrew F

Cranston, Ross

Benton, Joe

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Bermingham, Gerald

Cummings, John

Best, Harold

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Blackman, Liz

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Darvill, Keith

Bradshaw, Ben

Davey Valerie (Bristol W)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

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

Browne, Desmond

Buck, Ms Karen

Denham, Rt Hon John

Burgon, Colin

Dismore, Andrew

Butler, Mrs Christine

Dobbin, Jim

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Donohoe, Brian H

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Doran, Frank

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Dowd, Jim

Cann, Jamie

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Casale, Roger

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

126

Edwards, Huw

McDonnell, John

Efford, Clive

McFall, John

Ellman, Mrs Louise

McIsaac, Shona

Ennis, Jeff

McNamara, Kevin

Etherington, Bill

McNulty, Tony

Fisher, Mark

MacShane, Denis

Fitzpatrick, Jim

McWalter, Tony

Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

McWilliam, John

Flint, Caroline

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Flynn, Paul

Mallaber, Judy

Follett, Barbara

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Gapes, Mike

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Gardiner, Barry

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Martlew, Eric

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Maxton, John

Godsiff, Roger

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Golding, Mrs Llin

Meale, Alan

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Merron, Gillian

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

Grocott, Bruce

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Moffatt, Laura

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hanson, David

Moran, Ms Margaret

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Healey, John

Morley, Elliot

Hendrick, Mark

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

Hepburn, Stephen

Heppell, John

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Hill, Keith

Mudie, George

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Mullin, Chris

Hoey, Kate

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hood, Jimmy

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hopkins, Kelvin

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Howells, Dr Kim

O'Hara, Eddie

Hoyle, Lindsay

Olner, Bill

Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)

O'Neill, Martin

Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Humble, Mrs Joan

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Hutton, John

Pearson, Ian

Iddon, Dr Brian

Pickthall, Colin

Illsley, Eric

Pike, Peter L

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Pollard, Kerry

Jamieson, David

Pond, Chris

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Pope, Greg

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Prosser, Gwyn

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Purchase, Ken

Joyce, Eric

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Quinn, Lawrie

Keeble, Ms Sally

Rapson, Syd

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Raynsford, Nick

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Kemp, Fraser

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lammy, David

Rooney, Terry

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Laxton, Bob

Rowlands, Ted

Lepper, David

Ruddock, Joan

Leslie, Christopher

Ryan, Ms Joan

Levitt, Tom

Salter, Martin

Linton, Martin

Sarwar, Mohammad

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Savidge, Malcolm

Lock, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Love, Andrew

Sheerman, Barry

McAvoy, Thomas

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Singh, Marsha

Macdonald, Calum

Skinner, Dennis

127

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Tynan, Bill

Snape, Peter

Walley, Ms Joan

Soley, Clive

Ward, Ms Claire

Southworth, Ms Helen

Wareing, Robert N

Spellar, John

Watts, David

Squire, Ms Rachel

White, Brian

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Wicks, Malcolm

Steinberg, Gerry

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Stoate,Dr Howard

Wilson, Brian

Winnick, David

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Wood, Mike

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Woodward, Shaun

Woolas, Phil

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Wray, James

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Wyatt, Derek

Tipping, Paddy

Touhig, Don

Tellers for the Ayes:

Trickett, Jon

Mrs. Anne McGuire and

Truswell, Paul

Mr. Clive Betts.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Allan, Richard

Day, Stephen

Amess, David

Duncan, Alan

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Arbutnnot, Rt Hon James

Evans, Nigel

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Fabricant, Michael

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Fallon, Michael

Baldry, Tony

Feam, Ronnie

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Flight, Howard

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Bercow, John

Foster, Don (Bath)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Blunt, Crispin

Garnier, Edward

Body, Sir Richard

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Boswell, Tim

Gibb, Nick

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Gidley, Sandra

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Gill, Christopher

Brady, Graham

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Brand, Dr Peter

Gray, James

Brazier, Julian

Green, Damian

Breed, Colin

Greenway, John

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Grieve, Dominic

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hammond, Philip

Burnett, John

Hancock, Mike

Burstow, Paul

Harris, Dr Evan

Butterfill, John

Harvey, Nick

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Hawkins, Nick

Hayes, John

Cash, William

Heald, Oliver

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Chidgey, David

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Chope, Christopher

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Clappison, James

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Jenkin, Bernard

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Collins, Tim

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Key, Robert

Cotter, Brian

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Cran, James

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Kirkwood, Archy

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

128

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

St Aubyn, Nick

Letwin, Oliver

Sanders, Adrian

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lidington, David

Shepherd, Richard

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

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

Livsey, Richard

Soames, Nicholas

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Llwyd, Elfyn

Spicer, Sir Michael

Loughton, Tim

Spring, Richard

Luff, Peter

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Steen, Anthony

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stunell, Andrew

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Swayne, Desmond

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Syms, Robert

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Tapsell, Sir Peter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Madel, Sir David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Maginnis, Ken

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Mates, Michael

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Townend, John

May, Mrs Theresa

Trend, Michael

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Tyler, Paul

Moore, Michael

Viggers, Peter

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Walter, Robert

Moss, Malcolm

Waterson, Nigel

Norman, Archie

Webb, Steve

Oaten, Mark

Whitney, Sir Raymond

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Whittingdale, John

Ottaway, Richard

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Page, Richard

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Paice, James

Wilkinson, John

Pickles, Eric

Willetts, David

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Willis, Phil

Prior, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Yeo, Tim

Rendel, David

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Tellers for the Noes:

Ruffley, David

Mr. Nicholas Winterton and

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Sir George Young.

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the First Report from the Liaison Committee, Session 1999–2000, Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive, HC300, and the Government response thereto, Cm 4737; considers that the Select Committee system has proved its worth as a means of increasing the scrutiny and accountability of Government, endorsing in particular the Liaison Committee's judgement of the value of Select Committees (in particular paragraphs 4, 5 and 24 of the Committee's First Report); commends the initiatives already taken by the Government and by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to improve the accountability of Ministers to Parliament, including the provision in Westminster Hall of the opportunity for some 200 extra back bench debates each Session, and over 20 debates on Select Committee reports; but does not believe that concentrating patronage it the hands of three senior Members of the House would increase the transparency or effectiveness of the Committee system.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
  That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  Question agreed to.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
Hon. Members: Object.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 52, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
Hon. Members: Object.

LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
Motion made,
That—
(1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01 (HC 47); and
(2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings be amended accordingly by inserting, after the word 'Wales,', the words 'and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees'.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
Hon. Members: Object.

Rail Freight
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
10.29 pm
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I compliment the Government, the Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), and his ministerial colleagues on their positive and constructive approach to rail freight. They have shown that they believe that rail has a significant and growing role to play in freight transport in Britain, which is most welcome. For many decades, Governments gave little serious attention to rail freight. It has been the poorest of poor relations in the transport fraternity, while the development of road transport has dominated departmental thinking and grown at an extraordinary rate.
Rail passengers have been the Government's and industry's prime concern, perhaps understandably because they have votes and freight containers do not. As a daily rail commuter, I want a first-rate passenger service, too. Sadly, we have seen in recent weeks that the transportation of people has had its own problems. Those, too, seem set to continue. Our Government have, however, recognised that increasing the amount of freight carried by rail is important for the future and that roads alone cannot take the whole strain of ever-increasing freight volumes. Roads will continue to have the major share of freight traffic and it is unrealistic to imagine that rail will replace road as the primary freight mode. However, the proportion taken by rail should be substantially increased.
I wish to raise three concerns. First, the Government's targets for rail freight are too modest. Secondly, current investment in rail freight is too low, even to achieve the Government's modest targets. Thirdly, Railtrack is not taking rail freight seriously in any case, believing, I suspect, as many have before, that rail freight is inherently uneconomic. Rail freight is commercially profitable elsewhere in the world, even over quite short distances, and can be so in Britain with the right investment.
In their 10-year plan for railways, the Government have established a target of increasing rail freight by 80 per cent. over that decade. That is 8 per cent. per year in simple terms and equivalent to 6 per cent. compound annual growth. That must be set against predicted annual growth in total freight traffic, which would mean that the proportion of freight carried by rail would rise from 7 per cent. to around 10 per cent. A rise of 3 per cent., even if achieved over that 10 years, would still be too small and shows that 80 per cent. of not very much is still not a lot. The Government should therefore raise their sights and set a considerably higher target for rail freight over the next 10 years.
There are a number of reasons for that. The road system will not be able to cope with the likely volumes of freight that we should anticipate for the future. Indeed, the roads have difficulty coping now. If we wish to develop an efficient freight transport network, we must make greater use of rail. The freight transport industry should be developed as a coherent whole, with the full support and co-operation of hauliers and railway operators. Co-operation, not competition, must be the way forward, with rail providing a service to hauliers tailored to hauliers' needs.

131
Another major reason for increasing rail freight more substantially is that large parts of the economy, and those that are faring less well, will need better freight transport links with the continent of Europe, in particular, if they are to prosper. The north, the midlands, Scotland and Wales must have reliable commercially economic freight links with Europe if they are not to suffer because of their geographical peripherality. Choked roads and unreliable freight links to the ports and channel tunnel will be an increasing disincentive to investors in the English regions and in Scotland and Wales. However, new freight links providing regular and dependable services, especially through the channel tunnel to the continent, could throw an economic lifeline to the industrial heartlands of Britain.
Hauliers tell me that what they really want is a dedicated lorries-on-trains service through the channel tunnel. Indeed, I have been informed this weekend that one haulier could use one whole train each way between Germany and Britain every day.
A less obvious reason for increasing the proportion of freight carried by rail is the enormous cost of road repairs and the congestion that they cause. The Under-Secretary of State will, I am sure, be familiar with the fourth power law linking axle weight to road wear. That states that road wear is proportional to the fourth power of axle weight. Thus, doubling axle weight increases road damage by 16 times and tripling axle weight increases it by 81 times. A lorry axle weight may be several times that of a motor car, causing many times the amount of road wear. Lorries have to travel on roads, but shifting thousands of them on to rail every day will be beneficial in public expenditure terms as well as environmentally.
Road repairs cost the Exchequer many millions every year, as well as causing bottlenecks, congestion and delays on the trunk road network, bringing frustration to hauliers and car drivers alike. EWS, the rail freight company, recently drew attention to a Confederation of British Industry estimate that congestion costs the economy £15 billion a year. Taking a larger proportion of road freight off the roads and putting it on to rail would save considerable sums in roads expenditure and save time, fuel and costs for road hauliers.
My second concern is that investment in rail freight is inadequate to meet even the Government's own targets. It seems clear now that the existing strategic rail network is going to have its work cut out simply coping with future growth of passenger traffic. I understand that there are significant and worrying problems on the west coast main line with capacity, signalling and investment needs. Passenger traffic will take pride of place and crowd out freight—especially the serious, long-distance, heavy freight, and most notably international freight using the channel tunnel route.
Writing recently in "Rail Freight Group News", my noble Friend Lord Berkeley said that there is already competition between freight and passenger traffic for existing rail capacity. It is time, he says,
"to face up to the challenge of demand for track space exceeding supply."
In any case, high-speed passenger services and much lower-speed freight traffic do not mix. Freight trains have to wait for slots or travel at night. That is not the type of service that will be attractive to hauliers. In Germany,
132
an experiment was tried recently sending freight trains on high-speed passenger lines at night, but it was later abandoned as a failure.
There is also the gauge problem. It is currently not possible to carry full-size lorries on the backs of trains on the British rail network. A lorries-on-trains service would need new, purpose-built lines. That is already happening on the continent of Europe, notably in southern Germany, and a dedicated freight line is being built from Holland to Germany. The specific investment difficulties should be set in the context of our historically low levels of railway investment. The French and Dutch have specifically invested between two and three times as much in railways as we do in Britain each year, and—goodness me—it shows.
I am informed that the amount of track repairs and modernisation currently being undertaken by Railtrack, even in the current crisis, is barely more than the normal amount of track work that was undertaken in the days of British Rail. If we are serious about rail freight, we have to think much bigger and be much bolder. According to the Rail Freight Group, Railtrack cannot even accommodate today's rail freight on the west coast main line, north of Crewe, once the Virgin tilting train timetable comes into force. It might even sell off all the additional 42 paths south of Rugby to passenger train operators.
My third concern, therefore, is that I am unconvinced about Railtrack's commitment to rail freight. There are optimistic noises in public, but an article by Railtrack in this month's "Railfreight Handbook" is significant. It states:
"Achieving the government's target of 80 per cent. growth over the next 10 years would"—
note the conditional—
"be our greatest success … It can be done!"
That betrays a lack of confidence that even the Government's modest 10-year target can be achieved. With more time, I could provide more statistical and anecdotal information, and I shall do so later, in writing, to my hon. Friend the Minister.
It is clear that what Britain needs is new, dedicated freight line capacity providing full-scale lorries-on-trains services between strategic centres in Britain and the channel tunnel. Such a scheme has been proposed, and my hon. Friend will not be surprised when I refer him to the proposals made by Central Railway. That scheme will provide a spinal link from the north of England, skirting London and then on to the channel tunnel. Perhaps an aorta might be a more appropriate metaphor.
Mr. Stephen Pound: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hopkins: I really have very little time, and I have had only one notice of an intervention. I apologise to my hon. Friend.
The line would make use of old Great Central track bed for much of its length and would link Liverpool with Lille in northern France. It would provide a full-scale lorries-on-trains service, and Central Railway proposes an initial four trains an hour in each direction. It is proposed to build major loading facilities on the route in south Yorkshire, the midlands and close to London, and it will

133
make use of the currently closed Woodhead tunnel through the Pennines. Later extensions to other parts of Britain could be developed.
If hauliers could load their lorries, swap bodies and containers in the north and then guarantee a time of arrival in northern France. that would bring new life to our industrial heartlands and integrate them more fully in the wider European economy. The Central Railway service would also provide for double-stacked containers, which is effectively two train loads in one train's length.
The scheme is compelling in its logic and would transform rail freight in Britain. My hon. Friend will understand that, in my own best of all possible worlds, I would like to see such schemes developed in the public sector. However, the modern fashion for private development fits entirely with Central Railway's proposals. It is a wholly commercial and commercially viable scheme that will require no Government funding or underwriting.
Mr. Philip Hammond: Whatever the merits or demerits of the freight-only railway, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the position in which my constituents—and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), and many others—are placed is wholly unacceptable? Their properties are blighted by a scheme proposed by a company with very little in the way of financial substance, yet the company shows no inclination to bring its proposals forward for any formal scrutiny in the short term. That leaves my constituents in an impossible situation.
Mr. Hopkins: I have reminded the hon. Gentleman in previous debates that Central Railway has proposed a generous property compensation scheme that was praised by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Clearly, building any new infrastructure of this kind has effects on the people who live close by. That is inevitable and it would have to be faced by the Government.
The scheme would be linked into the rest of the rail network and would take freight traffic from elsewhere, too. It would make the channel tunnel truly commercially viable and take up the vast amount of spare capacity that the tunnel currently has. Ten years ago, Eurotunnel forecast that there would be 22 million passengers and 11 million tonnes of freight using the tunnel each year. It has actually achieved only 7 million passengers and less than 3 million tonnes of freight less than a third of predicted levels. Boosting passenger numbers will be difficult, so there is a massive capacity for freight growth if only there were an effective delivery system on the British side. A rail freight link to the north of London carrying lorries on trains must be the answer.
Central Railway will take 8,000 to 10,000 lorries off our motorways every day by 2010. The scheme is vital to Britain's future infrastructure needs. If such a scheme had been proposed in France, Germany, Spain or Holland, I am sure it would have been built by now. Central Railway will make a major contribution to Britain's future economic success and it must not be allowed to fail.
There are other important factors in the case for the scheme. European freight is carried on lorries and Central Railway's proposal is the only scheme that meets the needs of hauliers. The existing UK railways cannot take
134
lorries, and there is ample evidence that Central Railway's proposal is workable. I am informed that Central Railway's construction costs are along the lines of the TGV and the channel tunnel rail link phase 1. It has also been endorsed by SNCF's engineering arm, which believes that Central Railway's operating plan is realistic.
Lorries-on-train operations are a daily practicality across the channel. Central Railway is designed to be compatible with continental freight train standards and works at a European level, fitting in with EU operational objectives. Cross-channel freight is doubling every 10 years, growing much faster than the domestic freight market. Without Central Railway, almost all the additional lorry journeys will be by road, many of them on the M1 passing through my constituency of Luton, North.
If we are serious about raising the proportion of freight carried by rail and about regenerating the industrial regions of Britain, we cannot afford to let this opportunity slip and see the road arteries of Britain clogging up as the years go by, causing serious damage to Britain's future economic health and prospects.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hopkins: I am sorry, but I have too little time.
Over a century ago, Sir Edward Watkin had a vision of a channel tunnel linked to the great central railways. Sadly, he became ill and died before he could see his vision come to fruition. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to give his most serious attention to the Central Railway scheme and to ponder the thought that if he and our right hon. and hon. Friends lend their support to the Central Railway scheme, they could be credited with having made possible a venture of historic proportions.
10.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on securing this debate. I also thank him for his courtesy in giving me notice of the key issues that he wished to raise in his speech. The issues that he raised in respect of the challenge facing the rail freight industry are of great interest to the Government. They are precisely what we are addressing through the implementation of our integrated transport policy.
The Government inherited a railway system that was suffering from years of under-investment. It had been fragmented by privatisation and had no framework for the strategic planning of the industry as a whole. It is clear that mistakes were made in the privatisation process. Since 1997, we have been working to turn the industry round, and there have been tangible results in that time. After many years of decline, the amount of freight moved by rail volume has risen by nearly a quarter, and it continues to grow. Much of that has been due to the considerable investment by freight operators. They have invested in new rolling stock and facilities, they are actively pursuing new markets and new operators are emerging. The Government are matching that commitment, as I shall explain.

135
We are committed to more freight on rail as part of an integrated sustainable freight transport distribution system. We have set out in our 10-year plan for transport an unprecedented investment programme to enhance the capacity and capability of the network. Through the Transport Act 2000, we have established the Strategic Rail Authority with a remit to promote rail freight. We have also revitalised the freight grant regime to encourage companies to transfer more freight off the roads. We have made it clear that we wish to see greater investment in the railways to cater for growth in both passenger and freight traffic over the next decade. We have asked the SRA to take forward the detailed plans for applying that investment. As a first step, it will shortly produce its strategic agenda.
The Transport Act 2000 marks a major step forward in delivering the Government's vision for transport in this country, and provides for the development of an integrated approach to the transport of passengers and freight. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority had already started discussions with the industry about its plans for rail freight.
As well as setting up the SRA proper, the Transport Act provides a framework for influencing the behaviour of key industry players, such as Railtrack, in the public interest. For example, it will allow the SRA to apply to the Rail Regulator for directions in respect of railway facility enhancements. This new power will create the right to compel Railtrack, and other rail facility owners, to carry out investment and enhancement schemes on terms determined by the regulator and not by Railtrack or the other owners.
The SRA has also taken over from my Department the responsibility for freight grants. Indeed, the Government have made more than 130 grant offers since 1997, including a record 47 grants during the last financial year. Grant payments will soon reach £100 million, diverting close to 40 million tonnes of freight from Britain's roads.
We want to make even more use of the money available to get freight on rail and inland waterways, where that is justified by the environmental benefits. The money is there to be used if the industry comes forward with the right projects. We have established the Strategic Rail Authority to ensure that development of rail freight becomes part of the strategic management of the network. The SRA is already undertaking work to improve the grant regime and to develop its strategic plan.
The SRA's freight strategy will include modernisation and increased capacity on key routes such as the west coast and east coast main lines, upgrading of freight routes to major ports such as Felixstowe and to the channel tunnel, the elimination of strategic bottlenecks on the rail network, better integration with other modes through investment in new freight interchanges and investment in rolling stock.
My hon. Friend mentioned Central Railway's proposals as a possible solution. Of course, I am aware that he has supported the scheme over many years. I confirm that the company has informed my Department of its wish to abandon its proposed Transport and Works Act 1992 application to gain approval for its scheme and has instead requested the Government's support for a Bill.
136
It must be for the company to decide whether it wishes to allow its proposals to be examined openly under the TWA procedure. That is the normal means of considering infrastructure projects falling within the scope of the 1992 Act. It would not preclude the possibility of the Government promoting a hybrid Bill if we considered that to be an appropriate means of authorising a scheme. However, it remains the case that Central Railway has not submitted its proposals. Bearing that in mind, I cannot give any assurance now that the Government would wish to sponsor a Bill to support the project. It is, of course, open to any hon. Member to propose a Bill in support of a private scheme.
Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hill: Very briefly.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister's right hon. and hon. Friends have said in the past that they cannot pass comment on the Central Railway scheme because of the possibility of having to judge it in a quasi-judicial role if it were the subject of a TWA application. The company has made it clear that there will be no TWA application and that it is seeking the Government's political support for the scheme. When and how will the Government make their view known to the House of Commons and to the wider public?
Mr. Hill: I was coming to that. We have asked the SRA to review the Central Railway proposals, and it goes without saying that, until we have seen that, it would be both inappropriate and impossible for the Government to take a view.
I am aware that Central Railway maintains that its project is to be an entirely privately funded scheme and that it is economically viable, but my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North will appreciate that it is vital that all the technical and commercial aspects are examined carefully for a proposal of this scale and complexity. That is why the SRA is initiating a review of Central Railway's proposals.
My hon. Friend is aware that the scheme has, albeit in a different form, been put to the House before, when it was overwhelmingly rejected. If the Government are to consider supporting a Bill, it is right that the SRA should seek to learn more about the proposals before taking a view. I have outlined the basis of the Government's commitment to rail freight and the SRA's role in helping to achieve the industry's objectives. Any review that the SRA undertakes should be carried out in the context of our 10-year plan and the authority's own strategy for freight. I shall follow the SRA's review of Central Railway's proposals with interest.
New facilities require land and the support of the local community. That is why, we published guidance last March for local transport plans, which looks to local authorities to take account of opportunities for a greater use of rail freight in their areas. In their land use planning, we will expect authorities to protect sites and routes that could be important in the development of new infrastructure, to promote opportunities for rail connections through industrial sites and to ensure that disused transport routes with the potential for reuse are not unnecessarily severed.
In December, we announced details of the local transport capital settlement in response to the transport plans submitted by local authorities in July. We are

137
allocating £8.4 billion of public investment over the next five years to be spent locally on projects identified at local level. A good proportion of that funding will be spent on public and integrated transport and smaller schemes, which may include developing facilities for rail freight.
I am encouraged by the enthusiasm that local authorities have shown in considering the role of rail freight in their local transport plans. Underpinning all that is the 10-year plan. We are planning for private and public expenditure of £60 billion on the railway over the 10-year period. During that time, we envisage a further 50 per cent. growth in passenger journeys by rail, an 80 per cent. increase in freight volumes and a further significant increase in rail's share of the freight market to around 10 per cent.
The £60 billion includes capital investments of £38 billion for renewal and expansion of passenger infrastructure, £7 billion for the replacement and expansion of the passenger rolling stock fleet—around 6,000 new vehicles—and £4 billion for investment in additional freight capacity. I seriously question my hon. Friend's claim that our rail freight targets are modest. The Government are committing huge sums of investment to that development.
Mr. Grieve: Does the Minister agree that any successful freight scheme must be compatible with the expansion of passenger use, which the Government are greatly promoting? For instance, if the Central Railway scheme resulted in an inability to use the Chiltern line in my constituency for passenger commuter services, which have expanded and doubled over the past few years, that would be a strange environmental benefit as it would put thousands of people into their cars and on to the roads who currently use the train.
Mr. Hill: As I am wont to say, I have some hinterland on this matter. If the hon. Gentleman took the trouble to consult Hansard for the debates Central Railway in 1995—the previous Parliament—he would find evidence of that. Under the TWA proposal or the hybrid Bill proposal now being considered by the SRA, it is incumbent on the Government to adopt an entirely neutral stance at this stage.
Nearly half the £60 billion that I mentioned will be Government funding. We would have provided some of that money in any case: for example, £5 billion for the channel tunnel rail link; between £5 billion and £10 billion for continuing franchise support; and £1 billion for expenditure on such items as the residuary liabilities of the British Railways Board and contributions to railway industry pensions.
138
However, a great deal of the Government funding is new money—to halt the decline in passenger operating subsidies and to promote the biggest rail expansion programme for more than a century. We launched the new £7 billion rail modernisation fund, which will lever in substantial amounts of private capital and will provide support for both passenger and freight enhancements.
The new fund will allow the SRA and the industry together to formulate a long-term investment programme for rail—we estimate nearly £50 billion over 10 years—encompassing a range of funding mechanisms, including capital grant and debt finance. The passenger-freight split will depend on franchise replacement and on the conclusions of the SRA's rail freight strategy.
More generally, the 10-year plan provides much greater certainty as a basis for long-term investment. The stop-go attitude to investment followed by previous Administrations created a climate of uncertainty in the supply industry. Time scales for supply and payback are long, both for rolling stock and infrastructure, that stop-go approach clearly discouraged many suppliers from investing as they otherwise might have done. Clearly, that has to change.
Of course, Hatfield dented the progress that the industry had been making. Although there are lessons to be learned from the disruption over recent months, it is vital that everyone involved in the industry continues to act together to ensure that the interests of all customers are paramount. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport is leading the rail recovery action group to maintain regular contact with the industry and to ensure that it is wholly focused on getting the railroad running normally as soon as possible. The group includes a freight representative and is scrutinising carefully the impact of the recovery plan on freight services.

I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North that whatever their immediate impact, the recent difficulties on the railways will not deflect us from our long-term goal. The Government have confidence in rail freight and high expectations of it. So far, the rail freight industry has returned that confidence with investment on a scale not seen for decades—in vehicles, terminals, staff and new business, with real growth in freight volume, and with the arrival of new operators who are giving the established players a run for their money. They, too, can see that rail freight has a real future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Trunk Roads (Cambridgeshire)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport anti the Regions how much was spent by his Department on trunk roads in Cambridgeshire in each year since 1990–91, at current prices. [142872]

  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency and I have asked is Chief Executive, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mrs. Anne Campbell, dated 12 February 2001:
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Keith Hill, has asked me to write in response to your recent Parliamentary Question relating to how much has been spent on trunk roads in Cambridgeshire in each year since 1990–91. I apologise for the delay in replying.
  As we do not keep financial data on a county basis, a very lengthy investigation of our records would be required to answer your specific question. In the early 1990s we used Local Authorities to manage trunk roads on our behalf; however, major Improvement Schemes and other major works were managed as a separate programme and costs were not necessarily attributed to an individual county and some schemes crossed county boundaries.
  Since the introduction of private sector Managing Agents in 1996, the management of the trunk road network is not constrained by county boundaries. This approach will continue when these contracts are renewed. However, Lord Whitty has asked me to investigate how the Highway Agencys future records could be kept on a regional or sub-regional basis.
  If you wish to discuss this matter further I please contact Jim Boud, Highways Agencys Divisional Director, telephone 01234 796191.

  Departmental Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much was spent by his Departments Ministers on entertainment in 2000. [146372]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: Expenditure on entertainment by my Departments Ministers in 1999–2000, the latest financial year for which information is available, was £8,347 This compares with expenditure of £14,672 for the former Departments of Environment and Transport in 1996–97.

  Waste Regulation
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many enforcement officers are employed in London by the 2W
  Environment Agency (a) to check trade waste agreements of business, (b) to check unauthorised waste carries, (c) to tackle other breaches of the Environment Protection Act and the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 and (d) to tackle environmental crime in general. [148721]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Trade waste agreements under section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are a matter for local authorities as waste collection authorities; and no enforcement officers are employed by the Environment Agency on checking them.

  (b) and (c) The Agency employs 16 officers in the London area whose role includes checking unauthorised waste carriers and other breaches of the 1990 Act and the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989.

  (d) A further seven full-time equivalents are employed by the Agency to deal with environmental crime in general in the London area.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions have been brought by the Environment Agency for fly tipping in the past six years in(a) Lewisham and (b) London. [148728]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Neither the Environment Agency nor the Crime and Criminal Justice Unit of the Home Office holds data on prosecutions brought in Lewisham.

  (b) The term fly-tipping is not legally defined but is generally used to refer to the illegal disposal of waste on a site without either a waste management licence or a registered licensing exemption—in contravention of sections 33 or 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, it is also an offence under section 33 to dispose of waste in contravention of a licence. The available data neither separately identify the two different types of offence under section 33 nor distinguish between prosecutions brought by the Environment Agency, local authorities or the police.

  Subject to these considerations, the total number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts for offences under sections 33 or 34 of the 1990 Act in the Metropolitan police area in the past six years is:

  Year

  Number

  1995

  31

  1996

  34

  1997

  39

  1998

  56

  1999

  70

  2000

  Data not yet available

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions the Environment Agency has brought against unlicensed waste carriers in London. [148733]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The available records do not separately identify waste carriers involved in prosecutions brought for contravention of waste management controls other than section 1 of the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 (offence of transporting controlled waste without registering). The number of prosecutions
  3W
  brought under section 1 of the 1989 Act in the Metropolitan police area for calendar years during which the Agency has been in operation is:

  Year

  Number

  1996

  0

  1997

  1

  1998

  1

  1999

  0

  2000

  1—

  1 Data not yet available

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the timetable for publishing and implementing the regulations under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [148920]

  Mr. Meacher
  Substantial parts of the Act came into force on 30 January 2001 and further provisions, including the whole of Part IV (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), will come into force on 1 April 2001. The implementation of many of the remaining provisions depends on the making of a large number of regulations which my Department will be preparing over the next two or three years. Where appropriate, these provisions will be subject to public consultation.

  We expect to lay regulations on vehicular access over common land in May. Immediate priority is also being given to regulations for the mapping of access land, the establishment of local access forums, statutory guidance for the preparation of rights of way improvement plans and making provision for disabled people. The implementation of the right of access to open countryside depends primarily on the completion of the mapping programme which the Countryside Agency have in hand.

  Kings Cross Station
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent reports he has received on the safety of Kings Cross station in respect of the ventilation of smoke; and if he will make a statement. [149099]

  Mr. Hill
  I understand from London Underground that the magazine Test has published comparisons of fire safety at various European stations, which included Kings Cross. It should be noted that, while the Test report contains some very valid points, it also appears to contain some errors in its description of escape routes from Kings Cross and takes no account of the following points.

  The basic controls against the risk of smoke at Kings Cross are the same as those on the rest of London Underground.

  1. Minimisation of potential sources of ignition, in particular strict enforcement of the ban on smoking;

  2. Very careful selection of materials for the construction of stations and trains to minimise the degree to which they can support combustion and give off toxic fumes and smoke if affected by a fire. At Kings Cross, all materials used since 1989 have been subject to these controls;

  4W

  3. In areas of higher risk such as machine rooms and stores, the provision of automatic fire detection and, particularly in the case of escalators, automatic fire suppression systems; and

  4. Well rehearsed evacuation routines, which are used if a fire is suspected. In the case of Kings Cross, evacuation is achieved within six minutes

  It should also be noted that Kings Cross station is being redeveloped. This redevelopment will take into account modern practice in ventilation systems, in particular lessons learned from the Jubilee Line Extension project on active control of air-flows in an emergency.

  To summarise, fife safety controls at Kings Cross are the best that London Underground can achieve within the current constraints of the site. However, they are compliant with relevant legislation and plans for further improvement are already in hand.

  School Runs
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of cars on the road between 8 to 9 am are used by parents dropping children al school. [149064]

  Mr. Hill
  In Great Britain during the period 1997–99, 10 per cent. of car tips being made between 8 and 9 am during term time welt parents dropping children at school. At the peak times of 8.50 in the morning 18 per cent. of car trips were for this purpose.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions if he will list for each fire authority in England and Wales the value of the coastline element contained in the Fire Service standard spending assessment. [148912]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The value of the coastline element contained within the Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) for Fire, for 2001–02, for each fire authority in England, is either zero or the amount listed in the table.

  These figures are on an all other things being equal basis and provide the amount that is allocated by the coastline element. They specifically do not indicate how much each authority benefits from the inclusion of the coastline element, since other factors would change if the coastline element were to be removed from the SSA formula.

  The National Assembly for Wales advises that SSAs in Wales do not contain a coastline element for fire services.

  Fire authority

  Coastline element (£)

  Merseyside

  496,023

  Tyne and Wear

  278,380

  Isles of Scilly

  293,564

  Cornwall

  3,355,745

  Cumbria

  1,240,057

  Lincolnshire

  981,922

  Norfolk

  1,032,537

  Northumberland

  1,062,906

  Somerset

  516,269

  Suffolk

  480,838

  West Sussex

  399,855

  Isle of Wight

  678,235

  Avon

  460,592

  5W

  Fire authority

  Coastline element (£)

  Cleveland

  308,749

  Humberside

  1,073,029

  North Yorkshire

  551,699

  Dorset

  875,632

  Durham

  101,229

  East Sussex

  531,453

  Hampshire

  480,838

  Devon

  2,353,577

  Essex

  1,417,208

  Kent

  926,246

  Lancashire

  369,486

  Flooding
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many incidents of flooding have occurred in the last three years where raw sewage was involved in the contamination of peoples homes and property; and if he will make a statement. [149080]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The la Ht year for which information is available is 1999–2000 when 7,121 properties suffered internal flooding from sewers. In 1998–99 there were 5,202 properties and in 1997–98, there were 7,169.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the maximum amount which water companies can be fined for failing to ensure their customers are protected from flood damage and sewage flooding; how often, and on which companies, such a fine has been imposed in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [149516]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Flood prevention generally is the responsibility of the Environment Agency. As far as sewer flooding is concerned, then are no statutory provisions in existing water and sewerage legislation which provides for the undertakers to be fined for failing to ensure their customers are protected from such flood damage. Nor does legislation provide for fines in the event of sewer flooding.

  Under the Water Supply and Sewerage Services (Customer Service Standards) Regulations 2000, where effluent from sewerage undertaker s sewer enters a customers building the customer is entitled, subject to certain exceptions, to a refund of his sewerage charges for the year, up to a maximum of £1,000, for each occasion on which it happens.

  On 6 November 2000 my Department published for consultation a draft Water Bill containing proposals for legislation. These proposals include empowering the Director General of Water Services, Secretary of State and National Assembly for Wales to fine t water company up to 10 per cent. of its turnover if it fails to meet appointment conditions, standards of performance or certain statutory or other obligations. Subject to the outcome of the consultation exercise the Government propose to introduce the Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the impact of the 6W
  November floods on (a) council tax levels and (b) Council Tax Benefit subsidy limitation; and if he will make a statement. [149444]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We received 24 representations during consultation on the Local Government Finance Settlement 2001–02 concerned with the impact of floods on the flood defence levies and local authority budgets. Four responses were concerned with the overall impact on the authoritys level of council tax. Two responses were concerned with the impact on the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme (CTBSL).

  Local authorities affected by floods are eligible for funding under the Bellwin scheme. We have increased the grant for this from 85 per cent. to 100 per cent. of eligible costs above a threshold equivalent to 0.2 per cent. of an authoritys annual budget. In addition, the Government have recently announced a package of £11.6 million to pay for the Environment Agencys emergency and repair costs, reducing the costs of flooding being passed on to council taxpayers.

  Spending on flood defence is generally a relatively small component of an authoritys total budget requirement. It is up to local authorities to determine their spending priorities in consultation with their taxpayers, taking account of the funding available to them. Flood defence expenditure is no different from other items of expenditure and the Government have decided not to make any allowances within the CTBSL scheme for expenditure on flood defence which is above the increase in flood defence SSA.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will reduce the period taken for a claim to be settled under the Bellwin Scheme. [149441]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  As part of the special measures introduced to deal with the recent adverse conditions, the Department will settle valid claims within 15 working days of receipt of an application. We have also taken steps to encourage interim unaudited claims. Again these will be paid within 15 workings days.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received calling for an extension to the funding available under the Bellwin Scheme to parish and town councils. [149443]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Parish and town councils can claim eligible expenditure through their local authority. The local authority can in turn claim from my Department. Two parish councils have been in touch with my Department and were given the information they required.

  Local Transport Plans
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he plans to measure the effectiveness of local transport plans in reducing casualties. [149171]

  Mr. Hill
  Local authorities are required to produce road safety plans that support the national casualty reduction targets. The full five-year local transport plans have already been assessed and allocations for 2001–02 were based on those assessments. Indicative allocations have
  7W
  been provided for subsequent years. We will be monitoring road safety performance throughout the period. If any authorities prove to be failing in their road safety performance, we will want to consider how that could be remedied.

  Housing Investment
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the resources available to local authorities in East Lancashire(a) to improve below standard private sector terraced houses and (b) to declare clearance areas, where appropriate, over the period 2001 to 2004. [148942]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The six East Lancashire authorities will receive a total of £9,720 million in the coming year through the Housing Investment Programme. This resource can be used by the authorities concerned as they see fit. Additionally, they will receive a total of £11,870 million via the Major Repairs Allowance in line with the Governments commitment to bring all council housing up to a decent standard by 2010.

  Housing capital resources for local authorities nationally in 2003–04, the end of the current spending review period, will be around £2.6 billion.

  In December 2000 measures were announced enabling authorities to support the renovation and improvement of private sector housing in a better targeted way. At the same time, we announced our intention to proceed with more fundamental reforms to the legislation to give authorities more effective powers to turn around areas of low demand and unpopular housing.

  Public Transport
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assistance he is providing for pensioners using public transport. [148961]

  Mr. Hill
  In total local authorities in England spend over £440 million on concessionary travel on public transport each year. That includes travel by young and disabled people, as well as by pensioners. The Local Government Finance Settlement 2001–02 takes account of local authorities responsibilities in this area. It includes an extra £54 million a year which has been made available to cover the costs of the statutory half-fare scheme for pensioners and disabled people on buses under the Transport Act 2000.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate how many new rural bus services have been established since 2 May 1997. [148968]

  Mr. Hill
  The data collected on the number of local bus service registrations do not specifically identify rural areas.

  However, our survey of local authorities on the use made of the new Rural Bus Subsidy Grant introduced in 1998 shows that 1,800 new or enhanced services were being supported in 1999–2000 by the grant.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he has received ever the past 10 years about rising asbestos liabilities; and what action he has taken to ensure that those suffering from asbestos-related diseases were covered by employers liability insurance. [148915]

  Mr. Meacher
  Under the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, employers carrying on a business in Great Britain have been required since 1972 to insure their liabilities to employees for bodily injury or disease arising from their employment. The Act is enforced by the Health and Safety Executive. Most public sector employers are exempt from this requirement because their liabilities can be met from public funds. My Department is not aware of any case in the last 10 years where a sufferer was not compensated because an insurer did not indemnify a policyholder in accordance with their policy after liability had been established.

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many discharge consents for fish farms have been issued by(a) the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and b) the Environment Agency under the Control of Pollution Act 1974: and on what date each (i) was issued and (ii) is due to expire. [149202]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: No discharge consents for fish farms have been issued by the Environment Agency under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. The Environment Act 1995 established the Environment Agency as the regulatory body responsible, among other tasks, for the issuing of water pollution discharge consents. The legislation in force at the tine of the Environment Agencys establishment was the Water Resources Act 1991, and it is under this legislation that the Environment Agency has issued discharge consents for fish farms. Information about how many discharge consents for fish farms have been issued by the Environment Agency is not held centrally and I will write to the hon. Member with this information as soon as it is available. The information that the hon. Member asks for in relation to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is now a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Council Tax (Empty Properties)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Trans port and the Regions (1) what recent representations he has received on the policy of charging council tax on empty properties; [149283]

  (2) if he proposes to give local authorities discretion on levying council tax on empty properties where there is a large percentage of empty houses. [149284]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In the last three months we have received four representations on the policy of charging council tax on empty properties.

  There are already a range of exemptions from council tax where a dwelling is left empty. These include up to six months for dwellings which are unoccupied and substantially unfurnished and up to 12 months where they

  9W
  also need major repair work to render them habitable or are undergoing structural alteration. Once an empty dwelling ceases to be exempt, it will attract a 50 per cent. charge.

  We believe that the current exemptions are fair. However, we are aware of concerns at out council tax on empty homes in areas where demand for housing is very low and we will continue to keep the fairness of the council tax under review.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much revenue was raised from the business rate in the Greater London area during the last 12 months. [149368]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not yet available. However, local authorities in the Greater London area contributed an estimated £2.720 billion from business rates to the non-domestic rating pool in 1999–2000. This figure is still subject to audit approval.

  Social Housing
  Dr. Lyme Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2001,Official Report, columns 376–77W, if he will give the figures for investment in (a) council housing and (b) housing owned by registered social landlords at constant prices. [149590]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The capital resources made available by central Government to support housing investment by local authorities and registered social landlords in the years since 1990–91 at Constant 1999–2000 prices are as follows:

  £ million

  Cash

  (1999–2000) Constant

  Housing capital allocations to local authorities1

  1990–91

  1,706

  2,238

  1991–92

  1,682

  2,079

  1992–93

  1,579

  1,890

  1993–94

  1,391

  1,622

  1994–95

  1,181

  1,358

  1995–96

  1,147

  1,282

  1996–97

  1,059

  1,147

  1997–98

  926

  975

  1998–99

  1,211

  1,240

  1999–2000

  1,252

  1,252

  2000–01

  1,891

  1,854

  2001–02

  2,552

  2,441

  2002–03

  2,853

  2,662

  2003–04

  2,934

  2,671

  Housing capital allocations to registered social landlords2

  1990–91

  986

  1,293

  1991–92

  1,521

  1,880

  1992–93

  2,284

  2,733

  1993–94

  1,761

  2,053

  1994–95

  1,441

  1,657

  1995–96

  1,112

  1,243

  1996–97

  1,007

  1,090

  1997–98

  667

  702

  1998–99

  603

  617

  1999–2000

  634

  634

  2000–01

  678

  665

  2001–02

  787

  753

  2002–03

  958

  894

  2003–04

  1,274

  1,160

  10W
  1 Covers credit approvals, capital grants, PFI schemes for council housing and the resources to be made available under the arms length management initiative but excludes Estate Action allocations (which are now part of Regeneration Budgets). Local authorities housing capital programmes provide resources to improve poor condition private sector housing or develop new affordable housing as well as renovating or improving the council housing stock.

  2 Public funded investment in RSL housing through the Housing Corporations Approved Development Programme (ADP) and, from 2001–02, the Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the extent of the Ministry of Defences immunity from(a) civil and (b) criminal action under Crown immunity in cases involving (i) death and (ii) personal injury. [149584]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Queens Speech on 6 December 2000 announced the Governments intention to draft a Safety Bill. We intend to use this opportunity to fulfil the commitment in our strategy statement Revitalising Health and Safety to remove Crown immunity from statutory health and safety enforcement.

  In cases of civil claims, Crown immunity was removed by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, as amended by the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987.

  Council Chief Executives
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review procedures for disciplinary proceedings in respect of chief executives in local government. [149470]

  Ms Armstrong
  We received a number of representations about these disciplinary procedures when consulting on drafts of our proposed guidance to underpin new council constitutions. In the light of these representations we have concluded that these procedures remain appropriate for Chief Executives and in the future should be extended to Chief Finance Officers and Monitoring Officers.

  Harlow Council
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he intends to use his powers under the Local government Acts to intervene in Harlow Council; and if he will make a statement. [149469]

  Ms Armstrong
  A best value inspection of Harlow District Council has recently taken place, and I understand that the Audit Commission and the authority are currently in discussion about the content of the final report, and the recommendations for action by the Council arising from it. The Commission have powers under the Local Government Act 1999 to recommend that the Secretary of State intervenes. No such recommendations have been received.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce changes to controls on the granting of planning permissions for telecommunication masts; and if he will make a statement. [149748]
  11W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The consultation exercise seeking views on possible changes to the planning laws relating to mobile phone masts and associated guidance ended on 31 October 2000. The Department is currently analysing the responses. We shall announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

  Sellafield MOX Plant
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce a decision on the authorisation of the Sellafield MOX plant. [149630]

  Mr. Meacher
  A decision regarding the authorisation of the plant will be announced only when the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Secretary of State for Health have considered all the relevant information. Consultants are being appointed to assist the Departments in their consideration of the BNFL revised economic case received by my Department on 5 January.

  River Wye
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the outcome of the public inquiry on the River Wye will be published; and if he will make a statement. [149523]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: The application made by the Environment Agency for an Order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to confer on it powers to regulate navigation on the River Wye has raised complicated issues which require very careful consideration. Following the public inquiry into the application we received detailed representations from parties to the inquiry, including the Agency. Last year, in the interests of proper administration, we made these representations available to others appearing at the inquiry so that they could comment on them. We are now considering their comments along with the Inspectors Report.

  We will make a decision on the application as soon as possible. Before doing so, we will consult the National Assembly for Wales since the proposed Order would, if made, affect Wales as well as England.

  Community Transport
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 2001,Official Report, column 318W, on community transport, if he will list those successful bids to the 1999 competition which included further funding for schemes successful in the 1998 competition; if he will estimate the amount granted within those bids for continuation funding; and what total amount was granted in the 1999 competition as a whole. [149594]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: Four successful bids totalling £710,124 from Somerset, Wiltshire, West Sussex county councils and West Yorkshire PTA were for further funding for schemes funded by the 1998 competition. All this total was for continuation funding apart from some provision in the
  12W
  Somerset bid for expansion of the service to operate on additional days of the week. The total awarded in the 1999 competition was £16.8 million.

  Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors were taken into consideration in deciding the level of central grant allocation for Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service for 2001–2; and if he will make a statement. [149627]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service do not receive revenue support grant. A grant is allocated to Gloucestershire county council which provides necessary funding for the Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service.

  The Government allocate grant through Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs). The following indicators are used to determine the fire block of the SSA:

  Resident population

  Fire calls;

  Population density;

  A Risk areas;

  Coastline;

  Fire safety enforcement;

  Fire safety education; and

  Fire pensions.

  With the exception of the fire safety and pensions indicators the weightings are based upon expenditure of fire authorities in 1990–91.

  An area cost adjustment is applied, where appropriate, to reflect difference s in the cost of providing fire services in London, the rest of the South East and the remainder of the country.

  Emergency Vehicle Drivers
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions when he will introduce mandatory training for all drivers of emergency vehicles; what the minimum training requirements will be; and if he will make a statement. [149691]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 February 2001]: Core competencies for driving emergency vehicles have recently been agreed by technical experts from the Driving Standards Agency, police, fire, ambulance and armed services. The services are now consulting their constituent members about adoption, which I hope will be by the autumn. Each service will tailor the supporting training to their drivers and vehicles, though experience and best practice will be shared. The public services concerned will be able to ensure that these new standards will apply to directly employed drivers, and those providing contracted services.

  A66
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the outline proposals for the safety study of the A66 were presented to the regional planning authorities; when each planning body gave its approval; and when the study commenced. [149816]
  13W
  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 February 2001]: The three regional planning authorities were consulted in December 1998/January 1999 on the proposed programme of studies identified in A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England. Further consultants have been undertaken throughout the development stages of the A66 Safety Study with regards the terms of reference and study brief.

  The regional planning authorities in the North-east, North-west and Yorkshire and the Humber continue to be individually represented on the A66 Safety Study Steering Group.

  The consultants were appointed to undertake the study in March 2000 and the final report is expected in spring 2001. The final report will be presented to regional planning authorities for their consideration.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Red ions when he will have complete road accident figures for all highways for the year 2000. [149813]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 February 2001]: Summary figures for the year 2000 are scheduled to be published in June as a Transport Statistics bulletin Road Casualties in Great Britain: Main Results: 2000. A copy will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how long he expects the regional planning bodies to take in considering the safety study of the A66. [149815]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 February 2001]: This is a matter for the three individual regional planning bodies representing the North-east, North-west and Yorkshire and the Humber regions.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Red ions which regional planning conference needs to give its endorsement to the Temple Sowerby bypass before it can proceed. [149814]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 February 2001]: The North West Regional Assembly, in its capacity as regional planning body, must endorse the Temple Sowerby bypass before it can proceed.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he announced that there would be a safety study into the A66. [149817]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 February 2001]: The A66 Safety Study was included in A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England which was published in July 1998.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 7 February 2000,Official Report, column 534W, concerning road traffic accidents, when the information will be available; and if he will supply the information when it becomes available. [150082]

  Mr. Hill
  Full details of all read accident casualty figures for the period 17 October t. 31 December 2000 will be published for analysis in early June 2001.14W
  Between 17 October and 13 December 1999 there were 857 fatalities and 8,461 serious injuries arising from road accidents.

  Road Traffic Accidents

    Regeneration Initiatives
    Mr. Gordon Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to ensure that transport links support regeneration initiatives. [149381]

    Mr. Hill
    Transport has a key role to play in supporting regeneration. The increased investment of £180 billion set out in our 10 Year Plan for transport will, over the next 10 years, deliver significant improvements for our road, rail and local transport infrastructure. It will provide the funding to implement the transport priorities emerging from the new regional transport strategies, regional development strategies, local transport plans and community strategies. It will deliver significantly better public transport and reduced congestion on our roads, and provide better access to jobs and services. It will contribute to the vision set out in our Urban White Paper, published in November, which looks to make urban areas attractive places in which people want to live, with strong economies, better services and improved local environments.

    Rail Services
    Mr. Gordon Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what mechanisms exist to(a) challenge and (b) review the Strategic Rail Authoritys definition of the core proposition for rail franchises; [149496]

    (2) what powers the Rail Regulator has in relation to the definition of the core proposition for rail franchises; [149502]

    (3) what (a) instructions and (b) guidance he has given to the Strategic Rail Authority on the core proposition of the Transpennine Express Franchise; [149490]

    (4) what powers he has to order a redefinition of the core proposition for a rail franchise; [149494]

    (5) if his Department requires the Strategic Rail Authority to take account of (a) regional development plans, (b) SRB investment, (c) projected future passenger plans and (d) other factors in defining the core proposition for rail franchises. [149501]

    Mr. Hill
    The Secretary of State will in due course issue new Directions and Guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority under the Transport Act 2000 and in the meantime he has issued Interim Directions and Guidance effectively maintaining the instructions and guidance previously issued under the Railways Act 1993, a copy of which is in the Library. These include criteria for replacement franchises. The criteria do not include the specification of core propositions for the Trans Pennine Express or any franchise. These are matters for the authority.

    The instructions and guidance require the authority to consult various bodies, including the Rail Regulator, regional planning bodies, regional development agencies and local authorities on the replacement of franchises. The authority also has a general objective to increase the

    15W
    number of passengers travelling by rail. The Secretary of States consent is required to the award of a new franchise.

    Mr. Gordon Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if it is his Departments intention that the core proposition for rail franchises should be the level of service once provided by British Rail; [149498]

    (2) what mechanisms he uses to safeguard existing levels of rail passenger service during refranchising; [149382]

    (3) if he will instruct the Strategic Rail Authority to take account of the possible effect on the tourist industry of reducing the level of rail services. [149493]

    Mr. Hill
    The Strategic Rail Authority has stated that all new franchises will be based on existing Passenger Service Requirements (PSRs), providing for a specified minimum service level. The existing PSRs are based on the level of services provided by British Rail at the time initial franchises were let.

    The Authority expect bidders for the new franchise to surpass the minimum requirements, making proposals for development of services during the course of the new franchise. There are no plans to reduce the level of services. The core proposition for the new Trans Pennine Express (TPE) franchise is all limited stop, inter urban services currently operated by the existing North Western and Northern Spirit franchises. As a guide to the proposals expected, the Authority has produced specific development objectives for the TPE franchise which have been well publicised. The Authority has been consulting widely about the aspirations of key stakeholders.

    Mr. Gordon Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) on how many occasions officials from Strategic Rail Authority have met representatives from(a) Blackpool council and (b) Barrow in Furness council to discuss the Trans Pennine Express franchise in the last 12 months; [149383]

    (2) what discussions there have been between the Strategic Rail Authority and (a) the North West Development Agency, (b) the North West Regional Assembly and (c) his Department concerning the refranchising of the Trans Pennine Express Service; [149491]

    (3) on how many occasions officials from the Strategic Rail Authority have met representatives from (a) Cumbria county council and (b) South Lakeland district council to discuss the Trans Pennine Express refranchising in the last 12 months. [149492]

    Mr. Hill
    The Strategic Rail Authority have been consulting key stakeholders about the Trans Pennine franchise for some time. Initial consultation meetings took place in Newcastle (6 June), Leeds (7 June) and Manchester (8 June). Invitees include all those authorities mentioned by my hon. Friend. A specially convened meeting took place on 19 January which included representatives of Blackpool borough and Cumbria county councils. In addition, the authority has met, separately, the North West Development Agency and the North West Regional Assembly. My Department is kept informed of progress on all replacement franchises.
    16W
    Mr. Gordon Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his Departments definition of the terms(a) large towns and cities, (b) key transport hubs and (c) centres of economic activity is as used by the Strategic Rail Authority in its strategic development objectives. [149495]

    Mr. Hill
    The Strategic Rail Authoritys definitions are not specific and are flexible but focus on key destinations on inter city rail routes, airports, motorway intersections and ports.

    Mr. Gordon Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the local transport play, settlement for Blackpool was made on the assumption of maintenance of the current level of rail services to the town. [149497]

    Mr. Hill
    When assessing the local transport plan for Blackpool, we considered both the current level of rail services and their growth potential. We took account of the proposal to provide a new multi-modal interchange and the fact that negotiations were taking place with train operators and authorities to increase the frequency and quality of rail passenger services to Blackpool.

    South West Regional Development Agency
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applications for funding have been made to the South West Regional Development Agency; how many have been approved; how many are awaiting the release of funds for approved projects; and what the average waiting time has been between approval and release of funds. [149580]

    Ms Beverley Hughes
    Since 1 April 1999 to date, the South West RDA has received 1,312 applications; 879 have been approves; there are none (0) awaiting the release of funds for approved projects; and there is no waiting time between approval and release of funds.

    Brownfield Developments
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made by(a) his Department and (b) the European Commission on finding an alternative to the Partnership Investment Programme for brownfield developments. [149581]

    Ms Beverley Hughes
    My Department and the European Commission have made good progress in finding an alternative to the Partnership Investment Programme. A direct development scheme has now been approved, and the Commission have indicated that a decision is likely to be made by the end of this month on two new gap-funding; schemes, and a scheme designed to help local communities participate in regeneration projects. In addition we are continuing to explore with the Commission tilt possibility of a new regeneration framework under which State aid would be permitted for the physical regeneration of derelict or disused sites throughout the community.

    Sheltered Housing
    Mr. Pound
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to address the concerns of tenants living in local
    17W
    authority sheltered housing that their landlords could be forced to raise charges for warden services in order to implement the Supporting People policy. [150380]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Many local authority and large scale voluntary transfer (LSVT) landlords cross subsidise the costs of support services for their tenants, such as warden services in sheltered housing, from their general rent income. This practice will stop when the Supporting People policy is implemented in April 2003. However, I am pleased to say that the Government will be making additional provision available through the new Supporting People grant in 2003–04 to cover these costs in full.

    In the light of this, there will be no need for local authority or LSVT landlords to increase charges to tenants, either now or in 2003–04 when Supporting People is introduced. Draft guidance will shortly be circulated to local authority and LSVT landlords setting out how these cross subsidies should be identified and recommending that these particular landlords freeze the amounts that sheltered housing tenants pay for their support services at 2000–01 levels in real terms.

    When Supporting People starts funding these services in April 2003, the local authority and LSVT landlords concerned will retain the savings they make by ending cross subsidies. As a condition of paying the additional Supporting People grant, we will expect these landlords to demonstrate how they will make effective use of these resources to deliver the Governments housing policy objectives more fully and more quickly, for example by improving the condition of their housing stock and the quality of their housing management services.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Departmental Policies (Staffordshire, Moorlands)
    Charlotte Atkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out with statistical information relating as directly as possible to Staffordshire, Moorlands constituency, the effects on Staffordshire, Moorlands of his Departments policies and actions(a) since 2 May 1997 and (b) in the 12 months ending on 1 May 1997. [149191]

    Mr. Byers
    In the periods in question, the following amounts of grant were offered to, businesses in the Staffordshire, Moorlands local authority district:

    (a) since 2 May 1997: £44,639 under the Smart (innovation grant) scheme;

    (b) in the 12 months ending 1 May 1997: £28,080 under the Smart scheme.

    These were to assist small businesses to develop new products and processes. It is not possible to state the impact they would have had on the economy of the area. From 1 March 2000 businesses in the area have also been eligible for Enterprise Grants.

    In addition, I announced a number of measures in August 2000 to benefit the area, including £1.6 million funding for the Ceramics Industry Forum.

    Latest Office for National Statistics estimates show that, since the introduction of the national minimum wage in April 1999, there has been a direct and beneficial
    18W
    impact on the pay of the lowest paid workers in the west Midlands. The minimum wage benefits some 130,000 workers and their families in the west Midlands. No estimates are available for parliamentary constituencies. The latest data also show that it has helped close the gap between the highest and lowest earners and helped reduce the differential between mens and womens pay. This has been achieved without any discernible adverse impact on the economy.

    Since November 1998, 3.1 million workers across the UK have benefited from the entitlement to four weeks paid annual leave. No estimates are available for parliamentary constituency or region.

    We estimate that 38,000 female employees in the west Midlands give birth each year. All of these who have been employed for longer than six months with their current employer will now benefit from enhanced maternity leave, as introduced on 15 December 1999. There are no estimates available for Parliamentary constituencies.

    Nissan
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assurances have been sought from Nissan, in agreeing future industrial assistance, about the UK content of cars produced at Sunderland. [149602]

    Mr. Alan Johnson
    The offer of an RSA grant to Nissan did not require any assurances on future sourcing of components. This is a matter for the company and its suppliers.

    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the percentage UK content of cars produced by Nissan at Sunderland is; and what the UK content will be following the group of industrial assistance. [149601]

    Mr. Alan Johnson
    Nissan confirm that there is 70 per cent. UK content in the cars produced in Sunderland. It is not yet known what the UK content will be following the approval of the RSA grant.

    Premium Rate Phone Lines
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to give ICSTIS further powers to regulate the establishment and prices charged for premium rate phone lines. [149886]

    Ms Hewitt
    The regulation of Premium Rate Services (PRS) lines is a matter for the Office of Telecommunications (Oftel) and The Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS). ICSTIS effectively supervises and enforces Codes of Practice which concern the establishment and running of PRS including provisions relating to pricing information. The provisions of the Code in relation to live conversation services are underpinned by a condition in network operators licences which is enforceable by Oftel. Following consultation in 1999–2000, Oftel drew up a statement proposing measures to strengthen the regulatory regime through statutory underpinning of a Code applying to most PRS, not just live services.

    Mirror Group Newspapers
    Mr. David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the
    19W
    progress of the inquiry into Mirror Group Newspapers; when the report of the inquiry is due to be published; and what is the inquirys total cost to date. [149699]

    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will (1) estimate the cost to public funds to date of the inquiry into Mirror Group Newspapers plc; [149927]

    (2) make a statement on the progress of the inquiry set up in 1992 into the affairs and membership of Mirror Group Newspapers plc. [149928]

    Mr. Byers
    The inspectors have made substantial progress towards completing their inquiries and I am hopeful that they will be submitting their report to me shortly. A decision on whether to publish the report will only be made following its receipt. The cost of the inspection to date (excluding Value Added Tax) is £8,205,446.

    Tobacco
    Sandra Gidley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will meet representatives of British American Tobacco prior to 24 February. [149883]

    Ms Hewitt
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is currently considering a number of requests for meetings about the draft EU Directive on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products including one from British American Tobacco.

    Sandra Gidley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies he has made on the economic impact of the European Directive on Tobacco Control. [149882]

    Ms Hewitt
    None. However, the European Commission has undertaken such a study.

    Sandra Gidley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding the European Directive on Tobacco Control; and if he will make a statement. [149881]

    Ms Hewitt
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has received a number of representations from MPs, MEPs, firms, trade union representatives and individuals about aspects of the draft EU Directive on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products.

    Sandra Gidley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the impact on employment of the European Directive on Tobacco Control. [149884]

    Ms Hewitt
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry understands the concerns that have been raised about the possible impact on employment of certain aspects of the draft EU Directive on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products. However, he does not accept that job losses and factory closures are inevitable if the directive is passed as currently worded.

    Transtec
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the inquiry into the collapse of Transtec plc to be published. [149926]
    20W
    Mr. Byers
    I hope to be able to publish the report in the near future.

    Corus
    Mr. MacShane
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the UK steel market is controlled by Corus. [149357]

    Mr. Byers
    The UK steel market is open and competitive and not subject to control by individual companies. Corns does not release figures showing its share of the UK market but in the year 2000 UK demand for steel mill products was 13.8 million tonnes of which 53 per cent. (7.3 million tonnes) was supplied from UK steel mills. We estimate that 90 per cent. of this was produced by Corns

    Mr. MacShane
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advance information Corns provided to his Department priot to its closure and redundancy announcement. [149360]

    Mr. Byers
    Since early December when Corus announced a fundamental review of operations my Department was ill frequent contact with Corns. The company refused to discuss details of their overall plan. The detailed information broken down by numbers of jobs proposed to be loss and at which plant was provided at 8.00 am on 1 February.

    Workplace Bullying
    Mr. Reed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Departments estimate is of the(a) number of working days per year lost as a result of workplace bullying and (b) annual cost to industry of working days so lost. [149991]

    Mr. Alan Johnson
    This information is not available. There are no official estimates of either days lost per year as a result of workplace bullying, or, consequently, of annual costs to industry of days lost.

    Universal Bank
    Miss Geraldine Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Universal Bank will be available to people Who hold a bank account. [149658]

    Mr. Alan Johnson
    Universal Banking Services has two elements. Under the first element the banks will make their basic bank accounts accessible at post offices. The second element of the proposition is a service for people who are unable or unwilling to open even a basic bank account. This account, available only through post offices will allow benefits claimants to access their benefits in cash at a post office using a Post Office based card instead of an order book or giro. Both basic bank accounts and the Post Office card accounts will be available to people with an existing bank account. The Post Office card account will, however, be available only to persons in receipt of pensions, benefits or tax credits. Beyond that there are no plans for there to be any other eligibility restrictions.

    Tony Wright
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if people who(a) have and (b) do not have a bank account will be able to open the new Post Office-based Universal Bank service account. [149847]
    21W
    Mr. Alan Johnson
    The Post Office card account will only be available to persons in receipt of pensions, benefits and tax credits. Beyond that there are no plans for there to be any other eligibility restrictions.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Policy Presentation (Corrections)
    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    To ask the Prime Minister what instructions he issues to officials about volunteering corrections to mis-statements of, and righting misunderstandings concerning, his policy, opinions and reactions to public issues. [146439]

    The Prime Minister
    The Ministerial Code sets out the responsibilities of Ministers in relation to the correction of errors.

    Patrice Lumumba,
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Prime Minister if the Government have published all records relating to the death of Patrice Lumumba, the Congolese leader; and if he will make a statement. [148278]

    The Prime Minister
    Official records over 30 years old are routinely transferred to the Public Record Office (PRO) in accordance with the Public Records Acts. Any records of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Cabinet Office, the Prime Ministers Office and the Ministry of Defence which refer to the death of Patrice Lumumba in 1961 are available at the PRO and can be found using the PROs website www.pro.gov.uk. None have been identified as withheld from release.

    Lord Paul
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Prime Minister under what circumstances Lord Paul represents Vie Government; and if he will make a statement. [149113]

    The Prime Minister
    [holding answer 6 February 2001]: Lord Paul was appointed Ambassador for British Business in November 1997, along with some 35 other leading figures in British commerce and industry. These positions are voluntary, and their role is not to represent the British Government, but to promote British commercial interests.

    Ministerial Code
    Mr. Robathan
    To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions Ministers have submitted cases to him in line with paragraph 109 of the Ministerial Code. [149612]

    The Prime Minister
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 7 July 2000,Official Report, column 316W.

    Anglo-French Summit
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Anglo-French Summit of 9 February. [150382]

    The Prime Minister
    The twenty-third UK/French Summit took place in Cahors on 9 February. I was accompanied by my right hon. Friends the Foreign 22W
    Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the Minister of State for Transport. We had productive exchanges on a range of bilateral issues, and agreed measures to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. We established a Cross-Channel commission to improve joint management of issues that affect Cross-Channel relations. In addition we agreed to take forward joint work in the fields of maritime safety, food safety, drugs trafficking and the environment.

    We also discussed EU, foreign policy and defence issues, and issued declarations on our shared priorities for the Stockholm Special European Council in March, and on further bilateral work in Africa. Copies of these and other agreed declarations have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  LORD CHANCELLORS DEPARTMENT

    Asylum Appeals
    Miss Widdecombe
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department what average time is taken to process asylum(a) initial appeals to the Special Adjudicator and (b) further appeals to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal; and if she will make a statement. [150035]

    Jane Kennedy
    The average times taken during January 2001, for the Immigration Appellate Authority to process cases from receipt to determination, are:

    (a) 17.4 weeks for appeals cleared at the Adjudicator tier; and

    (b) 33.8 weeks for appeals heard by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.

    The figure for the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (IAT) naturally includes the Adjudicator process. Average times for the IAT only—from receipt of application for leave to appeal until appeal determination—are not available.

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Malawi
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her letter of 20 January, regarding the Malawi Mission of Buckfastleigh, what progress she has made in her representations to the Malawi Customs concerning the release of the consignment of tools airfreighted for building an orphan village. [149582]

    Clare Short
    The Malawi Revenue Authority is happy to discuss with the Malawi Mission or its partners in Malawi how to achieve duty free status for the organisation or the consignment in question within the law. The British High Commission in Lilongwe will assist if necessary.

    Commonwealth Scholarships
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 16 January 2001,Official Report, column 164W, on Commonwealth scholarships, if she will discuss with the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission Chairman

    23W
    whether scholarships will be offered to dissidents in addition to those nominated by Governments concerned. [148758]

    Clare Short
    I welcome the Commissions review of the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan. I am considering, in consultation with the Commissions Chairman, their reports recommendations, which include proposals for ensuring greater openness and transparency in the selection process.

    HIV/AIDS
    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Paisley South (Mr. Alexander) of 8 January 2001,Official Report, column 355W, if she will give a breakdown of the money spent on HIV/AIDS related work last year, outlining major headings of expenditure. [149324]

    Clare Short
    Last year, the Department of International Development spent around £85 million on major bilateral sexual and reproductive health programmes in the range of countries including, Malawi, South Africa, Ghana, Uganda, Zimbabwe, China and India. The work of these programmes impacts directly on HIV/AIDS. My Department also made the following contributions and commitments in 1999–2000 to agencies involved in tackling HIV/AIDS.

    Agency

    £ million

    United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

    15

    World Health Organisation, Human Reproduction Programme (WHO/HRP)

    1

    United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)

    3

    International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) over five years

    14

    UN Desertification Convention
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps have been taken to implement commitments under the UN Desertification Convention. [149857]

    Clare Short
    My Department is implementing the UKs commitments under the UN Convention to Combat Desertification through its bilateral and multilateral assistance programmes. Given that there are close links between poverty and the problems of desertification and land degradation, much of DFIDs work to combat poverty in rural areas helps to meet the objective of the Convention. Over £200 million is currently committed to DFID activities which help poor people protect their livelihoods against problems such as desertification and drought.

    India
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much the Indian Government owe to(a) the UK and (b) other European Union countries; and what action her Department is taking to press for the cancellation of this debt. [149462]
    24W
    Clare Short
    According to the Government of India's most recent published data, in 1999 their official debt to the UK was 167.9 million rupees (£2.5 million at the present exchange rate), while their official debt to the European Union wits 212.53 billion rupees (£3.16 billion).

    The UK supports and advocates debt relief for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries which are undertaking pro-poor economic reforms. But Indias external debt position is moderate, with a debt-service ratio of 16 per cent. (as of March 2000), and large-scale international reserves (estimated at US$ 40 billion). We are not therefore pressing for cancellation of Indias debt. However our development assistance in India includes substantial support to help the Indian Government reform and improve their fiscal management, particularly at the State level where fiscal deficits are high.

    Iraq
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is on humanitarian aid to the children of Iraq. [147787]

    Clare Short
    The opportunities for assisting Baghdad-controlled Iraq are greatly constrained by the regimes policies. We are spending some £5 million this financial year to help rehabilitate water and sanitation systems which should reduce risks to childrens health. In northern Iraq, through Save the Childrens Fund and other non-governmental organisations, we are funding programmes to improve childrens well-being. This financial year we expect to spend some £1.25 million.

    The UNs oil-fair-food programme is contributing significantly to improved life opportunities and reduced infant and child mortality for children in the areas of Iraq not controlled from Baghdad. Tragically in Baghdad controlled Iraq, children are suffering badly as the Government of Iraq manipulate the suffering of their people for propaganda purposes.

    Expenditure (GDP)
    Mr. Alexander
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made towards meeting the Governments target for expenditure on overseas development as proportion of gross domestic product. [145774]

    Clare Short
    Preliminary estimates on the ratio of official development assistance to Gross National Product suggest that the UK will report a ratio of at least 0.29 per cent. of GNP for the year 2000. This is consistent with the Governments commitment to reach a level of 0.33 per cent. by 2003–04. Provisional data for the year 2000 will become available in April, with final figures confirmed in June.

  CABINET OFFICE

    Ombudsman Review
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she plans to(a) publish the results of the consultation exercise and (b) announce the Governments policy on the review of the Ombudsman. [149551]

    Marjorie Mowlam
    I refer to the answer my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) on 17 January 2001,Official Report, column 333.

  TREASURY

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Mr. Maclean
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has undertaken of the impact on the(a) working hours, (b) staffing and (c) financial cost to SMEs of operating the Working Families Tax Credit. [149369]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Estimates of the impact on small and medium-size enterprises of operating the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) are given in paragraphs 43 to 62 of the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Tax Credits Bill 1999. A copy has been placed in the Library.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many farmers in(a) Lancashire and (b) England are in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit. [149742]

    Dawn Primarolo
    It is estimated that about 11,000 families in England where the main earner was either a farmer or a worker in agricultural, forestry or fishing occupations were in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit at the end of August 2000.

    The 5 per cent. sample of awards on which these estimates are based does not yield a reliable estimate of the number of these families that were in Lancashire.

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. Russell Brown
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current estimate of the cost of answering(a) a written and (b) an oral parliamentary question. [150381]

    Mr. Timms
    As at April 2000, the latest date for which data are available, the average cost of answering a written parliamentary question and an oral parliamentary question was £123 and £285 respectively.

    Fuel Duty Rebate
    Caroline Flint
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many representations he has received supporting the introduction of a Fuel duty rebate for community transport operations; [149077]

    (2) what estimate he has made of the annual cost of introducing a fuel duty rebate for community transport operations. [149078]

    Mr. Hill
    I have been asked to reply.
    26W
    We have received a considerable number of representations about this matter.

    Our 10-year transport plan, Transport 2010, announced that we would be working up detailed proposals for extending fuel duty rebate to a wider range of community transport services. We will shortly be consulting relevant organisations as part of this process. Our aim is to have the new arrangements up and running in the next financial year.

    The term community transport covers a wide range of different services and organisations and the cost of extending the scope of the rebate scheme would depend on the precise definition of eligibility adopted. Decisions will be made on this in the light of the consultation. Further announcements will be made as soon as possible.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    BSE Inquiry
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to implement the recommendations of the BSE Inquiry report. [150420]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    The BSE Inquiry report was published on 26 October 2000. In welcoming it, I said that the Governments substantive response would be announced in the coming months. I announced on 21 December 2000 that we would be making an interim response as a basis for public discussion before finalising the Governments full response.

    The Governments interim response was published on Friday, 9 February. There will be a parliamentary debate on 15 February. The response has been prepared with contributions from across Whitehall and the devolved Administrations and seeks to present the actions being taken in all the legislatures.

    This response is intended to focus on the future. It sets out what has happened since March 1996—which was the point to which we asked the Inquiry to take its examination. It gives full attention to the 167 specific findings and conclusions in the Inquiry report, and to the major themes that emerge from it: management of scientific advisory committees and how scientific advice is used in developing policy; openness; risk and uncertainty; the structure of government and the legislative framework; and the need for rigour in the development and implementation of policy.

    The response takes the opportunity to set out how the Government are taking the lessons and comments in the report as a spur to developing the action already under way as a result of the Modernising Government agenda, the Office of Science and Technologys work on the use of science in government and work on developing a Government Statement on Risk.

    The Government intend that this interim response should be the subject of positive action to seek the views of interested parties. Public debate on how the lessons in the report can be most effectively applied and embedded across Departments will help to ensure a comprehensive final Government Response to the BSE Inquiry report.
    27W
    Mr. Jim Murphy
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the outcome was of the review of the civil servants who were criticised in the BSE Inquiry report. [150291]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    Sheila Forbes, as an independent Civil Service Commission, has now completed her review of the criticisms in the report of serving civil servants. She has recommended to the Permanent Secretaries of the Departments involved that there is no justification for disciplinary action to be taken against any serving civil servant. They have accepted this recommendation and the civil servants involved have been informed.

    Farm Holdings
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the oral answer of 24 January 2001,Official Report, column 920, to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), if he will publish Her Majestys Governments estimate of (a) the percentage of farm holdings in the United Kingdom which they do not regard as efficient, (b the number of farmers and farm workers obtaining their livings from them and (c) the proportion of the UK agricultural workforce they represent. [148403]

    Ms Quin
    The Government do not forecast or publish estimates of the percentage of farm holdings in the United Kingdom which we do not regard as efficient. We do not obtain the detailed business information on the 300,000 or so holdings in the United Kingdom which would be required to attempt to do this. Information on the productivity and performance of the agriculture industry was published by the Ministry on 30 March 2000 as part of the announcement of the Governments Action Plan for Farming in Strategy for Agriculture: Current and prospective economic situation paragraphs 26–35.

    The Action Plan, now backed by £500 million, is providing short-term relief to the sectors hit hardest by the current economic crisis but also supports longer-term action to encourage industry restructuring. Good progress is being made in delivering the commitments in the plan.

    The establishment of the Rural Development Regulation (RDR), or second pillar of the CAP, was a substantial step forward in redirecting the CAP away from production support and towards rural development and environmentally-friendly farming. By extending support to activities beyond food production, the RDR will open up new options for farms of differing types, sizes and economic characteristics.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Euro
    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what programme of work has been undertaken by his Department and agencies for which his Department is responsible as part of the national changeover plan for preparation for the UKs entry to the euro at current exchange rates; and if he will make a statement. [148411]
    28W
    Angela Eagle
    The Department is conducting work in accordance with the guidance given in the Outline National Changeover Plans and reported in the Fourth Report on Euro Reparations published on 6 November 2000.

    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of reprinting documents issued by his Department and its executive agencies to replace sterling entries with entries in euros. [148409]

    Angela Eagle
    In the event of UK entry to the single currency any changes to documents would be dealt with through existing contractual arrangements as part of a normal reprint cycle.

    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the changes required in the Governments benefits system which would be necessary as a result of a changeover to the euro. [148413]

    Angela Eagle
    In the event of the UK entering the single currency, benefits systems would not require rule changes although IT system changes would be required to convert amounts in accordance with EU and UK legislation.

    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost at current exchange rates of changing his Departments, and agencies for which his Department is responsible, computer systems in preparation for the euro. [148408]

    Angela Eagle
    Should the UK decide to enter the single currency, costs will depend on the approach taken and this is not yet known. There are currently no plans to change existing computer systems prior to a Referendum.

    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultants his Department is using to advise on the implications and implementation of the changeover plan to the euro; and what budget has been set aside for this purpose. [148412]

    Angela Eagle
    A number of private sector companies contribute to the normal operational running of the Department. Where appropriate as part of the normal arrangements, consultants in these roles have contributed to preparatory analysis work. No specific budget has been set aside and any costs are contained within the figure published in the Fourth Report on Euro Preparations.

    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of training staff in his Department and executive agencies for which his Department is responsible in preparation for the euro, at current prices and exchange rates. [148410]

    Angela Eagle
    In the event of the UK entering the single currency, costs will depend on the approach taken and this is not yet known. No estimate for the cost of training has been made.

    Public Relations (Expenditure)
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure was in his Department for the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000, and what the planned expenditure and

    29W
    breakdown of expenditure for 2000–01 is on (i) public opinion research, (ii) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (iii) direct mail. [149268]

    Mr. Rooker
    [holding answer 8 February 2001]: Full figures for 1996–97 are available only for the Departments Headquarters. These are Public Opinion Research £301,083,20, Advertising £3 691,169.64, Direct Mail £63,861.16.

    A breakdown of expenditure for the years 1997–98 was given on 17 December 1998 Official Report, columns 718–19W.

    A breakdown was given for the estimated spend for 1998–99. The breakdown of expenditure for the years 1998–99 and 1999–2000 is given as follows, as is the estimated spend for the year 2000–01

    For 1998–99 figures for the Benefits Agency were Public Opinion Research £83,703, Advertising, £29,738. Direct Mail £10,524.

    The Contributions Agency transferred to the Inland Revenue in April 1999 and no figures are available.

    Work done on behalf of the Child Support Agency is done by the Departments Headquarters and these figures are included in that breakdown.

    For the War Pensions Agency figures are: Public Opinion Research £4,569, Advertising £1,400, Direct Mail £1,100.

    For the Department Headquarters, which includes Communications Directorate and Analytical Services Directorate the figures are: Public Opinion Research £668,179, Advertising £4,617,945.81, Direct Mail £315,346.46.

    For the year 1999–2000 for the Benefits Agency figures were: Public Opinion Research £207,440, Advertising £24,406, Direct Mail £98,332.

    For the War Pensions Agency figures were: Public Opinion Research £2,388, Advertising £18,000, Direct Mail £1,200.

    For the Departments Headquarters the figure was: Public Opinion Research £792,115.14, Advertising £2,756,705.70, Direct Mail £144,301.29.

    The estimated spend for the year 2000–01 in the Benefits Agency is: Public Opinion Research £219,499, Advertising £11,502, Direct Mail Nil.

    In the War Pensions Agency it is: Public Opinion Research £5,000, Advertising £23,500, Direct Mail £1,400.

    In the Departments Headquarters the estimated spend is: Public Opinion Research £1,154,112, Advertising £11,336,000, Direct Mail £5,815,000.

    Notes:

    1. The term Advertising in my answer I elates to TV, Radio and Newspaper advertising.

    2. The estimated increase in spending on Advertising for the year 2000–01 takes into account the work being undertaken by the Department around the Minimum Income Guarantee uptake campaign, Pensions Education and anti-fraud activity.

    Maternity Benefits
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about extending maternity benefits. [149589]

    Angela Eagle
    We are improving maternity benefits as part of our drive to help women achieve a better balance between paid work and family life. Last year we extended Maternity Allowance (MA) to low-paid employed and self-employed working women and increased the rate of benefit for self-employed women. These improvements mean that around 16,000 low-paid working women will get MA for the first time and around 11,000 self-employed women will receive a higher rate of benefit.

    On 7 December last year the Department of Trade and Industry published a consultation document Work and Parents: Competitiveness or Choice which sets out a wide range of options and invites views on what the priority measures are that will help working parents at the same time as helping business. The document contains options to extend maternity benefits, which include increasing the flat rate of maternity pay and extending the maternity pay period as well as improvements to parental leave.

    The consultation period ends on 7 March 2001 and we will take account of the responses we receive when considering which options should be taken forward.

    Child Poverty
    Mr. Grogan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children in Yorkshire and Humberside were living under the official poverty line in each of the years(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (e) 2000. [149439]

    Mr. Bayley
    There is no official poverty line defined by the Government. Poverty and social exclusion are complex multi-dimensional issues, affecting many aspects of peoples lives—their income, health, housing, the quality of the environment, opportunities to work and to learn. There is no single measure which can capture the complex problems which need to be overcome.

    The annual report, Opportunity for all—one year on: making a difference (Cm 4865) sets out and monitors the Governments strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion.

  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Sports Council Funding
    Caroline Flint
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total Sports Council funding was for(a) tennis, (b) swimming, (c) basketball, (d) netball, (e) football, (f) rugby union and (g) rugby league in England for each year since 1990. [149048]

    Kate Hoey
    The English Sports Council is collating this information and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible. I will place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

    Art Works
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many, and what
    31W
    percentage of the total, works of art and artefacts in each of the national collections are in storage because of insufficient space to exhibit them. [149460]

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    DCMS does not hold all of this data centrally. We have therefore contacted the National Museums and Galleries to request the information for a reply to my hon. Friend. I will write to him as soon as this is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

    Library and Leisure Services
    Mr. Cash
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the levels of spending on(a) library services and (b) leisure services per head of population in (i) Staffordshire and (ii) each other county of England (1) in the current year and (2) in each of the last three years. [150018]

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 8 February 2001,Official Report, columns 684–88W.

  HEALTH

    Contraception
    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been commissioned of the safety of post-coital contraception with respect to girls aged(a) 12 years to 14 years and (b) 14 years to 16 years; and if he will make a statement. [146771]

    Yvette Cooper
    [holding answer 23 January 2001]: Once a young woman becomes fertile, the Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care advise that there are no physiological reasons why emergency contraception should not be used if she is at risk of pregnancy because she has had unprotected sex.

    The safety profile of EHC is believed to be similar in those under 16 years of age to those over 16. Emergency contraception has been used worldwide, including by women aged under 16, since the 1980s, and no major safety concerns have arisen.

    Clinical trials for new drugs are not routinely conducted on young people under 16 unless there is a specific indication such as childhood leukaemia.

    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 6 February 2001,Official Report, column 484W, what guidance he has given to schools regarding the potential liability of school staff who dispense emergency contraception to girls under the age of 16 years in the event of medical complications arising as a result of the emergency contraception. 1150085]

    Yvette Cooper
    Emergency contraception in schools can be provided only by school nurses with a family planning background and specialised training to work under patient group directions. School nurses in maintained schools are employed by the National Health Service. Potential liability is covered by the arrangements of the NHS body concerned.

    Vaccinations (Barnsley and Doncaster)
    Mr. Ennis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in(a) Bamsley and (b) Doncaster were vaccinated against (i) MMR and (ii) meningitis in (A) 1999 and (B) 2000 [147318]

    Yvette Cooper
    Information about the percentage of children immunised against measles, mumps and rubella by age 2 and by age 5 is contained in the Statistical Bulletin NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 1999–2000. A copy of the bulletin is in the Library and can also be found on the Department of Health website, www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0026.htm.

    Information on uptake of meningitis C vaccine in all age groups immunised through the current programme is still being collected. This information will be published when it becomes available.

    Nurses
    Mr. Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital and community health service nurses who are(a) qualified, (b) unqualified, (c) midwives, (d) learner staffs, and (e) Project 2000 students, as whole-time equivalents were employed (i) in each region and (ii) in total in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [148608]

    Mr. Denham
    Data from 1990 onwards are in the table. To provide data from 1979 would incur disproportionate costs.

    NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff and learners in England as at 30 September each year

    Whole-time equivalents

    Qualified nursing

    of which: Midwives

    Unqualified nursing

    Learners

    1990

    England

    242.340

    19.980

    90.450

    58.840

    Northern

    16.950

    1.270

    5.890

    3.880

    Yorkshire

    18.540

    1.650

    6.380

    4.890

    Trent

    23.090

    1.890

    9.330

    5.330

    East Anglia

    9.760

    820

    4.170

    2.060

    North West Thames

    15.590

    1.200

    5.250

    5.080

    North East Thames

    19.800

    1.620

    6.320

    6.600

    South East Thames

    18.740

    1.410

    5.960

    4.290

    South West Thames

    13.760

    980

    5.250

    2.860

    Wessex

    13.970

    1.140

    6.540

    2.750

    Oxford

    11.030

    1.010

    3.870

    2.130

    South Western

    16.320

    1.230

    7.670

    3.270

    West Midlands

    25.460

    2.340

    9.900

    6.500

    Mersey

    12.930

    1.110

    4.870

    3.060

    North Western

    22.920

    2.160

    8.550

    5.330

    Other

    3 460

    80

    460

    800

    1991

    England

    243.250

    19.760

    90.550

    47.340

    Northern

    16.880

    1.290

    5.960

    3.240

    Yorkshire

    18.480

    1.630

    6.330

    3.620

    Trent

    23.290

    1.880

    9.350

    4.020

    East Anglia

    9.810

    790

    4.190

    1.730

    North West Thames

    16.280

    1.140

    5.400

    3.600

    North East Thames

    20.050

    1.610

    6.340

    5.830

    South East Thames

    16.620

    1.320

    5.650

    3.790

    South West Thames

    14.120

    1.040

    5.030

    1.950

    Wessex

    14.130

    1.150

    6.560

    2.190

    Oxford

    11.320

    1.030

    4.000

    1.280

    South Western

    16.130

    1.180

    7.410

    2.460

    West Midlands

    25.210

    2.240

    9.790

    5.800

    Mersey

    12.620

    1.100

    4.780

    2.420

    North Western

    23.230

    2.200

    8.720

    4.480

    Other

    5.070

    90

    1.030

    940

    33W

    NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff and learners in England as at 30 September each year

    Whole-time equivalents

    Qualified nursing

    of which: Midwives

    Unqualified nursing

    Learners

    1992

    England

    246.570

    20.350

    90.840

    34.740

    East Anglia

    9.320

    740

    4.000

    1.250

    Mersey

    12.700

    1.110

    4.650

    1.780

    North East Thames

    16.290

    1.280

    5.100

    4.320

    North West Thames

    14.960

    1.100

    4.980

    2.020

    North western

    22.810

    2.180

    8.510

    2.720

    Northern

    16.770

    1.390

    5.590

    780

    Oxford

    11.600

    970

    3.860

    780

    South East Thames

    14.920

    1.340

    5.250

    1.590

    South West Thames

    17.360

    1.380

    5.610

    3.110

    South western

    16.580

    1.220

    7.660

    1.000

    Trent

    23.230

    1.870

    9.500

    2.310

    Wessex

    13.570

    1.070

    5.990

    880

    West Midlands

    22.920

    2.160

    8.690

    2.400

    Yorkshire

    18.130

    1.610

    5.990

    2.890

    Other

    15.420

    850

    5.480

    6.900

    1993

    England

    241.850

    19.630

    91.940

    21.040

    Northern

    17.650

    1.400

    5.840

    820

    Yorkshire

    18.910

    1.670

    6.310

    1.830

    Trent

    22.420

    1.700

    9.810

    1.540

    East Anglia

    9.740

    740

    4.380

    620

    North West Thames

    15.290

    1.070

    4.990

    850

    North East Thames

    18.540

    1.590

    5.910

    3.320

    South East Thames

    16.200

    1.300

    5.700

    1.730

    South West Thames

    14.110

    1.120

    5.350

    1.390

    Wessex

    14.720

    1.140

    7.140

    480

    Oxford

    11.970

    980

    4.370

    460

    South western

    16.660

    1.210

    7.920

    760

    West Midlands

    25.480

    2.350

    9.900

    3.270

    Mersey

    12.400

    1.040

    4.470

    1.100

    Northwestern

    22.740

    2.180

    8.740

    2.250

    Other

    5.020

    70

    1.120

    610

    1994

    England

    238.780

    19.340

    92.550

    11.080

    Anglia and Oxford

    21.140

    1.710

    8.550

    600

    North Thames

    33.090

    2.700

    11.440

    2.060

    North West

    34.960

    3.130

    13.240

    1.810

    Northern and Yorkshire

    35.190

    3.000

    12.310

    1.740

    Trent

    23.490

    1.610

    10.160

    630

    South Thames

    30.070

    2.340

    11.380

    1.470

    South and West

    31.120

    2.390

    14.590

    410

    West Midlands

    25.090

    2.350

    9.510

    1.910

    Other

    4.640

    70

    1.360

    440

    1995

    England

    246.820

    18.030

    82.910

    4.580

    Anglia and Oxford

    23.600

    1.900

    8.620

    270

    North Thames

    36.030

    2.400

    9.900

    990

    North West

    37.560

    3.170

    12.300

    760

    Northern and Yorkshire

    35.580

    2.580

    10.780

    570

    South and West

    30.860

    2.370

    11.600

    360

    South Thames

    31.740

    2.190

    9.830

    600

    Trent

    23.610

    1.580

    9.270

    270

    West Midlands

    25.910

    1.840

    8.360

    760

    Other

    1,920

    —

    2.240

    1—

    1996

    England

    248.070

    18.250

    83.650

    2.670

    Anglia and Oxford

    23.590

    1.700

    9.000

    250

    North Thames

    37.130

    2.480

    9.800

    490

    North West

    37.180

    3.090

    12.460

    380

    Northern and Yorkshire

    35.520

    2.650

    10.890

    240

    South and West

    30.820

    2.420

    11.610

    230

    South Thames

    32.510

    2.220

    9.870

    450

    Trent

    23.570

    1.670

    9.530

    160

    West Midlands

    26.070

    2.020

    8.290

    460

    Other

    1.680

    —

    2.190

    1—

    34W

    NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff and learners in England as at 30 September each year

    Whole-time equivalents

    Qualified nursing

    of which: midwives

    Unqualified nursing

    Learners

    1997

    England

    246.010

    18.050

    84.020

    2.250

    Anglia and Oxford

    23.310

    1.640

    8.720

    210

    North Thames

    36.810

    2.500

    10.080

    460

    North West

    36.770

    3.040

    12.520

    230

    Northern and Yorkshire

    33.600

    2.410

    11.390

    190

    South and West

    30.670

    2.410

    11.120

    190

    South Thames

    32.460

    2.160

    9.790

    370

    Trent

    25.150

    1.770

    9.610

    150

    West Midlands

    25.620

    2.110

    8.570

    440

    Other

    1.620

    —

    2.220

    —

    1998

    England

    247.240

    18.170

    84.520

    2.080

    Anglia and Oxford

    23.650

    1.790

    8.660

    230

    North Thames

    36.570

    2.480

    10.080

    510

    North West

    36.820

    2.930

    12.910

    240

    Northern and Yorkshire

    33.750

    2.340

    11.120

    180

    South and West

    31.100

    2.390

    11.000

    180

    South Thames

    31.930

    2.180

    10.000

    320

    Trent

    25.390

    1.820

    9.540

    140

    West Midlands

    26.350

    2.240

    9.010

    290

    Other

    1.680

    —

    2.200

    —

    1999

    England

    250.650

    17.880

    87.440

    1.880

    Eastern

    21.260

    1.540

    9.570

    220

    London

    42.810

    2.870

    8.690

    480

    North West

    37.420

    2.930

    13.720

    220

    Northern and Yorkshire

    34.540

    2.170

    11.380

    140

    South East

    36.620

    2.530

    14.320

    330

    South West

    24.040

    1.830

    8.550

    120

    Trent

    25.950

    1.840

    9.540

    130

    West Midlands

    26.340

    2.170

    9.300

    250

    Other

    1.670

    —

    2.380

    —

    1 Five or less and greater than zero

    Notes:

    1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

    2. Figures exclude agency staff.

    3. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts zero.

    4. "Others" includes staff employed by SHAs, OSAs and other centrally based services.

    5. A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995. Information based on this classification is not directly comparable with earlier years.

    6. New regional office boundaries were introduced in 1994 and 1999.

    7. Since 1989 traditional pre-registration nurse training was gradually replaced by Project 2000 training. Project 2000 students are funded by bursaries and are not employed by the HCHS; they are not therefore included in the workforce numbers.

    Source:

    Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

    Cardiac Diseases
    Mr. Hepburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people died of cardiac diseases in the Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority area in 2000. [148745]

    Yvette Cooper
    In 2000, 927 residents from the Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority area died from cardiac diseases. This includes those who died as a
    35W
    result of ischaemic heart disease and heart failure. A small percentage of deaths will be excluded as it is more difficult to attribute them to cardiac diseases.

    Source:

    Public Health Mortality File, Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority

    Smoking
    Mr. Hepburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is introducing to encourage and support smokers who wish to stop smoking. [148743]

    Yvette Cooper
    As set out in the White Paper, Smoking Kills, the Governments tobacco control strategy involves a comprehensive health education programme backed up by local cessation services.

    The education programme is supported by a national telephone helpline which, besides offering information, advice and support, can direct smokers to their local services.

    A national network of National Health Service smoking cessation services provides expert help to smokers wanting to give up, and up to six weeks free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is available to smokers entitled to free prescriptions. The cessation aid Zyban (Buproprion) is already available on NHS prescription and we are considering the outcome of a recent consultation exercise on a proposal to provide all NRT products on this basis.

    Mr. Hepburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people died of smoking-related diseases in the Gateshead and South Tyneside area in 2000. [148744]

    Yvette Cooper
    In 2000, at least 442 residents from the Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority area died from smoking related diseases. This figure is based on percentages of lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease and cerebro-vascular disease deaths. The true figure is likely to be higher as other diseases have been excluded and smoking rates in the area are higher than the United Kingdom average.

    Source:

    Public Health Mortality File, Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority

    Good Health (Jarrow)
    Mr. Hepburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is introducing to encourage healthy eating and exercise and to promote good health in the Jarrow constituency. [148746]

    Yvette Cooper
    Parts of the Jarrow constituency have been classed as an area for special action within the Tyne and Wear Health Action Zone (HAZ). The HAZ co-ordinates a positive health campaign within the constituency which tackles areas such as smoking cessation, healthy eating, health promotion, accident prevention and physical activity.

    Examples of projects within the Positive Health Campaign include the Jarrow Festival smoking cessation project; positive health campaigns at St Aloysius and Greenfields Schools; an aromatherapy project at the PHAB Club; Fitness Up North; a rehabilitation service at the Charles Palmer Centre, Palmer Community Hospital;
    36W
    an older persons information and advice centre; a mobile chip pan fire demonstration unit; a weekend contraception service and the appointment of education for health and healthnet workers.

    In addition to the above, the South Tyneside Health Care NHS Trusts Palmer Hospital is affiliated to the World Health Authoritys s health promoting hospital initiative and is involved in the provision of health related information for patients. The Community Learning Centre project uses the district hospital site as a computer and training access point for the South Tyneside College. The Food Education anti Action in South Tyneside partnership with the local authority aims to revive the place of healthy eating among youll; people. Smoking cessation initiatives include specialist clinics and smokefree schools awards. Finally, the trust gives seminars to local employers on health issues such as developing policies on stress, smoking and alcohol.

    HIV
    Dr. Naysmith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines exist for the provision of post-exposure prophylaxis with anti-HIV drugs following potential sexual exposure to HIV. [148671]

    Yvette Cooper
    The United Kingdoms Chief Medical Officers Expert Advisory Group on AIDS published updated guidance on HIV Post Exposure Prophylaxis in July 2000. This includes advice on non-occupational (including sexual) exposure. Copies of this guidance are available in the Library and on the Department of Health website at: www.don.gov.uk/eaga.

    Teenage Pregnancy
    Ms Buck
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken into the relationship between levels of support for parents of young children and levels of teenage pregnancy. [148666]

    Yvette Cooper
    Development of the cross-departmental teenage pregnancy strategy drew on a full analysis of United Kingdom and international research in the area. There is no direct evidence to suggest any relationship between levels of teenage conceptions and material or financial support for teenage parents. Research does, however, suggest that support offered by a young womans parents may impact on her decision whether to continue with a pregnancy. Further information on this will become available as the impact of the strategy is evaluated.

    Ms Buck
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he Las assessed on the nature of the connection between levels of financial or other service support for parents of young children and levels of teenage pregnancy(a) in the UK and (b) in other European countries. [148665]

    Yvette Cooper
    Development of the cross-departmental teenage pregnancy strategy drew on a full analysis of United Kingdom and international research in this area. Research conducted to inform the Social Exclusion Units report on teenage pregnancy found little relationship between a countrys allocation of its funds to family related benefits and teenage birth rates. Research in the UK does, however, suggest that support offered by a young womans parents may impact on her
    37W
    decision whether to continue with a pregnancy. Further information on this will become available as the impact of the strategy is evaluated.

    Hospital Developments
    Miss Geraldine Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital developments were started in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000. [149131]

    Mr. Denham
    The information requested is shown in the table. Since May 1997, 38 major hospital building projects worth over £3.9 billion hay been approved to proceed. Of these, 24 schemes had signed final contracts and started construction by the end of 2000.

    Major hospital developments given approval to proceed

    Started construction

    1997

    19

    4

    1998

    13

    9

    1999

    6

    7

    2000

    —

    4

    Total

    38

    24

    North Cumbria Health Authority
    Dr. Jack Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the impact of his Departments financial

    Clinic

    City Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

    Department of Neurology

    South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

    Department of Neurology

    Papworth Hospital, Cambridge

    Respiratory Support and Sleep Centre

    Havering Hospitals NHS Trust

    Essex Centre for Neurological Sciences, Department of Neurology

    The Glenfield Hospital NHS Trust, Leicester

    Department of Respiratory and Thoracic Surgery

    St. Thomas Hospital, London

    LANE-FOX UNIT

    The Royal Victoria Infirmary and Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust

    Department of Neurology

    Queens Medical Centre University Hospital Nottingham

    Neurosciences Directorate

    Hope Hospital, Salford

    Department of Neurophysiology

    Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals NHS Trust

    Department of Neurophysiology

    Nurse/patient Ratios
    Mr. Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average qualified nurse to patient ratio was in each of the last 10 years, broken down by region; and if he will make a statement. [149351]

    Mr. Denham
    The data requested are not collected centrally.

    Dental Charge
    Mr. Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many courses of dental treatment provided to people aged 60 and over required patients to pay(a) under £100, (b) £100 to £199, (c) £200 to £299 and (d) £300 or over in the last year for which figures are available. [149328]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 7 February 2001]: For people aged 60 years and over paying full patient charges up to the maximum limit for dental treatment in the General Dental Services, the number of courses of treatment with patient charges of (a) under £100 (b) £100 to £199 (c) £200 to £299 and (d) £300 or more is shown in the table for England in 1999–2000.
    38W
    allocation has been on the budget of the North Cumbria health authority in real terms in each year since 1997; and what his estimate is of the impact in 2001–02 on the basis of his proposals in the pre-Budget report. [149297]

    Mr. Denham
    North Cumbria health authority will have received additional funding in excess of £57 million from 1997–98 to 2001–02. This equates to nearly £35 million extra in real terms. A yearly breakdown is shown in the table.

    Cash increase £ million

    Percentage

    Real terms increase £ million

    Percentage

    1997–98

    5.609

    4.02

    2.767

    1.99

    1998–99

    6.512

    4.71

    2.639

    1.91

    1999–2000

    12.632

    6.78

    7.788

    4.18

    2000–01

    13.822

    6.92

    8.611

    4.31

    2001–02

    18.697

    8.66

    12.974

    6.01

    Polio
    Mrs. Spelman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the specialist units dealing with the late effects of polio and their location. [149101]

    Yvette Cooper
    [holding answer 6 February 2001]: The information requested is not held centrally, but the Lincolnshire Post-polio Network website states that 10 clinics deal with the late effects of polio. These are shown in the table.

    General Dental Service: Number of courses of treatment by patient charge for patients aged 60 and over

    Thousand

    Patient charge

    Number of courses of treatment

    Under £100

    4,777.7

    £100 to £199

    187.9

    £200 to £299

    13.4

    £300 or more

    8.0

    NHS Psychiatric Counsellors
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting times have been over the last year to see an NHS psychiatric counsellor in(a) London, (b) Surrey and (c) Devon. [149610]

    Mr. Denham
    The information requested is not available centrally.

    Oxted Hospital
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the redevelopment of Oxted Hospital to commence; and if he will make a statement. [149698]

    Mr. Denham
    [holding answer 9 February 2001]: Surrey and Sussex Healthcare National Health Service Trust, of which Oxted and Limpfield Hospital is part, is due to submit its full business case for the new community hospital at Oxted to the South East Regional Office of the NHS Executive in March. It is anticipated that work on the new site will start before the end of the year.

    Fluoride
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 31 January 2001,Official Report, column 217W, on fluoride, if he will list the research upon which he bases his conclusion; what research he has evaluated which suggests that calcium fluoride is better for dental health than sodium fluoride; if he keeps this situation under constant review; how much money his Department has spent on research into the impact on dental health of (a) calcium fluoride and (b) sodium fluoride in each of the last 30 years; and if he will make a statement. [149762]

    Mr. Denham
    [holding answer 9 February 2001]: Sodium salts are generally used in fluoridation schemes because they are more soluble than calcium salts. In the 1960s the Government undertook three research studies of fluoridation schemes using sodium salts. The cost of the studies is not now available. We have asked the Medical Research Council how, in the light of the recently conducted systematic review of water fluoridation conducted by the University of York, the knowledge base concerning water fluoridation and its effects on health could be strengthened.

    Waiting Lists (Essex)
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting for hospital treatment in the Mid Essex hospital trust area in(a) the latest month for which figures are available and (b) the previous month. [149695]

    Mr. Denham
    [holding answer 9 February 2001]: The information requested is shown in the table.

    month

    Total number of patients waiting

    November 2000

    9,050

    December 2000

    9,466

    Source:

    Monthly waiting list returns, KHO7 quarterly returns

    Primary Health Care
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the difference in cost between primary health groups and primary health trusts; if their funding will come from local health authority budgets; and if he will make a statement. [149679]
    40W
    Mr. Denham
    [holding answer 9 February 2001]: As sub-committees of health authorities, the management costs of a primary care group (PCG) fall to a health authority. Primary care trusts (PCTs) are, however, free standing National Health Service bodies and therefore their management costs are separate from a health authority. However, where PCTs are established, the local health authority will contribute management resources as part of their delegation of functions to a PCT. In addition, PCTs will also receive additional management resources from within that health system to reflect any provider responsibilities that they take on from local NHS trusts.

    PCT management costs reflect their increased responsibilities compared to PCGs. The overall expenditure on the management and administration of the NHS is falling in real terms under this Government. The management cost savings achieved so far have included the additional costs of PCGs and the targeted continued reductions for current and future years will include the cost of PCTs.

    Outside Contracts
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health which services hospital managers are(a) permitted and (b) not permitted to contract out to private companies; and if he will make a statement. [149674]

    Mr. Denham
    [holding answer 9 February 2001]: The list shows services which may be provided under contract by the private sector to National Health Service bodies:

    Grounds and gardens maintenance

    Property and building maintenance

    Equipment maintenance

    Domestic services

    Catering

    Laundry

    Waste disposal

    Pest control

    Portering

    Security

    Non-emergency patient transport

    Courier services

    Information Management and Technology Systems

    Financial services

    Car parking

    Telecommunications

    Energy and utilities

    Sterile supply service/SSDs

    Stores

    Reception

    Post services

    Residential accommodation

    Day nursery and creche services.

    Any proposals which include categories of services or staff other than those on the list must be submitted to the NHS Executive for approval by Ministers.

    Mental Health Care
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the repots into untoward incidents involving
    41W
    (a) the disappearance and (b) the deaths of patients receiving care for mental health problems in each health authority for each of the past five yews. [149500]

    Mr. Hutton
    The information requested is not collected centrally.

    Details of all deaths of patients detained under the Mental Health Act are reported to the Mental Health Act Commission. A report of the findings between 1997 and 2000 is due to be published later this month. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library when published.

    Suicides
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by health authority, the number of suicides of patients in community health care trusts in each of the past five years. [149499]

    Mr. Hutton
    The information requested is not available centrally. However, the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental Illness does collect data on suicides by people in contact with mental health services in the year before death. The National Confidential Inquiry began collecting this data in only April 1996. In May 1999 the Inquiry published its report Safer Services outlining its findings over the two year period from April 1996. Copies of this report are available in the Library.

    Transplant Centres
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria will be used to decide whether Manchester, Birmingham or Sheffield will be the fourth transplant centre to remain in operation following the proposed rationalisation of services. [150073]

    Mr. Denham
    The study currently under way will determine which of the three units is best able to accommodate an enlarged transplant team based on least disruption to existing and future transplant patients and least disruption to meeting the priority targets for other essential cardiac operations as set out in the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease.

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Higher Education
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many unfilled places there were within the higher education sector in(a) autumn 1997, (b) autumn 1998, (c) autumn 1099 and (d) autumn 2000. [147637]

    Mr. Wicks
    [holding answer 30 January 2001]: Planned student numbers are set out each year covering home and EU students funded by the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE) and the Teacher Training Agency (TTA). The table shows the total student numbers (full-time equivalents) planned for HEFCE and TTA prior to the academic year in question, and the comparable estimated outturn for each year. Equivalent figures for Autumn 2000
    42W
    are not yet available. The growth in financial year FTEs between 1996–97 and 1999–2000 was 34,000. The total number of home, EU and overseas students in English institutions (headcounts on 1 December) rose by 76,000 between 1996–97 and 1999–2000.

    Home and EU domiciled Higher Education students in England.

    Thousand1

    Academic year

    Planned FTEs

    Estimated

    Outturn FTEs

    1996–97

    1,001

    1,009

    —

    1997–98

    999

    1,024

    —

    1998–99

    1,021

    1,024

    —

    1999–2000

    1,043

    1,037

    —

    1 Figures relate to 1 December. The FTE factor used for part-time students is 0.35. For comparability, figures include some students studying professions allied to medicine for which funding responsibility was transferred to the Department of Health for 1998–99 and exclude 18,500 FTEs in 1999–2000 in further education colleges for which funding responsibility transferred to the Higher Education Funding Council in England in 1999–2000.

    UCAS data show that accepted applicants for full-time undergraduate courses rose by 5,000 between 1999–2000 and 2000–01. Early data on applications for 2001–02 show an increase of 2,000 applicants over 2000–01.

    New Deal (Job Placements)
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the projected average cost of obtaining for a person currently on Incapacity Benefit a sustainable job with the New Deal for Disabled People involving the use of a job broker; and what the average cost is per job of placements under other New Deal programmes. [147735]

    Ms Hodge
    [holding answer 30 January 2001]: We have yet to see what the costs per job will be in practice in the national extension of the New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP).

    New Deal is about giving the individual help each person needs to become employable, find a job and keep a job in the future. Some people will need more help than others and so the cost for each person will also vary. Simply calculating or comparing the cost per job alone cannot measure its success.

    The information for the other New Deals is set out in the table:

    New Deal

    Average cost per job (£)

    Young people

    Less than 4,000

    25+

    Less than 3,500

    Lone parents

    11,388

    Partners

    2, 3—

    50+

    2, 4—

    1 Independent evaluation of the first phase of the New Deal for Lone parents found that the cost per participant moving into work was £1,388.

    2 Not available

    3 The New Deal for Partners of Unemployed People is a relatively new programme. Independent evaluation is being carried out and we will be looking at unit costs.

    4 Detailed information to calculate the actual cost per job for people returning to work through New Deal 50 plus is not yet available.

    Investors in People
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment who is responsible for administering the Investors in People scheme locally in the Vale of York; and if he will make a statement. [148956]

    Mr. Wicks
    The North Yorkshire Training and Enterprise Council administers the Investors in People Standard in the Vale of York. From 1 April 2001, the Learning and Skills Council will assume this responsibility.

    Child Care
    Miss Geraldine Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he has taken to ensure that good quality affordable child care is available in(a) Morecambe and Lunesdale and (b) the United Kingdom. [148963]

    Ms Hodge
    The National Child Care Strategy aims to ensure that affordable, accessible, quality child care is available in every neighbourhood. The Working Families Tax Credit offers help with child care costs to lower income families. £170 million is also being made available until the end of 2003 through the New Opportunities Fund to help start up out of school hours care. By 2003–04, the Departments investment in child care will have trebled from £66 million in this financial year to over £200 million. The Government also intend to make a further £155 million available over the next three years from the New Opportunities Fund. This extra investment will be largely targeted in disadvantaged areas and on childminders. Through the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative, we expect to create 45,000 child care places, in up to 900 new 50-place nurseries. Around 50,000 out of school hours clubs in disadvantaged areas are expected to achieve extra start-up support. The Morecambe and Lunesdale area is eligible for the new support being made available for disadvantaged areas. 145,000 childminder places and 450 childminder networks will have been started up by 2004.

    New child care places for 546,000 children have been created between April 1997 and September 2000. Taking into account turnover, this has helped an extra 343,000 children. As part of the Strategy 150 Early Years and Child Care Development Partnerships (EYDCPs) have been set up across England to develop new child care places and maintain existing ones across the whole of their local area. Since April 1999 Lancashire EYDCP has created child care places for 487 children in the Morecambe and Lunesdale area and, taking into account turnover, this has helped an extra 125 children.

    Lancashire EYDCP is assisting the DfEE in a pilot programme to test innovative approaches to combining early education with care throughout the day. The project is based in the Morecambe and Lune Valley areas and focuses on establishing a partnership between early education providers and the voluntary and private sectors and childminders leading to a co-ordinated seamless child care and early education service for children and families. One of the aims of the project is to help meet the needs of families for whom lack of transport is a barrier to accessing child care, and will include the provision of a mobile nursery facility to operate in rural areas.

    Age Discrimination
    Miss Geraldine Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to combat age discrimination in the work force. [148964]

    Ms Hodge
    We made a commitment, last October, to introduce age legislation within six years, by signing the European Employment directive on Equal Treatment. We have negotiated a long implementation period to give us the scope to consult closely with employers and expert groups to prepare workable and beneficial age legislation.

    In the meantime we will continue to tackle age discrimination by promoting vigorously the non-statutory Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment, which was launched in June 1999. The Code has been promoted to employers through trade press, events and awards initiatives. It sets the standard for non-ageist practices and promotes the business benefits of age diversity in the work force. We must overcome ageist stereotypes and employers need to understand that younger and older workers can add value to their business. In the years leading up to legislation, we want to take employers with us, so that they work with the spirit, not just the letter of the law. In that way we will build up the real culture change we need to overcome discrimination.

    Modern Apprenticeships
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many modern apprenticeships in agricultural and land-based industries were(a) initiated, (b) completed and (c) in progress in each of the past five academic years. [149473]

    Mr. Wicks
    [holding answer 8 February 2001]: The number of Modem Apprenticeships in agricultural land-based industries for each of the last five academic years were:

    (a) Initiated

    Academic year

    Modern apprenticeships

    1995–96

    430

    1996–97

    1,170

    1997–98

    2,030

    1998–99

    3,530

    1999–2000

    3,960

    (b) Total leavers and the percentage of leavers gaining a qualification

    Advanced modern apprenticeships:

    Foundation modern apprenticeships:

    Academic year

    Total leavers

    Leavers gaining a qualification at level 3 and above (percentage)

    Total leavers

    Leavers gaining a qualification at level 2 and above (percentage)

    1995–96

    50

    35

    N/A

    N/A

    1996–97

    350

    49

    N/A

    N/A

    1997–98

    780

    41

    40

    5

    1998–99

    990

    39

    680

    32

    1999–2000

    1,160

    42

    1,880

    42

    45W
    Because the award of a Modern Apprenticeship entails completion of the whole framework achievement of a qualification at the levels shown is broadly synonymous with completion.

    (c) In progress on 30 September each year

    Year

    Modern apprenticeship

    1995

    120

    1996

    570

    1997

    1,520

    1998

    2,820

    1999

    4,770

    National Training Organisations
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what public funds were received by each national training organisation in the last three years, broken down by their sourcing from(a) his Department, (b) their sponsoring department, (c) other Government Departments and (d) European Union funds. [149476]

    Mr. Wicks
    [holding answer February 2001]: National Training Organisations (NTOs) received £7,102,204 in 1998–99, 14,271,987 in 1999–2000 and are planned to receive £14,943,474 in 2000–01 to help meet their sector skills priorities.

    Details from other budgets can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Secondary Modern Schools
    Mr. Curry
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he intends to publish the benchmark information for secondary modern schools intended to assist the evaluation of their work and be available to Ofsted inspectors. [149652]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 9 February 2001]: Secondary modern school benchmark information will be available within four weeks from our Standards website (www.standards.dfee.gov.uk/performance) and Ofsted will use this information during theii inspections.

    School Performance Targets
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is caking to ensure that head teachers of maintained school agree performance targets with their governing bodies b:, the revised deadline of 6 April. [149802]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    The published regulations on performance management, The Education (School Teacher Appraisal) (England) Regulations 2000 and The Education (School Teacher Appraisal) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2000, extended the deadline requiring the appointed governors responsible for the heads review to meet the head aid a trained external adviser to agree objectives to 6 April 2001. As a result of the extension of the deadline 86 per cent. of appointed governors have now arranged or completed discussions with advisers. We are reminding schools that have not already made arrangements to do so

    Schools (South Derbyshire)
    Mr. Todd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the capital expenditure in schools was in the South Derbyshire constituency supported by the Funding Agency for Schools in each financial year from 1993–94. [149780]

    Jacqui Smith
    The table shows the total number and value of allocations for capital projects at Grant Maintained (GM) schools in Derbyshire for each financial year from 1993–94. The Funding Agency for Schools was not established until 1 April 1994. The allocations shown in the table for 1993–94 were made by the Department for Education. Capital funding to GM schools from 1994–95 was made by both project specific allocations to individual schools and by formula allocation to all schools. The total allocations for both types of grant are shown in the table.

    Details of actual capital expenditure in each financial year are not readily available as this information was not collected before individual project records were achieved.

    Financial year

    Number of allocations

    Value of allocations (£)

    Formula capital allocations (£)

    Total each year (£)

    1993–94

    12

    1,016,929

    0

    1,016,929

    1994–95

    16

    2,903,894

    254,610

    3,158,504

    1995–96

    11

    413,778

    294,355

    708,133

    1996–971

    18

    2,806,266

    671,868

    3,478,134

    1997–98

    12

    864,899

    392,758

    1,257,657

    1998–99

    22

    3,072,220

    288,912

    3,361,132

    1999–2000

    7

    1,208,026

    158,420

    1,366,466

    1 The formula capital allocations include allocations for improvements to security and condition related work that were distributed via the formula capital mechanism.

    Education Welfare Officers
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) Educational Welfare Officer posts and (b) vacancies for Educational Welfare Officers there are in each local education authority. [149809]

    Jacqui Smith
    The information is not collated centrally.

    Education Welfare Officers have a long history of working directly with school and families to promote regular attendance. We are currently piloting whether Education Welfare Officers employed directly by schools would help to improve this liaison and assist in our overall aim of reducing the number of school truancies. There are 16 local education authorities involved in the pilots and we will be looking closely at them throughout the year.

    Emergency Contraception
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what guidance has been given to schools on whether the dispensation of emergency contraception to girls under the age of 16 years should be allowed by the sex and relationship education policy of the school; [150071]

    (2) what provisions have been made to allow parents to stipulate that their daughters under the age of 16 years should not be dispensed emergency contraception

    47W
    without parental consent in cases where the schools sex and relationship education policy allows emergency contraception to be dispensed. [150072]

    Jacqui Smith
    I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 6 February 2001,Official Report, columns 484–85W.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Russia
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2001,Official Report, column 171W, on Russia, if he will place in the Library copies of the minutes of the meetings of the Plutonium Disposition Planning Groups, each month until it reports. [148862]

    Mr. Wilson
    The Plutonium Disposition Planning Group is an informal working group and, as such, there are no formal minutes of its meeting. However, we have secured agreement to place details of the main headings of that Agenda and the list of action points arising from the agenda in the Library and will do so after each meeting of the Group.

    Qualified Majority Voting
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if those matters in the councils of the European Union that will be added to decision making by qualified majority vote after the coming into effect of the Treaty of Nice are within the categories of shared, or exclusive competence, of the Community and Union and its member states. [149183]

    Mr. Vaz
    Of those areas which will move to qualified majority voting after the entry into force of the Treaty of Nice, three are within the exclusive competence of the community. They are Articles 111(4) and 123(4) of the EC Treaty concerning monetary policy, and Article 133(5) of the EC Treaty which extends the Common Commercial Policy to trade in some services and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, subject to unanimity in certain situations. All of the remaining areas which will move to qualified majority voting fall either within the shared competence of the Community and the member states or come within the intergovernmental pillars of the Treaty on the European Union where the concept of shared and exclusive competence is not relevant.

    Europe Houses
    Mr. Maude
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Europe Houses there are in the United Kingdom; and what is their purpose and their cost. [142968]

    Mr. Vaz
    [pursuant to his reply, 19 December 2000, c. 131W]: We have now been informed by the International Federation of Europe Houses that there are three Europe Houses in the UK.

    I am depositing an up to date list of Europe Houses in the Library.

    Icarzan Al-Takriti
    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts Ministers in his Department have Lad with Barzan Al-Takriti and his representatives. [149585]

    Mr. Wilson
    There have been no contacts between FCO Ministers and Barzan Al-Takriti or his representatives.

    Southern Serbia
    Mr. Maude
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the plan for Southern Serbia presented by Deputy Prime Minister Cov4c of Serbia. [149773]

    Mr. Vaz
    The United Kingdom welcomes Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Covics plan for Southern Serbia, and its approval by the Government of Serbia and of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The UK welcomes in particular the plans emphasis on the need for a political solution to the crisis in the Presevo Valley, and its focus on the need to establish a multi-ethnic community based on respect for common human and civil rights. The UK calls on armed groups in the Ground Safety Zone to abandon violence aid to join the search for a peaceful resolution of the areas problems.

    Mr. Maude
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his(a) EU and (b) American counterparts regarding developments in Southern Serbia and Kosovo. [149779]

    Mr. Vaz
    The secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Aft sirs is in frequent contact with his European and US counterparts on developments in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), including Southern Serbia and Kosovo. Latest developments in the Balkans were discussed with US Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington on 6 February.

    North Korean Workers Party
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of his recent discussions in London with representatives of the North Korean Workers Party. [149740]

    Mr. Battle
    I met a senior delegation from the International Department of the Korean Workers Party on Tuesday 6 February. We exchanged views on the development of UKJDPRK relations following the establishment of diplomatic relations on 12 December 2000.

    Common Security and Defence Policy
    Mr. Maude
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from the US Administration on the further development of the European Unions common security and defence policy. [149793]

    Mr. Vaz
    [holding answer 9 February 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed ESDP during his talks in Washington on 6–7 February. The talks

    49W
    confirmed consensus between the U;; and UK in support of a European defence policy which strengthens NATO and the EU.

  DEFENCE

    Ballistic Missile;
    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his assessment is of the threat to the UK and the rest of Europe from ballistic missiles. [148236]

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the perceived threat of attack on the United Kingdom by states with rogue Governments. [148239]

    Mr. Hoon
    We assess that the re is currently no significant ballistic missile three t, nor any other significant threat of attack, on the United Kingdom at present. We do, however, continue to monitor developments closely. It is not for the UK to make such assessments in respect of other countries.

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his Russian counterparts about ballistic missile defence. [148247]

    Mr. Hoon
    I last met my Russian counterpart on 7 December 2000 and discussed a range of issues, including missile defence.

    Armed Forces (Retention)
    Ms Keeble
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the steps being taken to improve retention in the armed forces. [148238]

    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the steps taken to improve retention in the armed forces. [148223]

    Mr. Spellar
    Armed Forces retention is being tackled as a high priority. Our aim is to maintain good levels of retention through policies that gcnuinely reflect the priorities of our people and their families.

    Internal attitude surveys tell us that separation is a factor in both the retention and overstretch of our personnel. We have sought to mitigate the impact of overstretch upon service personnel and to make improvements to the welfare of those who are deployed on operations. For example, we have provided a guaranteed period of post operational tour leave for those returning from operations and wider access to e-mail facilities for personnel to remain in contact with their families.

    In addition to these measures a number of single service retention positive initiatives have been or are being introduced.

    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to improve(a) morale and (b) retention in the armed forces. [148253]

    Mr. Spellar
    High morale is a vital factor in retaining personnel which in turn improves manning levels, reduces overstretch and helps to obtain the optimum return on investment in training. Our aim is to maintain excellent 50W
    levels of retention and morale through implementing policies that reflect the priorities of our people and their families.

    Internal attitude surveys tell us that separation is a negative factor in the morale and retention of our personnel. We have sought to mitigate the impact that separation has on our people by introducing a number of welfare initiatives, for example:
    A guaranteed period of Post Operational tour leave to enable Service men and women to spend some quality time with their families following an operational deployment;
    20 minutes free telephone call time per week for personnel who are deployed on operations;
    a greater spread of e-mail facilities to maintain family communications including electronic "blueys".
    Recent enhancements to the families Concessionary travel scheme give the families of personnel deployed on operations from an overseas base a wider range of choice when planning their return to the UK.

    In addition to these measures, a number of single Service retention positive initiatives have or are being introduced; for example: the creation in each Service of easily accessible Career Managers for all ranks; Financial Retention Incentives have been introduced to stop the outflow of Leading Rate Operator Mechanics and Royal Signallers in the Navy and Army respectively; and the RAF has introduced the Link-up scheme to fund Civilian Pilots licences in return for longer service.

    Sierra Leone
    Ms Squire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to visit Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [148240]

    Mr. Hoon
    I returned on 31 January from a short visit to Sierra Leone, and as yet I do not have further plans to visit.

    I was able to see for myself the impressive work of the UK armed forces in training the Sierra Leone Army. It was clear to me that we are making a real difference in enhancing the capability and confidence of the Sierra Leone Army battalions that have been trained.

    Army (Front-line Equipment)
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to enhance front-line equipment for the Army. [148241]

    Dr. Moonie
    I refer my hon Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones).

    Army Support (Bosnia and Kosovo)
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the role of the reserve forces in supporting the regular Army in Bosnia and Kosovo. [148242]

    Dr. Moonie
    We value the significant contribution which members of the reserve forces continue to make to operations in the Balkans. Reservists bring a wide range of specialist skills to the regular units they support in the combat, combat support and combat service support areas.
    51W
    The reserves have consistently provided between 10 and 14 per cent. of the manpower for the UKs contribution to NATO operations in the former Yugoslavia since operations commenced in 1995. Currently, reservists represent about 10 per cent. of our forces in Bosnia and Kosovo.

    Procurement
    Mr. Blunt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings his Department expects to realise from the Smart Procurement programme. [148243]

    Dr. Moonie
    Over the three successive annual planning rounds since the inception of the Smart Procurement Initiative, we have identified cost reductions attributable to Smart Procurement which total £2 billion over the ten-year period 1998 to 2008.

    We expect to improve on this in the current and future planning rounds.

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs have been created as a result of procurement decisions announced since May 1997. [148249]

    Helen Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs he estimates have been(a) created and (b) sustained as a result of procurement decisions announced since May 1997. [148250]

    Dr. Moonie
    Over 60,000 new contracts are placed each year and the Ministry of Defence does not record the number of jobs created or sustained as a result of each individual procurement decision. However, it is estimated that the number of UK jobs dependent on defence expenditure and equipment exports was 355,000 in 1997–98 and 345,000 in 1998–99.

    These figures are drawn from the Defence Analytical Service Agency report on UK Defence Statistics 2000, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

    European Defence
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to meet the US Defence Secretary to discuss defence co-operation. [148245]

    Mr. Hoon
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson).

    Mr. Gerald Howarth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to meet the new United States Secretary for Defence to discuss the European rapid reaction force. [148255]

    Mr. Hoon
    There is no standing European Rapid Reaction Force. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson),Official Report, 12 February 2001, columns 1–3.

    New DERA
    Mr. Simon Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is regarding the transfer of Royal Air Force equipment to new DERA following privatisation. [148246]
    52W
    Mr. Hoon
    I refer the hon. Member to the announcement I nu de in the House on 24 July 2000,Official Report, columns 777–89, about our decision to proceed with the implementation of the Core Competence model for the DER A public-private partnership. Under Core Competence, wound three-quarters of the current DERA organisation will be turned into a company, referred to as new DERA. For strategic reasons, the remainder will be retained within the Ministry of Defence to carry out functions that could not appropriately be transferred to the private sector.

    At the present time no firm decision has been made as to exactly which assets currently held by DERA will be transferred to the new company. If, however, the equipment is RAF owned and on loan to DERA then it will retain that status and be issued to the new company under normal contractual arrangements.

    Multinational Defence Co-operation
    Ann Keen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in multinational defence co-operation. [148251]

    Mr. Hoon
    Multinational Defence Co-operation is a long established feature of Britains defence. It brings a variety of benefits, including enhanced inter-operability, more efficient provision of capability and a fairer sharing of the defence but den. We are currently pursuing a number of new co-operative initiatives with a range of Allies and partners.

    Royal Air Force
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the manpower strength of the Royal Air Force. [148252]

    Mr. Spellar
    The total strength of the Royal Air Force on 1 January 2001 was 54,251. This figure includes 252 Full Time Reserve Service personnel.

    Armed Forces (Women)
    Barbara Follett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on women in the armed forces serving in front-line combat roles. [148256]

    Mr. Hoon
    Women already serve on the front line in ships and aircraft end in combat support roles in the Army. The remaining posts closed to women are mainly in the Royal Marines General Service Cadres, Household Cavalry and Royal Armoured Corps, Infantry and the RAF Regiment. In addition, for health reasons women do not serve in submarines or as clearance divers.

    We are considering whether employment options for women in the armed forces can be expanded still further. This work will be completed later this year.

    Strategic Defence Review
    Ms Coffey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in implementation of the Strategic Defence Review. [148257]

    Mr. Hoon
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman).

    Warships
    Mr. Rapson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the numbers of skilled craft people required for the Governments warship building programme; and if he will make a statement. [148234]

    Dr. Moonie
    It is not feasible for the Ministry of Defence to make such an assessment as the numbers required depend on how contractors construct the ships, and we are encouraging them to be innovative in this to improve value for money. None the less, we keep under review a broad assessment of whether there is sufficient capacity in UK shipyards to undertake our forward Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary shipbuilding programme. From this we believe that there is sufficient capacity in UK shipyards to undertake our forward warship building programme.

    Mr. Fabricant
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the state of readiness of the Royal Navy's type 42 frigates. [148235]

    Mr. Spellar
    There are currently 11 type 42 destroyers in service. Of these, seven are available for operations, fulfilling operational tasking, exercises and training requirements. The remaining four are in periods of refit or upgrade and maintenance.

    Mr. Leigh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the type 45 destroyer. [148237]

    Dr. Moonie
    A contract was placed on 20 December with BAE Systems Electronics—the nominated prime contractor for the type 45 programme—for the Demonstration and First-of-Class Manufacture phase covering the completion of the design and build of the first three type 45 destroyers.

    Our procurement strategy as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in the House on 11 July 2000 has not changed. Under this, subject to agreement between pr me contractor and shipbuilders, the first and third ship would be assembled by BAE Systems Marine with a substantial contribution by Vosper Thornycroft (VT) and the second ship by VT. It is expected that the prime contractor will be in a position to place shipbuilding contracts later this year.

    Vessel Repairs
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Departments policy on the repair of HMS Tireless and other vessels in that class. [148254]

    Mr. Spellar
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 29 January 2001,Official Report, columns 64–65W. I would also refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 19 December 2000, Official Report, column 94W.

    Defence Jobs (Scotland)
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence related jobs were based in each Scottish local authority area in each year since 1996. [149079]
    54W
    Dr. Moonie
    The number of directly employed Ministry of Defence jobs in each Scottish local authority area since 1996 is set out in the table.

    Tabe 1: Direct MOD employment in Scottish local authority areas

    Local authority area

    Service

    Civilian

    Civilian casual

    1 July 1996

    City of Aberdeen

    37

    109

    2

    Aberdeenshire

    473

    72

    11

    Angus

    1,119

    121

    8

    Argyll and Bute

    4,039

    3,487

    13

    Borders

    1

    1

    0

    Dumfries and Galloway

    2

    64

    0

    City of Dundee

    43

    43

    6

    City of Edinburgh

    1,830

    516

    22

    East Dunbartonshire

    2

    8

    0

    East Lothian

    0

    12

    0

    Falkirk

    1

    2

    0

    Fife

    1,673

    1,369

    44

    City of Glasgow

    446

    1,309

    30

    Highland

    560

    76

    10

    Inverclyde

    20

    152

    1

    Midlothian

    674

    84

    5

    Moray

    3,896

    557

    20

    North Ayrshire

    3

    606

    14

    North Lanarkshire

    3

    3

    0

    Orkney

    0

    5

    0

    Perth and Kinross

    19

    432

    13

    Renfrewshire

    4

    26

    0

    Shetland Islands

    184

    49

    7

    South Ayrshire

    460

    57

    1

    South Lanarkshire

    2

    7

    0

    Stirling

    17

    360

    33

    West Dunbartonshire

    0

    23

    1

    West Lothian

    0

    3

    1

    Western Isles

    150

    108

    20

    Local authority area

    Service

    Civilian

    Civilian casual

    1 July 1997

    City of Aberdeen

    27

    90

    2

    Aberdeenshire

    389

    88

    7

    Angus

    1,189

    121

    7

    Argyll and Bute

    3,543

    3,381

    19

    Borders

    0

    1

    0

    Dumfries and Galloway

    0

    69

    0

    City of Dundee

    41

    52

    4

    City of Edinburgh

    1,503

    516

    18

    East Dunbartonshire

    2

    7

    1

    East Lothian

    0

    12

    1

    Falkirk

    1

    3

    0

    Fife

    1,455

    1,248

    45

    City of Glasgow

    578

    1,745

    24

    Highland

    62

    86

    10

    Inverclyde

    7

    61

    1

    Midlothian

    602

    89

    2

    Moray

    3,726

    680

    15

    North Ayrshire

    1

    608

    4

    North Lanarkshire

    3

    2

    0

    Orkney

    0

    5

    0

    Perth and Kinross

    21

    450

    12

    Renfrewshire

    4

    27

    0

    Shetland Islands

    174

    59

    1

    South Ayrshire

    395

    60

    2

    South Lanarkshire

    1

    7

    0

    Stirling

    22

    367

    21

    West Dunbartonshire

    0

    19

    0

    West Lothian

    2

    4

    0

    Western Isles

    143

    103

    7

    55W

    Local authority area

    Service

    Civilian

    Civilian casual

    1 July 1998

    City of Aberdeen

    25

    96

    0

    Aberdeenshire

    356

    89

    2

    Angus

    987

    118

    5

    Argyll and Bute

    3,336

    3,039

    16

    Borders

    1

    1

    0

    Dumfries and Galloway

    1

    58

    0

    City of Dundee

    40

    54

    1

    City of Edinburgh

    1,589

    509

    16

    East Dunbartonshire

    0

    0

    0

    East Lothian

    0

    11

    0

    Falkirk

    1

    3

    0

    Fife

    1,605

    1,111

    22

    City of Glasgow

    1,089

    1,765

    26

    Highland

    33

    80

    7

    Inverclyde

    6

    60

    1

    Midlothian

    807

    101

    2

    Moray

    3,830

    704

    12

    North Ayrshire

    2

    598

    2

    North Lanarkshire

    4

    3

    0

    Orkney

    0

    5

    0

    Perth and Kinross

    20

    427

    8

    Renfrewshire

    6

    10

    0

    Shetland Islands

    156

    59

    0

    South Ayrshire

    389

    63

    0

    South Lanarkshire

    0

    7

    0

    Stirling

    22

    327

    8

    West Dunbartonshire

    2

    28

    0

    West Lothian

    1

    4

    1

    Western Isles

    100

    55

    2

    Local authority area

    Service

    Civilian

    Civilian casual

    1 July 1999

    City of Aberdeen

    18

    94

    1

    Aberdeenshire

    335

    87

    2

    Angus

    1,075

    123

    2

    Argyll and Bute

    3,516

    3,155

    15

    Borders

    1

    1

    0

    Dumfries and Galloway

    1

    87

    1

    City of Dundee

    54

    63

    1

    City of Edinburgh

    1,736

    503

    18

    East Dunbartonshire

    0

    0

    0

    East Lothian

    0

    9

    0

    Falkirk

    0

    2

    1

    Fife

    1,800

    1,069

    28

    City of Glasgow

    1,217

    1,824

    9

    Highland

    27

    88

    2

    Inverclyde

    6

    59

    1

    Midlothian

    708

    103

    4

    Moray

    3,767

    732

    20

    North Ayrshire

    4

    570

    3

    North Lanarkshire

    2

    3

    0

    Orkney

    0

    5

    0

    Perth and Kinross

    13

    400

    16

    Renfrewshire

    8

    24

    0

    Shetland Islands

    148

    56

    3

    South Ayrshire

    385

    62

    1

    South Lanarkshire

    2

    6

    0

    Stirling

    22

    289

    21

    West Dunbartonshire

    2

    40

    2

    West Lothian

    2

    3

    0

    Western Isles

    88

    14

    2

    In addition to this direct employment, the MOD supports a significant number of defence-related jobs throughout the UK. While DASA (the Defence Analytical Services Agency) does not produce estimates of these
    56W
    employment levels for local authority areas, their estimate of the defence-related employment for Scotland as a whole is set out in the table.

    1The method used to provide national and regional employment estimates requires the combination of two elements. First, a breakdown of MOD equipment expenditure with UK industry (using the Standard Industrial 21assification (SIC)) and second, a measure of sales per employee for each of the industries receiving defence spending (derived from the ONS Business Enquiry and the Labour Market Survey). Dividing the first by the second gives an estimate of those employed directly on defence contracts. These estimates do not include indirect employment. The figures exclude MOD Civilian and Service Personnel. The full estimation methodology is outlined in Defence Statistics Bulletin No. 3). There is no internal method of isolating the amount of employment generated as a direct result of any one procurement decision. The sales per head data used in calculating the data do not distinguish between individual projects and is more an indiction of permanent or ongoing employment within a defence contractor. DASA rely for their information on a Defence Bills Agency (DBA) database—the Monthly Journal of Records (MJRECS), which is populated, in part by data from the DEFFORM 57. This form is completed by commercial staff each time a new MOD headquarters contract is placed (as opposed to Local Purchase Order). The DEFFORM gives quite a detailed picture of the type of contract placed e.g. on pricing, and information describing the region where a contract is placed. The form utilises a location of work code. MOD expenditure on equipment in the UK is derived from the MOD Central Ledger (Return 5) and can be split by region using data from MJRECS—detailed. Each expenditure has a location code for the prime contractor in the transaction. The proportion of expenditure, which might be spent in the region, is determined by the location of the prime contractor and does not take account c those of sub-contractors. The proportions calculated from MJRECS are then applied to total expenditure on equipment in the UK to find the values in each region. Using sales per head data we are able to calculate estimates of employment dependent on equipment expenditure by applying them to regional breakdown derived from MJRECS.

    Table 2: estimated direct MOD related employment in Scottish local authority areas

    Year

    Employment

    1995–96

    8,000

    1996–97

    7,000

    1997–98

    6,000

    1998–99

    6,000

    Depleted Uranium
    Mr. Duncan Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much depleted uranium is left behind in tank gun barrels after the firing of depleted uranium rounds; [146579]

    (2) how much depleted uranium is extracted from the barrel of tanks and evacuated into the atmosphere during the firing of depleted uranium rounds; [146580]

    (3) what research his Department has undertaken into the potential risks to tank crews of firing depleted uranium rounds; and if he will publish the research. [146578]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 22 January 2001]: MOD officials are researching the reports addressing the issues raised. I will write to the right hon. Member once the review is complete, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2001, Official Report, column 358W, if he will publish a list
    57W
    on the reports on depleted uranium commissioned by his Department from DERA; and if he will place copies of these reports in the Library. [149650]

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

    Pensions
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of retrospectively increasing the pensions of those ex-servicemen retiring in a pensions trough; and if he will make a statement. [149542]

    Mr. Spellar
    The cost of any adjustment could not be considered in isolation from other public service schemes.

    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from ex-servicemen affected by the pensions troughs of 1977 and 1991. [149541]

    Mr. Spellar
    The number of inquiries which the Ministry of Defence has received is set out in the table:

    Letters to Ministers and officials—incluaing letters from MPs

    1977 Pension trough

    1991 staging

    1996

    8

    0

    1997

    12

    0

    1998

    6

    0

    1999

    12

    0

    2000

    10

    0

    20011

    24

    2

    1 Up to February

    KFOR
    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of British troops in KFOR. [148229]

    Mr. Spellar
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell),Official Report, 12 February 2001, column 5.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secret try of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the total value of the change which has not been given to asylum seekers using vouchers in shops. [149289]

    Mrs. Roche
    Retailers participating in the asylum voucher scheme are not required to keep records of the sums they retain as a result of the no change policy. We believe that asylum seekers are managing to combine their vouchers and cash to ensure they do not lose out. However, we are looking into this issue as part of our review of the operation of the voucher scheme.

    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the practice of detaining asylum seekers in other European countries; what European countries have a policy of the systematic detention of asylum seeker s in secure reception centres; and if he will make a statement. [149547]
    58W
    Mrs. Roche
    The Government monitor the asylum practices of other European Union member states.

    All member states detain asylum seekers in certain circumstances. The criteria for detention vary considerably between member states.

    Some member states also operate a system of reception centres to accommodate asylum seekers. Most such centres are not secure, but in some cases the freedom of movement of asylum seekers is restricted by a requirement for continuous residence or regular reporting.

    Mr. Michael
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy to encourage asylum seekers to undertake voluntary activity while they are awaiting a decision on their case; and what guidance is offered on this matter by his Department. [149890]

    Mrs. Roche
    The Government are keen that asylum seekers should have the chance to contribute to their local community by taking part in voluntary activity.

    Guidance which will be of help to organisations and to asylum seekers interested in this area has today been placed in the Library.

    Miss Widdecombe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of people who have had their applications for refugee status refused, but remain illegally in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [150075]

    Mrs. Roche
    I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on 8 January 2001,Official Report, column 700.

    Miss Widdecombe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers eligible for support from NASS are receiving voucher-only support; and if he will make a statement. [150038]

    Mrs. Roche
    As at the end of December 2000, 8,870 asylum seekers (including dependants) were allocated voucher-only support by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS).
    1 Figure rounded to the nearest 10
    Miss Widdecombe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unaccompanied minors who are classified as asylum seekers are under the protection of local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [150034]

    Mrs. Roche
    The latest available estimate is that, as at 31 March 2000, the number of unaccompanied minors who were classified as asylum seekers and are under the protection of local authorities was 5,190.

    Miss Widdecombe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many adult asylum seekers are resident in the United Kingdom awaiting the outcome of their asylum applications, but are not in receipt of support from NASS; and if he will make a statement. [150037]

    Mrs. Roche
    The number of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision at the end of December 2000 was 66,195.

    Information is available on the number of asylum seekers that were allocated National Asylum Support Service (NASS) support, however these figures may include some family cases who have received a final

    59W
    decision on their asylum claim and are awaiting removal. In total, as at end December 2000, 25,5001 asylum seekers (including dependants) were allocated NASS support.
    1 Figures rounded to the nearest 100

    Mr. Randall
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with local authorities regarding the dispersal of asylum seekers. [147089]

    Mrs. Roche
    [pursuant to her reply, 5 February 2001, c. 647]: The year for which the figure 3,190 refers is 1995 and not 1996.

    Robbery
    Miss Widdecombe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average custodial sentence imposed by the courts for robbery was in(a) the last six months of 2000 (b) the first six months of 2000 and (c) each of the previous four years. [149208]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    [holding answer 6 February 2001]: Available information, taken from the Home Offices court proceedings database, regarding the average custodial sentence imposed by the courts for robbery offences under S8 of the Theft Act 1968 for the period 1996 to 1999 and for the first half of 2000 (provisional data) is given in the table. Data for the second half of 2000 are not yet available. The offence of robbery carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

    The average custodial sentence (in months) imposed by type of court, and the numbers sentenced to life imprisonment at the Crown court, for the offence of robbery, England and Wales, 1996 to 20001

    Average sentence length (months)

    Year

    Sentenced at magistrates courts2

    Sentenced at the Crown court3

    Total number sentenced to life at the Crown court

    1996

    3.8

    40.1

    8

    1997

    3.7

    40.9

    4

    1998

    3.9

    37.3

    16

    1999

    3.7

    37.3

    37

    20001

    3.7

    36.8

    9

    1 Data for 2000 are for the period 1 January to 30 June only and are provisional

    2 Offenders aged 10 to 17

    3 Excludes those offenders sentenced to life imprisonment

    Child Abuse
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suspects have been identified and charged using the trawling method by the police in connection with child abuse allegations in the last three years. [149430]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The conduct of child abuse investigations is an operational matter for the police. Information on the investigative methods used by the police is not collected centrally.

    The police have a duty to investigate all allegations of child abuse thoroughly, and to undertake a complete investigation, pursuing all lines of reasonable inquiry in accordance with the law. When considering whether a charge should be brought, the police must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to form the basis of a
    60W
    prosecution, which requires that the offence is capable of being proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is then a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, an independent body responsible for determining whether a prosecution should proceed, to assess the weight of this evidence, and in particular whether there is any indication that false evidence might have been offered against the individual accused of the crime.

    Hinduja Brothers
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who acted as referees in the application for naturalisation submitted in 1998 by S. P. Hinduja. [149592]

    Mr. Straw
    [holding answer 8 February 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Bury St. Edmonds (Mr. Ruffley) on 30 January 2001, Official Report, column 166W.

    Mr. Cawsey
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which persons other than his Departments(a) officials and (b) Ministers are permitted access to the files relating to the applications for naturalisation of S P. and G. P. Hinduja; and what requests he has received from such persons for access to those files. [150041]

    Mr. Straw
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Bury St. Edmonds (Mr. Ruffley) on 30 January 2001,Official Report, column 166W.

    Offences (Hertsmere)
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will break down the offences committed within the Hertsmere police division in each year since 1992. [150050]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The information requested was not collected centrally prior to September 1999 and is currently collected only for offences of violence against the person, sexual offences, robbery, domestic burglary, theft of a vehicle and theft from a vehicle. Table 1 presents the number of offences recorded in Hertsmere in the year to September 2000; there are no previous comparable year data held centrally. This information, and that on all other Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, was published in table 5 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 1/01, Recorded Crime England and Wales October 195 9 to September 2000, available in the Library.

    Table 1: Hertsmere Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership— notifiable offences recorded by the police October 1999–September 2000

    Title/reference

    Hertsmere Hertfordshire

    Population (thousand)

    97.3

    Households (thousand)

    39

    Violence against the person (class 1–8, 11–15, 37/1, 104, 105)

    Offences

    731

    Per 1,000 population

    7.5

    61W

    Table 1: Hertsmere Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership— notifiable offences recorded by the police October 1999–September 2000

    Title/reference

    Hertsmere Hertfordshire

    Sexual offences (class 16–27, 74)

    Offences

    50

    Per 1,000 population

    0.5

    Robbery (class 34)

    Offences

    51

    Per 1,000 population

    0.5

    Burglary dwelling (class 28,29)

    Offences

    489

    Per 1,000 population

    5.0

    Per 1,000 h/h

    12.6

    Theft of a motor vehicle (class 37/2, 48)

    Offences

    344

    Per 1,000 population

    3.5

    Theft from a vehicle (class 45)

    Offences

    1,309

    Per 1,000 population

    13.5

    Emergency Services (Hoax Calls)
    Mr. Dobson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2001,Official Report, column 435W, on emergency services (hoax calls), what proportions of (a) 999 calls received by the Metropolitan police and (b) hoax calls and calls to which a police response was not deemed necessary were made from mobile phones. [149657]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has informed me that this information is not collected.

    British Citizenship Applications
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria govern the access of(a) the security service, (b) the secret intelligence service and (c) the police to information about individual applications for British citizenship. [148340]

    Mr. Straw
    No Department or agency routinely seeks access to information about individual applications for British citizenship. On the infrequent occasions when information is sought for legitimate crimefighting or national security purposes it will normally be provided.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on inviting other Government Departments and agencies to comment on individual applications for British citizenship. [148341]

    Mr. Straw
    In furtherance of tie requirement laid down in the British Nationality Act 1981 for me to be satisfied, before granting naturalisation that an applicant is of good character, my Department carries out checks with the police and where appropriate comments may be sought from other Government Departments and agencies.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for naturalisation were received by his Department during 62W
    (a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000; what was the average time taken to determine an application in each of those years; and if he will make a statement. [147600]

    Mrs. Roche
    [holding answer 29 January 2001]: Persons wishing to become British citizens under the British Nationality Act 1981 apply under two broad categories. Some, including all minors, apply for registration, either as an entitlement or at the Home Secretarys discretion. Others apply for naturalisation, which is always discretionary, on the grounds of residence or marriage to a British citizen. The Integrated Casework Directorate has reliable intake figures only for both types of application combined. Separate intake figures for naturalisation are not available.

    The table therefore gives total nationality intake for the years in question, and the average waiting times for all naturalisation cases.

    Year

    Total intake

    Average waiting times (naturalisation) for the whole year (months)

    1997

    66,000

    16.9

    1998

    68,030

    19.9

    1999

    67,000

    20.5

    2000

    69,714

    18.5

    The average waiting time for naturalisations at the end of January 2001 was 14.4 months.

    Immigration and Nationality Directorate
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average annual per person cost of employing an additional Immigration and Nationality Directorate caseworker is, including training and capital costs. [149545]

    Mrs. Roche
    By April 2001, staffing levels in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) are expected to have doubled compared to 1998. Since November 1999, we have recruited about 500 extra asylum decision-makers and recruitment is still continuing. Staff who take asylum decisions are normally Executive Officer grade. The annual average unit cost of employing an Executive Officer in the Integrated Casework Directorate is £21,000. This figure includes salary, Earnings Related National Insurance Contributions (ERNIC) and superannuation costs. Other overhead costs such as training, Information Technology and accommodation overheads are not currently recorded in a way which can be attributed to casework staff alone.

    Migrants
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last received representations from(a) Caritas Europa, (b) the Churches Commission for Migrants in Europe, (c) the Commission of the Bishops Conferences of the European Community and (d) the International Catholic Migration Commission; and if he will make a statement. [147517]

    Mr. Straw
    So far as I can ascertain I have received no representations from these organisations.

    Public Relations (Expenditure)
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure was in his Department for the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000, and what the planned expenditure and breakdown of expenditure for 2000–01 is on (i) public opinion research, (ii) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (iii) direct mail. [149256]

    Mr. Straw
    [holding answer 8 February 2001]: For expenditure on public opinion research I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 25 January 2001, Official Report, column 718W and the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 8 June 2000, Official Report, column 373W. Further work would incur disproportionate cost.

    Total expenditure on television, radio and newspaper advertising is as follows:

    Year

    £ million (including VAT)

    1996–97

    5.23

    1997–98

    1.4

    1998–99

    1.8

    1999–2000

    5.65

    2000–01

    122.56

    1Planned expenditure.

    The budget for 2000–01 covers £8.67 million for a vehicle crime reduction campaign; £7.35 million for the police recruitment campaign; £3.34 million to publicise rolling electoral registration; £2.4 million on a fire safety campaign; and £800,000 on a campaign to make people aware of the introduction of the Human Rights Act.

    Expenditure on direct mail on 1999–2000 was £716,537 spent on a United Kingdom-wide door drop as part of the campaign to explain changes to the voting system for the European elections campaign. In 2000–01 £683,807 was spent on a door drop in England and Wales as part of a fire safety campaign.

    Police Recruitment
    Miss Widdecombe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many expressions of interest have been received as a result of the national police recruitment campaign in each month of the campaign to date; and how many have resulted in recruits joining the police(a) in England and Wales as a whole and (b) in each police force in England and Wales. [150044]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    To 4 February, there had been over 100,000 inquiries through the website and call centre. These have resulted in over 22,000 formal Expressions of Interest (EOIs). The breakdown by month is as follows:

    Number

    End of August/September

    7,317

    October

    5,616

    November

    1,503

    December

    727

    January

    7,051

    February (to 4 February 2001)

    349

    —

    Total

    22,563

    64W
    The table shows the breakdown of EOIs and the forces to which they have been passed.

    Responsibility for processing EOIs rests with forces. Forces are being asked to report on the outcome of the EOIs with a view to assessing the effectiveness of the campaign.

    Expressions of interest to 4 February 2001

    Force

    Number

    Avon and Somerset Constabulary

    680

    Bedfordshire Police

    128

    Cambridgeshire Constabulary

    274

    Cheshire Constabulary

    685

    City of London

    239

    Cleveland Constabulary

    423

    Cumbria Constabulary

    415

    Derbyshire Constabulary

    578

    Devon and Cornwall Constabulary

    555

    Dorset Police

    278

    Durham Police

    504

    Dyfed-Powys Police

    317

    Essex Police

    378

    Gloucestershire Constabulary

    157

    Greater Manchester Police

    1,390

    Gwent Constabulary

    227

    Hampshire Constabulary

    333

    Hertfordshire Constabulary

    192

    Humberside Police

    471

    Kent Constabulary

    328

    Lancashire Constabulary

    1,044

    Leicestershire Constabulary

    272

    Lincolnshire Police

    283

    Merseyside Police

    1,124

    Metropolitan Police

    1,946

    Norfolk Constabulary

    316

    Northamptonshire Police

    186

    Northumbria Police

    683

    North Wales Police

    278

    North Yorkshire Police

    623

    Nottinghamshire Constabulary

    859

    South Wales Constabulary

    963

    South Yorkshire Police

    819

    Staffordshire Police

    676

    Suffolk Constabulary

    188

    Surrey Police

    174

    Sussex Police

    324

    Thames Valley Police

    385

    Warwickshire Constabulary

    182

    West Mercia Constabulary

    418

    West Midlands Police

    930

    West Yorkshire Police

    1,191

    Wiltshire Police

    147

    —

    Total

    22,563

    Best Value
    Miss Widdecombe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the additional cost to each police force in England and Wales has been of administration associated with Best Value; and if he will make a statement. [150042]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The administration cost associated with Best Value is not collected centrally by the Home Office.

    The Government are confident that Best Value will, over the five year period, save police authorities and forces more than they spend as well as improving police performance across the board.

    Entry Clearance (IT Professionals)
    Sir Patrick Cormack
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals have been granted permission to enter the UK on the basis of their qualifications in information technology in the last three years; and from which countries they have come. [148903]

    Ms Hodge
    I have been asked to reply.

    The number of foreign nationals broken down by country, granted permission through the work permit arrangements to undertake information technology related jobs during 2000 is given in tie table. Directly comparable figures for 1998 and 1999 are not available as the way in which work permit management information is collected was changed in October 1999.

    Country

    Total number of IT applications approved for 2000

    Albania

    5

    Algeria

    11

    Angola

    3

    Argentina

    8

    Armenia

    4

    Australia

    708

    Azerbaijan

    3

    Bahrain

    2

    Bangladesh

    15

    Barbados

    3

    Belarus

    18

    Bermuda

    5

    Bolivia

    1

    Bosnia-Herzogovina

    2

    Botswana

    2

    Brazil

    39

    British Dependant Territories

    2

    British National Overseas

    23

    British Overseas Citizens

    4

    Bulgaria

    65

    Burundi

    2

    Cameroon

    17

    Canada

    377

    Chile

    6

    China Peoples Republic of

    221

    Colombia

    16

    Congo

    1

    Costa Rica

    2

    Croatia

    35

    Cuba

    3

    Cyprus

    11

    Czech Republic

    49

    Dominica

    2

    Ecuador

    3

    Egypt

    21

    Estonia

    2

    Ethiopia

    4

    Gambia

    3

    Georgia

    5

    Ghana

    11

    Grenada

    1

    Guatemala

    1

    Guinea

    1

    Guyana

    2

    Haiti

    1

    Hong Kong (British)

    9

    Hong Kong (Chinese)

    3

    Hungary

    46

    66W

    Country

    Total number of IT applications approved for 2000

    India

    11,474

    Indonesia

    36

    Iran

    21

    Iraq

    1

    Israel

    90

    Ivory Coast

    1

    Jamaica

    9

    Japan

    191

    Jordan

    16

    Kazakhstan

    7

    Kenya

    27

    Kuwait

    2

    Latvia

    2

    Lebanon

    14

    Libya

    2

    Lithuania

    7

    Macedonia

    2

    Malawi

    2

    Malaysia

    111

    Malta

    13

    Mauritius

    20

    Mexico

    32

    Morocco

    11

    Myanmar

    10

    Namibia

    2

    Nepal

    3

    New Zealand

    358

    Nigeria

    45

    Pakistan

    132

    Palestine

    3

    Panama

    1

    Peru

    3

    Philippines

    103

    Poland

    86

    Romania

    54

    Russia

    158

    Saudi Arabia

    6

    Senegal

    8

    Serbia

    6

    Sierra Leone

    3

    Singapore

    62

    Slovakia

    19

    Slovenia

    7

    South Africa

    748

    South Korea

    44

    Sri Lanka

    69

    St. Lucia

    3

    Sudan

    5

    Swaziland

    1

    Switzerland

    77

    Syrian Arab Republic

    3

    Taiwan

    31

    Tanzania

    6

    Thailand

    23

    Trinidad and Tobago

    19

    Tunisia

    5

    Turkey

    85

    Turkmenistan

    2

    Uganda

    6

    Ukraine

    52

    United States of America

    2,034

    Uruguay

    1

    Uzbekistan

    2

    Venezuela

    9

    Vietnam

    2

    Yugoslavia

    69

    Zambia

    6

    Zimbabwe

    17

    Total

    18,257

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Local Government Finance White Paper
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to publish their White Paper on local government finance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we are currently considering over 16,000 responses to the local government finance Green Paper. We shall announce our decisions on the reform of local government finance in a White Paper to be published later this year.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. I note that he mentioned "later this year". A similar reply was given previously by his noble friend Lady Farrington. Does the Minister agree that any changes, whether to council tax bands or in the nature of a revaluation, will give rise to large numbers of winners and losers—indeed, considerable losers in London and in the South East? In the interests of householders, does the Minister agree that the sooner the Government's intentions are known the better?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, bearing in mind that local government finance is an extremely complicated area and the fact that, whatever you do, there will almost certainly be winners and losers, noble Lords will understand why we are taking our time over this consultation. Indeed, 16,000 people have bothered to respond, so there is much interest in the matter.
2
We shall assess that response in relation to council tax banding. Although that aspect was not specifically covered in the consultation, we have received responses in that respect and in relation to the other strategic issues outlined in the Green Paper.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does not my noble friend the Minister think it worth while to take some time over this consultation rather than rushing into a process and introducing something like the poll tax that the previous Conservative government introduced some time ago?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as happens so frequently with my noble friend, he has left me with the feeling that I wish I had said that. My noble friend is correct in what he says. This is an extremely complicated area; indeed, the poll tax saga was an indication of the difficulties involved. I believe that we are right to take our time to get the matter right.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why the concept of floors and ceilings, which I understand is part of the Green Paper, has been introduced as part of this year's settlement process before any adequate assessment could he made of the consultation replies?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government's responsibilities in the matter are clear under local government finance provisions. In order to avoid major changes that would impact on council tax payers, we felt it necessary to introduce floors and ceilings in relation to this year's settlement. This has been done in the interests of stability and in order to avoid sudden changes to council tax payers.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in the interests of clarity, as well as the fairness to which the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, referred, does the Minister agree that it is important to ensure that local authorities have the right degree of independence and the opportunity to take decisions about their communities? If the

3
Minister so agrees, does he also agree that for the Government to increase a specific grant at the expense of general funding—in other words, ring-fencing and reducing local discretion—is not the right direction in which to move?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, one of the themes of the Green Paper is to look at ways in which local authorities should be able to extend their flexibility and make choices for themselves on how they spend the money available to them. In general, I agree with the noble Baroness's first point. However, there are particular areas of government policy where clear objectives are needed and where ring-fenced grants may continue to be appropriate—that is as well as, and not instead of, providing increased flexibility to local authorities.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the rise in specific grants in the last settlement is higher than the rise in revenue support funding? Does that support what the noble Lord is now saying?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in my naivety, I thought that the noble Baroness was addressing the subject matter of the Question—namely, the forward pattern of local authority finance. If the noble Baroness is addressing history, then clearly there are parts of government policy under the present system where it is best to achieve objectives through ring-fenced financing; for example, on nursery education, which would not have been possible had we not extended the ring-fenced facilities over the past year and, indeed, during this current year. However, in the longer run, my previous answer stands.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, should not government grants to local authorities always be ring fenced? Surely that would leave the raising of money from community charges to be dealt with as local authorities decided.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that seems to me to indicate a degree of centralisation in the approach to local government finance, such as was endemic at various times during the term of the previous administration and from which we wish to move away. We do not wish to see the rigidity applied whereby central government lay down specifically and precisely how local government should spend its money. As I said, there are specific objectives in respect of which we must do so, but, in general, we believe that local authorities are responsible for making their own decisions within the allocation given to them by the Government and as regards the money raised through their own resources.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as a matter of clarification, is the Minister saying that the ring-fenced grant is always separate from, and additional to, the general grant so that it in no way detracts from the general grant? I am not quite sure on that point.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, under past policies elements within the general grant have been ring-fenced. The intention is to move to a broader, pooled budget under the general grant to which future ring-fenced finances would be separately allocated.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when the noble Lord says "ring fence", does he mean what I mean when I say "hypothecated"?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord means when he says "hypothecated". When I say "hypothecated" I tend to refer to central taxation which the Treasury on occasion—very rarely—allows individual departments to allocate for specific purposes. Ring-fencing relates to the control or otherwise which central government have over local government allocations.

Female Genital Mutilation
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh Baroness Rendell of Babergh asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health on female genital mutilation, when they will take steps to implement some or all of the 12 recommendations in the report.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I was pleased to participate in the launch of the all-party group's report in November and to underline the Government's commitment to help stamp out this appalling practice. We are working actively to this end, both in the United Kingdom, where the practice is outlawed, and in our international development work. The report contains a great many detailed recommendations and useful suggestions which are consistent with work that we are already doing and will continue to do in the future.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer and declare an interest as patron of the London Black Women's Health Action Project. Is my noble friend aware that the public in this country know virtually nothing about female genital mutilation and its disastrous and long-term effects? Does she agree that a campaign might be mounted to raise public awareness?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend on constantly bringing this issue to the attention of the House as a patron of a London women's health group. I agree with my noble friend that raising public awareness is very important. The only way that FGM will eventually be eradicated is through a continuous programme of education and information aimed at the grass roots level. The Government are taking steps to promote that kind of work, for example, through FORWARD, an NGO actively working with communities to bring an end to this practice.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the United Nations Status of Women Commission looks on this as a serious issue and has done so for a long time? Has she seen the report in the newspapers of the two young Kenyan women who won a landmark court decision which enabled them to refuse to suffer this indignity and abuse in their own country? Does she think that that might be helpful not only in terms of publicity but also in terms of helping to change attitudes in the countries where this practice is so common?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of the various UN statements which cover FGM, including the statements in the Beijing Plus Five document and also through CEDAW. In relation to the two young Kenyan women, we are constantly working with different countries to encourage them to outlaw FGM because then it will be possible to deal with the situation not only in the UK context but also in the home country. I agree that publicising that case might well be one way to raise awareness and begin the process of changing attitudes in various communities.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell us in which areas of the UK FGM is most prevalent? What is being done at a local level to combat this problem?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, an estimated 15,000 girls in the UK are considered to be at risk of FGM. The majority of these are in families who are settled in inner-city areas, for example, London, Birmingham and Cardiff. A good example of a local level response is the North West London African/Somali Well Women Clinic, which was set up by the Central Middlesex Hospitals Trust. The clinic provides comprehensive care, including, for example, surgery to repair and sometimes reverse damage caused by FGM. It is important that we ensure that other trusts are aware of the kind of work that that trust is doing and promote and spread good practice.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, this is a serious and important subject. Alas, the report is not available either in the Library, the Printed Paper Office or from the all-party parliamentary group so I am unable to ask the Minister about its contents. However, we all agree that female genital mutilation is a harmful and cruel practice. Does the Minister also agree that it is deeply ingrained in the culture and religion of some of the developing countries and if it were banned it would be pushed underground? A new approach is being used by organisations such as UNICEF to target community leaders, including Islamic sheikhs, elders, women, youth, health workers and artists to develop a consensus on the best way to approach the problem. Do the Government agree that education and support are better tools with which to push for that change rather than a ban? The noble Baroness told the House in November that £400 million had been committed by the Government to support primary education programmes. How much of that money has specifically been targeted to FGM?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we think that education and support are important. However, we also think that the legislation which we have in the United Kingdom to ban FGM is important. I totally agree with the noble Baroness that this practice is deeply ingrained in the cultures of some communities. However, we cannot get away from the point that FGM is mutilation. While it is important to guard against stigmatising communities, raising awareness within communities of that mutilation and ensuring that young girls understand that they do not have to be mutilated in that way is an important part of our strategy.
I shall draw to the attention of the all-party group that its report is not available. I think that it will be concerned to know.
The noble Baroness also asked about DfID funding. We support a number of different initiatives. We support the World Health Organisation training programme on prevention of FGM; it is operating in a number of countries, including Egypt, Kenya and Tanzania. We also give £400,000—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred to £400 million—for similar work to the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is my memory correct that the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, took a Bill through the House of Lords—it subsequently became law—making FGM illegal? If so, can the Minister say how many people have been prosecuted since the inception of that Act for operating in that way on young people?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, took the Bill through the House. There have been one or two complaints but no prosecutions to date because of the difficulty of getting data in relation to the matter.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for remembering—it was long before her time as Minister—that I took the Bill through the House of Lords. Since the Bill was passed and the practice became illegal, have there been any prosecutions?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I replied to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, there have been no prosecutions.

Written Answers: Reference to Departmental Websites
2.52 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will refrain from answering Parliamentary Questions for Written. Answer by referring the Peer who asked the Question to a

7
departmental website, instead of including the information in the Answer and publishing it in the Official Report.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, it has been the practice of successive administrations to refer to departmental websites when appropriate. Naturally, access to all such websites referred to are available within the Libraries of the House as well as to the public. This is in line with the Government's stated aim of encouraging the increased use of electronic facilities.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may point out that I asked for a Written Answer to the simple and important Question: how many people claimed asylum in 2000? The Answer was that I could get the information from the departmental website. I did so by applying to a lady in the Library who produced, an hour or two later, six pages of detailed statistics. The website was listed as www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm. I mention that in case the public want to know. Within those six pages the answer to the simple question was on page 3. The figure was 76,040. Is it not in the public interest that that should be in Hansard instead of people throughout the country having to grab the information somehow from a departmental website of which they may not have the reference?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am enormously impressed by the noble Lord's grasp of modern technology. I am enormously impressed by his grasp of the address of the Home Office website. I was aware of the Answer to which he has just referred. I had the opportunity of speaking to my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton who answered it. The noble Lord was keen that there should be the most detailed and thorough Answer imaginable. However, having discussed it we agreed that it might well have been better if the figures which answered the Question had been given in Hansard as well as on the website.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will take another look at this Question? Traditionally, it has been the function of the executive to assist Members of Parliament whether in this House or another place. The obligation is not discharged by the executive, which in so doing exhibits a curious attitude towards Parliament. It does not lie in the mouths of the executive to put off or in any way obstruct the desire of Members of this House or another place. It should answer fully the Questions put down on the Order Paper.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the complaint cannot be that we did not answer the Question fully because pages of material were made available in answer. However, as I made clear in answer to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, my noble friend Lord Bassam and
8
I agreed that it might have been better if the specific figures had been given in the Answer as well as referring the noble Lord to the website for greater material.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, does the method by which the Government replied to the Written Question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, have anything to do with reports that Internet studies are now to be given priority over the reading of Shakespeare?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords; it has nothing to do with that but relates to the Government's desire to try to improve electronic communication. I do not resile from the point made in reply to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton: although there was much information on the website, it would have been more convenient to Members of this House if the specific figures had been given in the Answer. I have made that clear.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in many respects the Home Office website is a much easier place to access information than Hansard? After a few weeks one cannot remember the date of the Answer. Is the Minister aware that the Home Office website has been improved enormously in recent months? Not only can one obtain the statistics for which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked but also many other important pieces of information which are not readily available to the public. However, the public can access the websites for free in local libraries or elsewhere.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is a compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who is the modernising Minister in the department.
There is a serious point here. As a result of there being a website, a vast amount of information about government departments is more accessible than otherwise would have been the case. I entirely agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is the responsibility of Ministers to ensure that the Answers given are correct? It is not a question of convenience but of principle. Answers should be given in the Official Report and then placed on the website, and not the other way round.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, questions of judgment are involved. My noble friend Lord Bassam and I agree that it would have been better if the numbers had been given.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who signed the Answer as "Lord Steve Bassam". That sounds awfully friendly but I did not know that he was the son of a Duke or a Marquess.

9
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the public have access to Hansard and although they may have access to websites and so on they may not have the exact reference required. In any event, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, said, is it not much better that the well established parliamentary practice relating to constitutional importance should continue? I am glad that it will.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is surely right that the figures should be given; and that there should be a reference to the website where more material can be found.

Uninsured Driving
3 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to deal with the problem of uninsured driving.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are taking the offence of uninsured driving very seriously. The police have powers to stop vehicles to check insurance and other matters. Every year, more than 250,000 drivers are convicted of driving without insurance. The Government are supporting the insurance industry in setting up a computerised insurance database with links to the vehicle register. That database should be operational later this year, enabling the police to detect and prosecute more uninsured and unlicensed drivers at less cost.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. Is he aware that, although the numbers prosecuted seem to have increased, the standard fine is only £150, whereas the average insurance premium is £350? Clearly there is an incentive for miscreants not to insure. Should not something more be done about the level of the fine, which is much too low for the offence?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point seriously. The maximum fine is £5,000. The licence can be endorsed by six to eight points and disqualification is discretionary for the court. However, in practice my noble friend is correct—the average fine is £210. That is higher than for other motoring offences but it is still much lower than the maximum. Last year, the courts imposed full disqualification in 28,580 cases. People should realise that the courts have powers to deal with that offence. In addition, the Home Office is currently engaged in consultation on penalties for motoring offences in general, including this one.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although the Motor Insurance Bureau has to pick up the tab for uninsured drivers, the penalties are
10
ludicrously low given the total financial disaster that befalls a family whose breadwinner, for example, is killed by an uninsured driver?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that there is concern about the level of the penalties. As the noble Lord said, there is a safety net in most cases, operated by the insurance companies under the Motor Insurance Bureau, but the cost has to be handed on to the insurance companies and thence to other insured drivers who are obeying the law.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I understood the Minister to say that the department was helping the insurance industry by setting up a database at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea. Why does not that fall foul of the Data Protection Act?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have discussed the issue with the data protection authorities. Access will be by special agreement with the police authorities to enable particular inquiries to be pursued. The database will not be available to the general public.
Lord Acton: My Lords, it is not clear to me from what my noble friend said whether there are firm plans to raise the minimum fine.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the actual level of the fine within the maximum is always a matter for the courts. I said that the Home Office was currently engaged in a wide consultation about the nature of penalties in motoring offences, including this one. If noble Lords are interested, I think that the closing date for consultation is 9th March. That relates particularly to the seriousness of the offence of uninsured or unlicensed driving.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that there is no minimum fine?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is rarely a minimum fine. There is a maximum fine of £5,000.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, when the department does spot checks for road tax, which one occasionally sees taking place, are checks also made on insurance? Is there a correlation between those who do not pay their road tax and those who are not insured?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, there is an almost automatic correlation in that a driver cannot buy a road tax disc without showing a valid insurance certificate. The two offences are frequently related.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is there a further correlation between those who do not pay their road tax, those who are not insured and those who abandon vehicles by the roadside? How much of a problem is caused by abandoned vehicles and what is my noble friend doing about it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, although I personally am doing little, my colleague Keith Hill and I are ensuring

11
that the police, the local authorities and the DVLA co-operate on an apparent increase in the number of abandoned vehicles around the country. There are substantial powers, but they need to be co-ordinated and we need to target the areas of worst offence. A couple of pilot projects will be launched shortly to improve that co-ordination. All the authorities need to address the issue.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Blackstone will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the schools Green Paper.

Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

International Criminal Court Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 23 [Provisions as to state or diplomatic immunity]
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 13, line 9, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: I shall speak to the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lester and at his request.
The amendment would remove the discretionary power of the Secretary of State to direct that proceedings under Part II shall not be taken against a person to whom subsections (1) and (2) apply. Article 27 of the statute provides that:
"This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity".
That includes heads of state or government. Therefore, in accepting Article 27, a state party to the ICC Statute has already agreed that the immunity of its representatives, including its head of state, may be waived before the International Criminal Court and that their status is not a barrier to their arrest and surrender to the court.
A non-state party to the ICC Statute has not accepted that provision and the immunity of their diplomats remains intact unless there is an express waiver. If there is a waiver of immunity in relation to a request for a diplomat's surrender, that waiver is treated as extending to proceedings for his arrest and surrender to the ICC.
Article 98 of the statute says:
"The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender or assistance which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the State or diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third State, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of that third State for the waiver of the immunity".
The court would not have the power to ask the United Kingdom to breach our obligations relating to state or diplomatic immunity.
If any case arises as to the status of a person named in the request made by the ICC under Clause 2, the determination of his status will be a matter for the court, not for the state party—in this case the United Kingdom—that received that request for provisional arrest and surrender.
The subsection that we are dealing with assumes that there will be consultations between the Secretary of State and the ICC but leaves the Secretary of State with an unfettered discretion to direct that further proceedings shall not be taken, whether or not the person concerned is a national of a state party.
If under international law there is any doubt as to the nationality or immunity of the person concerned, I submit that the correct procedure would be, first, for the Secretary of State to draw the attention of the International Criminal Court to the evidence, showing that that person is a national of a non-state party and that he has an immunity recognised in international law. If the court agrees that the person has immunity, it can then apply to the non-state party for a waiver. If it does not obtain the waiver, the court has the power, under Article 58.4 of the statute, to cancel the warrant of arrest. Clearly it would wish to exercise that power if it was satisfied that the accused had the status which he claimed.
If, after examining the evidence, the court disagrees with the person's claim to the nationality concerned or with his claimed immunity, that is a matter for the court and not for the Secretary of State. The accused may still challenge the jurisdiction of the ICC on any of the grounds of admissibility which are mentioned in Article 17 of the statute. The non-state party which has refused to accept the jurisdiction of the court under Article 12.3 may also challenge the admissibility of the case under Article 19.5. If that were to happen, presumably the competent court in this country would adjourn the hearing of any request by the ICC for the delivery of the person concerned under Clauses 2 or 3 of this Bill until the ICC had determined the question of admissibility.
Perhaps I may refer to the relevant New Zealand legislation; that is, the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000. The sequence of events that would occur when any question arose of conflict with other international obligations is spelt

13
out. There, the Attorney-General must inform the ICC of the supposed conflict and the Minister has the power to defer compliance with the ICC's request until the ICC advises him whether or not it intends to proceed. In the event that the ICC tells the Minister that it intends to proceed, the request must be executed. The ICC, and not the Minister, has the final word, and the same principle should apply in this country.
This particular subsection has far wider implications than for the UK alone. Other countries will be using our legislation as a model: countries in the Commonwealth; perhaps countries in the European Union; and countries further afield. I can only imagine that if some of those countries gave a power to their Ministers equivalent to the one set out in this legislation, it would not always be exercised in the spirit of the statute. If, for example, Iraq is a non-state party which has an agreement with other states to grant immunities to Saddam Hussein and other leading figures in the regime, those other countries may be able to refuse co-operation with the ICC by saying that they have bilateral treaties with Iraq which prevent them complying with requests for arrest and delivery of the alleged criminals.
What would happen if a question arose as to the nationality or diplomatic status of the accused? First, if the accused is a person such as is mentioned in subsection (1), no argument exists as to jurisdiction. If, on the other hand, he is a citizen of a non-state party, then normally a waiver would have been obtained and certified by the Secretary of State under subsection (3).
However, let us suppose that at this point the accused claims that he is not a citizen of the state which issued the waiver but of some other non-state party and that he possessed an immunity as a result of his position in that state. Either way, the Secretary of State would consult the ICC. If they agreed that the accused was what he claimed, the ICC would cancel the warrant. If, on the other hand, they were both satisfied that he was not qualified, the proceedings would continue.
Therefore, the only circumstances in which the power might be used would be either if the ICC disagreed with the Secretary of State or if it wished to determine the validity of the claim for itself rather have it done for it by the Secretary of State. That does not constitute full compliance with the statute and I hope that, on reflection, the noble and learned Lord will agree to reconsider the matter. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will forgive me for the fact that I exhibited some surprise when he rose to move the amendment. As I was the only person present whose name appeared to the amendment, I believed that the task would fall to me. However, there is nothing personal in that and I do not in any way question the noble Lord's right to move it. Indeed, I rise to support him.
14
Perhaps I should say at the outset that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, who also put their names to the amendment, asked me to convey to your Lordships their regret that they cannot be here until later in our proceedings. Fate decreed that the amendment was not reached during the first day of the Committee stage when they were present throughout and that it was reached before they were able to be here today.
Perhaps I may also say at the outset that I do not resile from one word that I said at Second Reading. I believe that the Government are warmly to be commended on the lead which they gave in the negotiations leading to the statute, on their determination to ratify the statute as soon as possible so that we shall not dissipate the influence that we have acquired by arriving late at the table, and, accordingly, on finding time for the Bill. Therefore, I have no mission to complain about a gift horse.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, because, together with my noble friends, I seek to give the Government's artefact an extra polish. I confess that I find it disappointing that successive British governments of whatever complexion have played a heroic role and have then gone out of their way to silence the chorus of approval by ensuring that attention is concentrated not on their achievement but on the defects.
As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, one consequence of Article 27 is that a state which ratifies agrees to waive diplomatic immunities in respect of its own officials in proceedings before the court. That is given effect to by Clause 23. Of course, a statute cannot deprive a potential defendant of diplomatic immunity if the state in respect of which he claims it is not a party to the statute. However, as the noble Lord said, there is provision for that state to waive the immunity if it considers it right to do so because the immunity is there for the benefit of the state which is being served and not of the individual. Clause 23 gives effect to that provision, too.
Those provisions are a necessary corollary of the whole purpose of the statute. Those who commit monstrous offences which fall within the court's jurisdiction are not confined to private soldiers and minor officials. Often they are acting in accordance with a deliberate policy initiated by senior politicians and officials. To provide that they shall be immune from the process would be to frustrate what it is there to achieve. The international tribunals for Yugoslavia and for Rwanda equally provide that there shall be no defence of diplomatic immunity.
That is one of the many ways in which the modern world subordinates the interests of individual states to the needs of the global community. Last year, Mr Kofi Annan expressed that sentiment in a speech to the General Assembly. He said that in a growing number of challenges, the,
"collective interest is the national interest".
Therefore, as I understand it, we are all agreed on the principle to which Clause 23 gives effect.

15
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, for a reason which is not clear—at least, to me—the Bill proceeds to explain that it does not really mean what it says. Although in those situations the right to rely on diplomatic immunity is withdrawn, nevertheless the Secretary of State may direct that the proposed defendant shall not be delivered up to the court. That is a curious provision for at least three reasons.
First, it appears to frustrate the whole purpose of Article 27. Those who might otherwise have relied on diplomatic immunity shall nevertheless be subject to the court's jurisdiction, but only if the Secretary of State decides that they shall.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, it introduces an executive discretion by a politician into a judicial process. The Secretary of State is not required to give reasons for his decision. If he declines to explain how he arrived at his conclusion, no one has the power to second guess him. Thirdly, it opens the door to diplomatic pressures by other states, including the state of which the prospective defendant is a national, in a process which is specifically designed to protect the rule of law from diplomatic pressures.
The Government gave a commendable lead in the discussions prior to the statute in arguing that the prosecutor should not be subject to political interference, yet that is precisely what the Bill now seems to propose. I understand that implementing the statute may sometimes cause a strain in our relations with another state if that state does not wish to see one of its nationals answerable for his conduct. But I should have thought that in that situation it would make life easier for the Government if they can respond to representations by saying that they have no power to interfere with the process.
The Bill could place the Secretary of State in a situation where he must either refuse the request of the other government to intervene, although he has power to comply with that request, or obstruct a prosecution which the British public and world opinion might wish to see undertaken. That is not a method of protecting the Government from embarrassment; it is a recipe for embarrassing the Secretary of State and creating diplomatic difficulties.
I believe that is the view of the many distinguished NGOs in the field of human rights which have addressed some of us on this subject: Amnesty, Redress, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture and the Parliamentary Group for World Government, which is represented in this House, all of which applauded the Government's work on the statute but are now spending more of their time pressing for changes in the Bill. That is a pity. Those of us who tabled the amendment did so because we want the process to work successfully. We did so not to embarrass the Government but to spare them embarrassment. We are all on the same side. I hope that the Government will listen.
Lord Howell of Guildford: This is an important issue and an interesting part of the Bill. I am extremely glad
16
that the two noble Lords—a powerful duo—have jointly moved the amendment, if that is what occurred, and enabled us to pursue one or two matters which need clearer answers than we have had so far.
Discretion is given to the Secretary of State in subsection (4), which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, wants to see removed, that after consultation with the ICC, proceedings under this part of the Bill can be stopped. In other words, the challenge to immunity can be challenged and immunity re-asserted. We need to know from the Minister how far the discretion goes and under what circumstances the Minister thinks it will be used. If it is used, will that be reported to Parliament and that the Secretary of State had so directed under his powers in subsection (4)?
Could one speculate a little as to whether it would be used to protect senior officials, senior Ministers, or even a head of state? The Bill is not retrospective but we can see situations in the recent past where our own senior Ministers, indeed, the Prime Minister, have carried responsibility for actions which have involved the killing of civilians and the intentional bombing of targets which may or may not be genuine military objectives. I have personal views that such actions were entirely right and proper, but many people have personal views that they are not; that they should be challenged and that they constitute war crimes. This might be a place where this barrier—we shall come to others which appear to exist in the Bill—could stand in the way of charges being raised, warrants being issued or even an investigation being initiated against a senior official who, in our view inside this jurisdiction, had acted properly and in the service of the state.
We need much more clarification. As for this being a model for other countries, I have to say that in general I hear the idealism of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. Indeed, we heard similar idealism from the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, last week on the idea that if we follow certain lines and reduce our safeguards against certain unwelcome developments, even safeguards against our national interest, other countries will follow suit and we would have set a good example.
That is high idealism and it is splendid. However, I feel that with some little experience of international affairs it is completely unrealistic. The real world is not like that. There are many countries which have not yet signed, and even signatories such as Iran, which would not take the slightest notice of models and examples that we set. They would look after their national interests, certainly protect their senior officials and insist on immunity with gusto.
To turn the argument on its head, this particular case is one example which, if left in the Bill as the Government clearly want, will be a model that all the countries will follow. They will follow models which enable them to have more protection, more safeguards, more immunities and more guarantees so that they can frustrate the international jurisdiction,

17
international power and the intentions behind the Bill which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and others, have so graphically described.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to the noble Lord. If, as he says, it is true—it may well be—that if the provision we seek to delete is left in, other countries will regard it as a model, does he regard that as an argument for leaving it in or for taking it out?
Lord Howell of Guildford: I regard it as a case for looking at our own interests and leaving it in, not as a case for thinking too much about what will or will not be a model. I have tried to say that the general argument, which was used by the noble Lord with great sincerity, that other countries—perhaps some of the non-signatories which will become signatories such as China—will be influenced for one second by what we leave in or take out of the Bill, is a well-meaning fantasy. However, I also say that this case might be one example which they will follow. I do not know whether or not they will. Even if we leave it out, they will probably put it in again if they have similar legislation.
On balance, my own view starts from our own interests in the international context with a desire to make the Bill work. Nevertheless, I realise that in certain cases the discretion must exist. Therefore, I am not on the side of the amendment, but I should like some of the questions raised to be answered.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): I sympathise with what motivates the noble Lord, Lord Avebury and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. However, they proceed on a mistaken analysis of what the statute brings about and what Clause 23 deals with.
The Rome Statute brings about a circumstance in which immunities shall not be a bar to prosecution before the ICC in respect of those states which have signed and ratified, because by signature and ratification they agree to the provision of non-immunity. This clause provides that diplomatic and state immunity cannot shield representatives of states parties from arrest and surrender to the ICC. That is the first proposition and the first step.
However—this is where the mistaken analysis creeps in—the same is not true of non-states parties. By virtue of subsisting international law which binds Her Majesty's Government, we have to accord diplomatic and state immunities unless the state concerned has agreed to waive them. Two matters follow from that. First, we hope that as many countries as possible will become states parties to the statute. Secondly, we hope that the remainder will not permit immunities to protect their representatives from criminal responsibility. That is the purpose of subsection (4).
Subsection (4) provides that the Secretary of State may direct that arrest and surrender proceedings not he taken against someone who enjoys state or diplomatic immunity. What must he do before he
18
makes that direction? Subsection (4) tells him that he may take that step only after consulting, first, the ICC and, secondly, the state concerned.
Therefore, the provision has nothing to do with any weakening of the power of the ICC to bring to justice those against whom grave allegations are made who are representatives or nationals of state parties. Here we are dealing with the representatives of international sovereign countries which have not agreed to the ICC statute.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I thank my noble and learned friend for giving way. I am trying to follow his argument. However, I am a little puzzled because subsection (4) provides that the Secretary of State may direct that proceedings shall not be taken against such a person as mentioned in subsections (1) or (2). Subsection (1) relates to states which are members.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: And subsection (2) refers to connection with a state other than a state party to the ICC statute. That is exactly the point I am making. One therefore has two categories. Some are representatives of states' parties and some are representatives of parties which are not state parties. That is exactly the point I am trying to make.
Lord Avebury: I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord has fully taken the point raised by his noble and learned friend. The power in subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State to direct that the proceedings do not go ahead in relation to a person such as is mentioned in either subsections (1) or (2). If the noble and learned Lord is arguing that we still need the discretionary power in relation to non-state parties, he has not explained why it is necessary to refer to both the subsections and not just to subsection (2).
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is a legitimate point which, when it is put discreetly, is a better point than the point that my analysis is completely wrong. The analysis I am trying to put is at present based entirely on those who are representatives of non-state parties. I had understood—doubtless wrongly—that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell objected to both. We now understand the nature of the objection. I am saying that in respect of non-state parties, with which I am now trying to deal, the provision is necessary because our obligations under international law require it.
In respect of subsection (1), it is possible in exceptional circumstances, which I concede are difficult to envisage, that the point might be engaged. I am able to say that as regards the states parties and the non-states parties alike, the views of the ICC and the state concerned would be important factors in any decision. I ought to say what government policy is. It is quite clear that war criminals ought to be brought to justice. That is why—and everyone agrees—the Government have been so vigorous in their work on the statute. I am grateful to both noble Lords for commending us.

19
There may be exceptional circumstances in which subsection (4) might want to bite. As the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has put the matter is a little more focused than the general objection, I shall look again to see whether I can give further assurance. I do not know and I must consult my noble friend Lady Scotland on the matter. I do not resile on the non-states party point.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked a question relating to senior Ministers in high authority. I take his point: the statute, when effective, is entitled to strike the mighty as well as their obedient, or directed, servants. He asked whether it would be the occasion of a parliamentary Answer and I believe that it would be. As any such request is likely to be highly publicised, it seems to me inconceivable that a Question would not be asked about the exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion.
I am standing firm on the non-states parties. I realise that it may not be entirely attractive to both noble Lords. I shall look again at the point relating to subsection (1), although I cannot hold out a real prospect of a change of view. However, I might be able to give a firmer assurance about government thinking.
Lord Avebury: First, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, for the apparent discourtesy. I had imagined that after my noble friend Lord Lester spoke to me he would have said something to the noble and learned Lord. It is my fault for failing to speak to him before coming into the Chamber. I humbly apologise for any discourtesy.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for going part of the way with us and agreeing that there is a point to be examined in so far as a power to direct the proceedings should not continue where the accused is a national of a state party. I could not for the life of me conceive of circumstances in which the Secretary of State would want to direct that proceedings should be discontinued in relation to a person who has no immunity because the state party has acceded to the ICC statute and has therefore waived all the immunities. It is therefore inconceivable that any circumstances could arise which would require the Secretary of State to think about exercising the kind of discretion he is given under subsection (4).
However, we go further and continue to insist that it is wrong for the Secretary of State to have the discretion in relation to non-state parties because of the sequence of events which would take place if there were any dispute about the matter. The noble and learned Lord reaffirmed that there would always be consultations between the Secretary of State and the ICC and between the Secretary of State and the non-state party in order to ascertain, first, the fact that no waiver had been issued and, secondly, that the person had the immunity which he claimed.
The circumstances in which the Secretary of State would want to exercise his discretion would be that the ICC and the Secretary of State disagree on whether the accused had made out a case that he was a member of
20
the non-state party and had the immunities which he claimed. We say, and every non-governmental organisation which has examined the point has told the Government, that this is a matter for the ICC and not for the state concerned to which the request is made.
I am afraid that we must disagree about that and return to the matter on Report. However, I hope that it will be possible for us to engage in further conversations with the noble and learned Lord. I speak without the authority of my noble friend Lord Lester, but knowing his character as I do I am sure that he would prefer to resolve the issue by rational argument between us and the Minister rather than by a confrontation on the Floor of the Chamber. I am pleased to see the noble and learned Lord nodding his head.
On the assumption that we can continue to pursue the subsection (2) matter and with the assurance that the noble and learned Lord will look at subsection (1), I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 13, line 12, at end insert
("(4A) The power conferred by section 1 of the United Nations Act 1946 (power to give effect by Order in Council to measures not involving the use of armed force) includes power to make in relation to any proceedings such provision corresponding to the provision made by this section in relation to the proceedings, but with the omission?

(a) in subsection (1), of the words "by reason of a connection with a state party to the ICC Statute", and

(b) of subsections (2) and (3),
as appears to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient in consequence of such a referral as is mentioned in article 13(b) (referral by the United Nations Security Council).").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 74 deals with the particular circumstance in which the ICC investigates a situation at the request of the United Nations Security Council. Any Security Council resolution passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter would be binding on all UN member states. Such a resolution could include a provision that any indictee be arrested and surrendered to the ICC. Such an indictee might be a representative of a state which was not a party to the ICC, and a representative who enjoyed diplomatic or even state immunity. We would nevertheless be obliged to surrender that individual as a result of UN action, and this amendment gives us the power to do so. It provides for an order-making power under the UN Act. That power would be exercised on a case-by-case basis. Any Orders in Council would be put before Parliament in the same way as existing Orders in Council under the UN Act and, therefore, both Houses would have an opportunity to look at the matter.
This is an important provision to enable us to meet a possible obligation which would arise out of a future UN Security Council resolution. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Goldsmith for drawing our attention to the issue at Second Reading. Amendment

21
No. 133 makes a very minor change to Clause 76 as a direct consequence of Amendment No. 74. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.45 p.m
On Question, Whether Clause 23, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I should like extremely briefly to make a couple of points. My concerns are very much at odds with what has been expressed and are very much in a contrary vein to the drift of the main argument. First, I should like to express my caution about the lack of discretion, rather than the concern, which has been expressed, about too much discretion. I have a certain amount of disbelief about the effective abolition of state immunity from representatives of government and heads of state. I have reservations about the desirability of that, and very considerable scepticism as to whether the law will be applied in that way. Are we really to believe that any Israeli head of state or Prime Minister will be indicted? Many people have harsh views about the newly elected Mr Sharon, but I am doubtful whether anyone would be so bold as to initiate proceedings against him which would have extremely inflammatory consequences in a tense situation. I suggest that, in reality, whatever may be the evidence in Chechnya about the behaviour of troops of the Russian Federation, no one would consider indicting Mr Putin. Whatever the appalling record of the People's Republic of China in Tibet, where according to some estimates deaths run into hundreds of thousands, again one can be sure that that will not happen.
Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee how, if it does happen, we can expect diplomacy to continue. Will diplomacy take place only by electronic communication? Will it not take place on third party ground? What guarantees will there be for heads of state visiting the United Nations? The Committee will recall that attempts were made to indict both President Mugabe and Fidel Castro. According to some estimates, the latter is responsible for 30,000 deaths. There were attempts to indict Fidel Castro when he arrived in New York, but somehow nothing happened. I find it difficult to believe that anything will happen, but it does not seem to me that that is the impartial rule of law.
My second point is one that I have raised several times. I apologise to the Committee for not having been present at Second Reading. Although I studied the report of the debate in Hansard, I was unable to find the point addressed in the speeches of the Minister. I refer to the point that I raised twice on the first Committee day in relation to the resolution of conflict by domestic amnesties. Both then and today we had in attendance a charm of lawyers. It seems to me that it is possible to argue that the continuing development of international law poses a real threat to conflict resolution. Unless one believes that every internal conflict should be fought to the last soldier
22
and be resolved only through unconditional surrender, the automaticity that is upheld by enthusiasts for this Bill will mean that some civil conflicts will be longer rather than shorter.
One example of the kinds of contortion that a government might get into are the recent events in Sierra Leone. There the British Government pressurised President Kabbah's government to accept into coalition the RUF party, under the leadership of Foday Sankoh who, according to all accounts, had been guilty of the most appalling crimes, including the cutting off of children's limbs. In the interests of ending the civil war, after the Lomé peace the British Government were anxious to do as much as possible to bring about an end to the domestic conflict. As everybody knows, things did not work out like that. In the rush for the diamond and mineral wealth of the country, the civil war resumed and Mr Sankoh, in his second incarnation, ended up being branded a war criminal. But Britain had had very different thoughts the first time when I put it to the Committee that the evidence was no less than it is now that the most ghastly acts had been committed by his supporters and troops.
I give another example of the dilemmas that can arise. According to the electronic version of the Daily Telegraph for Wednesday 2nd February 2000, Mr Peter Hain, former Minister of State at the Foreign Office, who has been a warm supporter of the International Criminal Court and this Bill, made a speech in which he said that African countries should,
"offer Jonas Savimbi, Angola's rebel leader, safe passage [into] exile and immunity from prosecution for war crimes in an attempt to end the country's 25-year civil war".
According to the report, the Minister of State was asked whether a man branded a war criminal by southern African states should escape prosecution. Mr Hain, who confirmed that he used these words, said:
"It is a matter for other African governments. But if the price of settling this devastating war … was to reach an agreement with Savimbi on where he had a future outside of Angola … all sorts of things become possible".
I continue the quotation:
"I would say to him: 'If you are willing to go into exile and retire and live out your days in the comfort you are obviously able to provide for yourself, it would be possible to provide guarantees about that"'.
I emphasise the words,
"'it would be possible to provide guarantees about. that' ".
Far from being shocked by what the Minister said—in many ways that is entirely sensible—it seems to me that the logic of that is entirely at odds with the thrust of the Bill and the automaticity that is being urged in the so-called impartial application of law. I say "so-called impartial" because politics, political prejudice, fashion and mythology often intrude into views taken of conflicts. We delude ourselves if we think that politics can be entirely excluded from the resolution of such conflicts.
One might instance our own conflict in Northern Ireland which, viewed from another vantage in the world, might lead others to feel that perhaps we should

23
not have had some of the amnesties that have been granted. I might not feel that. I do not feel that. But I can imagine someone else taking a different view. In Northern Ireland we have had a de facto amnesty in order to hasten what we hope will be the end of the conflict. I am not concerned about too little discretion, but that there is not enough. When I put this matter to the noble and learned Lord the other day, he referred simply to the fact that the prosecutor had a degree of discretion. But that is vaguely defined. I put it to the Committee that there is a clear conflict between what is proposed in the Bill and the ending of some ghastly conflicts. Sometimes wars—civil wars in particular—are brought to an end only by politics, negotiation and offers of safe conduct for those who have been involved.
Earl Attlee: I remind the Committee that I have an interest. I have a simple question for the Minister. When we accept diplomatic credentials from a non-state party's diplomats will we be seeking a waiver under subsection 2(b)?
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, raised a number of interesting examples. I wondered when he would come on to Chile. I was very disappointed that he did not refer to the possibility that, if the International Criminal Court had been in existence, some of the leaders of Chile could have been tried under those provisions. Equally, the other examples that he gave were ones which have happened in the past and do not fall to be considered under the Bill because the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is not retrospective. So whatever we may think, for example, about the desirability of prosecuting Mr Savimbi, who has undoubtedly committed, as the noble Lord said, a huge number of war crimes in Angola, that possibility is not open for us.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: The point I was making does not relate to Mr Savimbi but to the general principle. There will be Savimbis in the future; there will be conflicts like the Angolan conflict in the future. I was not seeking to refer to an individual or an individual's situation but to a general principle exemplified by that and which I believe will occur in the future.
Lord Avebury: To pursue the example; Mr Savimbi would already have committed crimes under the ordinary law of Angola. He could be tried under that law. The previous example that the noble Lord gave, which is equally important, was that of Mr Foday Sankoh in Sierra Leone. Mr Foday Sankoh can be tried under the ordinary criminal law of Sierra Leone. I am not altogether clear why the Government and the United Nations consider it necessary to establish a special tribunal to deal with war crimes committed, as he said, in the most appalling civil conflict there, when they can be dealt with under ordinary law. The same applies to Chechnya. Chechnya is technically under the internal jurisdiction of Russia. Any crimes or war atrocities committed by the troops or by the forces of
24
the Chechnyan separatists could be dealt with in the normal course of Russian law. Similarly, there are other examples where domestic crimes are committed within the boundaries of a state.
There may be an argument—there has been an argument, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, says, in the past—for putting an end to a conflict by allowing a head of state or someone who is at a very senior level responsible for crimes that have been committed in that state, to go into exile. The two examples that occurred to me as the noble Lord was talking were Idi Amin and Mengistu in Ethiopia. But if one thinks about that latter example, there have been quite a few trials instituted by the newly elected government of Ethiopia. Under their ordinary law they have dealt with the people who committed atrocities under Mengistu and he is the only one that escaped. Therefore, if one is saying that it is desirable, from the point of view of putting an end to a conflict, to let the person at the apex of the tyranny and the repression go into exile and live a comfortable life in Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe while all the underlings who have committed the atrocities while subject to his orders are to be tried, one must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. It is surely desirable that we have on the International—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Can I put the moral choices to the noble Lord another way? Suppose a war has reached a virtual stalemate. It has gone on for a decade. The only prospect is continuing casualties on both sides. Is it better to fight to the last man until there is no one left or to have a negotiated settlement, which would be impossible under the Bill?
Lord Avebury: If one looks at the cases that we are discussing that would not have happened. I believe that Mengistu was on his last legs at the time when, under American pressure, the Zimbabweans agreed to accept him. Furthermore, in the case of Uganda, Amin would have fallen after the Tanzanian invasion. It made very little difference that he was allowed to go into peaceful exile in Saudi Arabia. Unless the noble Lord can show that letting these dictators off scot-free in the past has been helpful in saving thousands of lives, I do not believe that he has a very good argument. I go further than that and say that if the provision that removes immunity from all officials, including heads of state, of state parties was not in the statute, we should not have the deterrent effect. The whole point of the statute is not simply to bring people to trial for these horrible offences, but to create a powerful deterrent which will stop the offences being committed in the future. If the person at the top believes that he will escape scot-free by having such an immunity—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Perhaps I may put another case. Would it not be in the interests of the people of Cuba if the president of Cuba stood down? But how is the president of Cuba likely to stand down when he might face prosecution for crimes committed in his own country?
Lord Avebury: The whole point that I was trying to make to the noble Lord is that these people—Castro, Savimbi, and so on—are not subject to proceedings under the International Criminal Court anyway because the atrocities that they have committed are in the past and swept into history. It is only crimes committed by Mr Castro or Mr Savimbi after the statute came into force with the requisite number of signatories that will be subject to the jurisdiction of the court. So, while the noble Lord has made an interesting point about the immunity of heads of state, it is not one that we have to consider under the Bill. The Bill only brings into effect the provisions of the International Criminal Court Statute. The International Criminal Court Statute says that there will be no such immunity and it would be impossible therefore for us to make any provision in the Bill which does not agree with that.
The Earl of Onslow: When we were last in Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, met me on the stairs and said that no hereditary Peers were taking part in the debate. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was. I shall now disabuse him. I shall disabuse him because of what my noble friend Lord Lamont has said. I shall put the issue in a long and historical context.
The essential point is to stop punch-ups. When Charles came back to this country he realised that there had been social upheaval and crimes committed by both sides. Because he never wanted to go on his travels again he determined that as much as possible should be forgotten and forgiven. Incidentally, that is why I still own my small property in Surrey. So I am extremely pleased with Charles II.
Having said that, he recognised that civil war—punch-ups—always involve horrors. It is essential to allow people to get away and escape to stop the continuation of those punch-ups.
The French in 1815 did not learn that lesson. I suggest that, in some ways, the Allies in 1918 did not learn the lesson of a gentle peace. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referring to Mr Castro. Is it not lovely how criminals and dictators are always called "Mr", but if someone is nice and pleasant he is always called by his Christian name by the media? That is one of the supreme ironies. Mr Castro is not going to be tried for anything retrospectively. If he did do something nasty, he would be tried for that.
However, we have to live in the real world. I am not defending the nasties, but we know that they exist. It is the nature of the conflict of mankind. If we want to get rid of the nasties, we must exorcise the poison. That frequently means letting very unpleasant people live in villas in the south of France on ill-gotten gains, which have probably been paid for by taxpayers in Scunthorpe, Washington or Paris, and which have been siphoned off into Swiss bank accounts. We have to swallow our disgust at their behaviour and say that it is better for that to happen, as my noble friend Lord Lamont says, than that the slaughter continues. We should bear in mind the fact that we sometimes have to accept that, and that is why I am sympathetic to what my noble friend said.
4 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Before the noble Earl sits down, does he agree that it is very easy to bear the sufferings of other people in a forgiving spirit?
The Earl of Onslow: I quite understand that, and I equally understand the serious moral dilemma involved. We have to weigh the balance between ending something by getting the nastiness out of the way and holding our nose and thinking that although we do not like the man, we would rather that he lived in a villa in the south of France than that the slaughter should continue. I accept what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, says because I know that he is a great fan of human liberty, for which I admire him. I hope that I am as well, but occasionally one has to hold one's nose in its defence.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: I had not intended to speak in the debate, partly because this is a detailed clause and partly because I could not attend at Second Reading for which I was unable to apologise. In view of the way in which the discussion has evolved in the past 20 minutes, I want to add a word of sympathy for the basic point that my noble friend Lord Lamont raised. On several other quite important matters, I do not agree with him, but I share instinctively some of his concerns on this matter.
Quite often, there is a tension between peace making and justice. My noble friend gave some examples of that. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that such examples related to the past. My noble friend was trying to project the dilemmas into the future by asking how we would handle these events if they happened again. Therefore, his remarks were legitimate.
I would add South Africa to my noble friend's list of examples. Serious offences were committed there, and the people against whom they were committed—to refer to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer—decided not to proceed down the road of investigating and punishing crimes, although the allegations were serious and terrible and fell within the scope of what we are discussing. Instead, they set up a truth and reconciliation commission, with Archbishop Tutu as its chairman and Nelson Mandela as one of its authors, because they believed that that was a better way of securing the settlement of harmony in the rainbow nation. Most people thought that that was right and that it would have been wrong if one of those against whom allegations were made had turned up in London, Paris or Washington and had been arrested and brought before an international court when the judgment of those in the newly democratic South Africa was to have a different procedure.
My main worry about this whole concept is a slightly different one. We argue all the time in this House about matters of policy, and ethical foreign policy, which is a perfectly legitimate argument. Most of us accept, however, that in matters of policy there must be room for disagreement—even illogicality. In relations between a country like ours and the rest of the world, we cannot be expected to be completely consistent in everything. The moment that we begin to

27
shift, or claim that we are shifting, on matters of policy from the discretion of Ministers or parliamentary control to matters of law, we are trying to elevate discussion to a different level. If law is to be valid and valuable, it needs to be impartial and universal. Unfortunately, that concept, coming out of the Rome treaty, is unlikely to be either. It will affect those who are useless from a point of view of diplomacy, those who are defeated and those who are weak. It will not touch those who are powerful and continue to be important players in the world of diplomacy. In policy, we have to make these discriminations, awkward though they may be. Once one begins to talk about international law, one has to achieve a higher degree of impartiality than we shall do under the treaty or the Bill.
Lord Stewartby: I want to add the briefest of footnotes to what my noble friend Lord Hurd has said. The dilemma between peace and justice has arisen, and continues to arise, in Northern Ireland, as my noble friend knows—probably better than I do. It is with us in many circumstances and is likely to continue to be so. Such dilemmas are inherent in these situations before they can be resolved.
Lord Howell of Guildford: This debate on clause stand part has predictably expanded into a debate about one of the most important dilemmas in the Bill. The issue has been rightly raised, as it has been before and will be again. I shall certainly raise it at Report stage. The issue is about the danger of confusing matters of politics with matters of law, and the resulting confusion. In answer to the interesting excursion into 17th century history of my noble friend Lord Onslow, I recall that some of the regicides were brought to justice, although I am sure that the balance and reconciliation that my noble friend called for were also present, as well as a bit of shrewd politics.
The debate and the earlier discussion on the amendment relating to citizens of states parties highlights that there is something of a major loophole in the structure of the Bill. It is a loophole through which our country may not seek to leap but through which other countries can be imagined leaping only too eagerly. At Report stage we shall have to examine the matter much more closely to be satisfied that, in the light of the broad aim of having a better means of catching international monsters and perpetrators of atrocities, we have the right legislation on our statute book to achieve that. There seems to be a doubt over the matter at the moment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have to remind myself that in the interests of economy we are in Committee rather than having a Second Reading debate. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has recognised that. I shall deal with a few of the matters because I know that Members of the Committee regard them as important.
We need to bear in mind the fact that the Government have signed the statute in company with a large number of other countries. We hope that that
28
number will increase. The purpose of the Bill is to implement the statute. I take on board fully, and respectfully, the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Hurd. Essentially, we have a philosophical difference about how to go forward. I respectfully suggest that that question has been resolved by our signature to the statute.
What we are doing through the Bill is seeing whether, mechanically, we are producing appropriate legislation to give effect to that statute. I take the point about high state policy. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, that many of the illustrations given are to be met with the proposition, which he put, that this is not retrospective. It is equally true that one can extrapolate that type of example for the future, as did the noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Hurd. In answer to the general questions of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, I would say that we do not have a perfect system whereby the mighty are brought to justice for their wicked cruelties, though we do have systems of justice that punish individuals. That is the philosophical step that we are engaged on.
It is true, I dare say, that in the future we will not find all experience of the statute, when ratified into law, perfect on every occasion. The stance that we adopt—I hope that the Opposition will adopt the same stance—is that this is a distinct improvement on what presently is to be found. It is intended to deter for the future. That point, which I endorse, was made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It is intended to say to those who are powerful people, sometimes in extremely powerful countries—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—that they will not necessarily be safeguarded for ever. The noble Lord mentioned the People's Republic of China. It is a matter for it to decide whether to sign and ratify. It is a matter for the state of Israel to decide whether to sign; and if it does, whether it wishes then to ratify. But, having taken those two steps with all due deliberation, none of them should think that their subsequent leaders or present leaders for subsequent offences are liable to go unpunished.
That is a significant step forward. On this side of the Committee and in other parts of the Committee we rejoice in it. We do not pretend that it will be simple. But once upon a time—I am sorry to be as historical as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—the barons were not tried by juries; and once upon a time the clergy were not tried by juries. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, corrected the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, about the regicide. I frequently take visitors to see the death warrant and have noticed that many of the signatories were indeed Welsh. If it is said that after the restoration all was sweetness and light, I must send a postcard to the Duke of Monmouth.
The Earl of Onslow: The Duke of Monmouth was James II, not Charles I.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I said "after the restoration". In the Onslow saga I suppose the most definitive argument is that the noble Earl is still the possessor of land and therefore we should do nothing that might interfere with his peaceful enjoyment of it.

29
There is no ducking this question. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, was right to raise it and the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, was right to endorse it. We recognise the difficulties but we believe that this is the way forward. It is a step of high policy. At the moment we are engaged in seeing to the difficulties and intricacies of putting that decision into legislation. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, it would not be necessary to ask for a waiver when credentials were delivered. It would be a matter for subsequent investigation.
Contrary to my own self-instruction, I have spent a little time on Second Reading matters as I thought it was appropriate to do so. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will not insist on his opposition to Clause 23 standing part of the Bill.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Delivery up of persons subject to criminal proceedings, &c.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Perhaps I may ask one question about Clause 24, which introduces Schedule 2. How will the provision apply to United States servicemen? We have already had a discussion about how the Bill affects diplomatic immunity in respect of non-state parties. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the effect of the Bill will be that even though the United States does not ratify the court, the servicemen of the United States could still be arrested and tried by the court if found on some third party territory? Will he confirm that they could be arrested and could be put on trial before the International Criminal Court? Is that not one of the major concerns of the US Administration and one of the reasons why the court is unlikely to be supported in the end by the United States?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall need to have precise details about the circumstances being posited by the noble Lord. At the moment individual servicemen are liable if they commit offences in foreign territories. That is the present state of the law. There have been notorious prosecutions in that regard. I really do not know what the ultimate attitude of the United States Government will be. All I know is what the noble Lord knows, which is that the former president signed. It is a matter for the US Congress to ratify.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I am sure that the noble and learned Lord would wish to make it clear to the Committee that even President Clinton, who signed the statute in his last days when he was doing a good many other controversial things, thought that the court needed to be amended to safeguard American personnel—and without that it could not be ratified.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As I have said on earlier occasions, the statute is not capable of being amended in the way suggested by the noble Lord. My understanding of the United States constitution—the
30
noble Lord will recognise this—is that both Houses of Congress would need to ratify. Present indications are that that is less rather than more likely. But I am perfectly happy to correspond with the noble Lord about any points of particular detail.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may try to assist the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, by referring him to Article 17.1(b), under which a case may be ruled inadmissible if it has been investigated by a state which has jurisdiction over it and the state has decided not to prosecute the person concerned. In the circumstances referred to by the noble Lord where a United. States serviceman is accused of some offence in a third jurisdiction—a future Somalia, as it were—the military authorities of the United States would investigate any allegations that crimes had been committed by their servicemen. If they found that there was a case to answer, they would prosecute the servicemen by means of their military courts. If they decided that there was not sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, that would equally be grounds for saying that the case was inadmissible in proceedings before the International Criminal Court. They would then notify the International Criminal Court that they had examined the allegations against the servicemen, had found that there were not sufficient grounds for prosecution and had not gone ahead and were therefore requesting that the court treat the case as being inadmissible in its jurisdiction.
Lord Burnham: It might be for the benefit of the Committee if an appropriate amendment were brought forward on Report. The noble and learned Lord might then be able to study the situation and provide a slightly more conclusive answer.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am certainly happy with that. I think that one needs to be quite particular about the answers one gives to questions. I am perfectly happy to do that. In some circumstances, the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would be correct. In other circumstances, there might he alternative criminal proceedings to be taken against United States servicemen. But answering general questions and trying to be specific does not help anyone.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Schools Green Paper
4.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend

31
the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on the schools Green Paper. The Statement is as follows:
"I wish to thank all those who have assisted me in drawing up these proposals and to put on record my appreciation to teachers and non-teaching staff across the whole of the country for the work that they are doing day in, day out, to turn policy proposals into reality in the classroom and beyond.
"Four years ago, we promised that we would improve school standards. Last week, the Chief Inspector's report confirmed the improvements in literacy and numeracy which have transformed primary schools. Standards are rising fastest in those schools where under-achievement has been most pronounced—in education action zones and through the Excellence in Cities programme. We have seen over 650 schools successfully removed from special measures. We will deliver our class size pledge ahead of schedule.
"We are laying the early foundations, with 120,000 more young children in free nursery places than four years ago. We are committed to universal free nursery education for all three and four year-olds and to providing childcare places, benefiting 1 million children by 2004.
"We have expanded the Sure Start programme, and I am pleased to announce today that the number of early excellence centres will be increased by 100.
"Our task now is to build on these foundations to sustain change in primary schools and to transform secondary education. We have made a start, in particular through Excellence in Cities and the considerable expansion of specialist schools and through our investment in buildings and repair. But in partnership with teachers and parents, we need to move further and faster.
"Today's Green Paper, Schools: Building on Success, sets out the three key challenges. First, we need to improve standards still further. For primary schools, we are consulting on new targets for achievement at age 11:85 per cent gaining level 4 in English and maths by 2004 and 35 per cent reaching level 5. We aim for a step change in performance in the early secondary years. We will be setting demanding targets for achievement at age 14, building on success in primary schools. Attainment at this age is a key determinant of GCSE performance. Ninety-three per cent of those who reach level 6 gain five or more good grades at GCSE. So, that is why we are already taking action. We have introduced new programmes of teaching in 200 schools with more challenging targets and catch-up provision, and with tests for 12 year-olds who have fallen behind.
"From this September, we will extend this programme to all English secondary schools, backed by £82 million of investment this year. We are concentrating renewed attention on secondary
32
schools which have low levels of success and helping those schools facing the biggest economic and social disadvantage through new pupil learning credits.
"The second challenge is a focus on diversity and choice to ensure that the individual talent of pupils is fostered and that their weaknesses are addressed. Through a more diverse curriculum and improved support, we can transform their life chances. The national curriculum remains a basic entitlement. However, in addition, we will ensure that children have access to sport, the arts and to citizenship programmes.
"I can announce today our intention that over time every child in primary school will have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument and experience one of a range of sports. But we need to do much more to offer real choice. We will accelerate pupil achievement with experimental programmes for youngsters taking tests at 13 rather than 14 and ensuring more early entries for GCSE. I am also able to announce today the establishment of a new centre which will spread good practice in addressing the needs of gifted and talented pupils. We will offer a new vocational route, providing choices in work-based as well as in full-time, practical GCSEs, leading on to apprenticeships for those who would benefit.
"The third task is to extend diversity among schools, so that every secondary school develops a particular ethos and plays to its strengths, as well as contributing to its community and to the wider education system. We will double the current number of specialist schools, with a new target date of 2003 for the first 1,000, and leading to 1,500 schools within five years. Consistency is important. I can today also announce the creation of advanced specialist schools, extending their role to assist in teacher training and school leadership. We have already announced the first city academies in inner cities. Today, we are proposing new forms of partnership with the voluntary and private sectors to support schools.
"Beacon schools enable the best of our schools to share best practice with others. I can, therefore, tell the House that, as well as offering beacon status to 1,000 schools by this autumn, we will also expand the programme to some schools which demonstrate excellence in working with their community. This Government have been the first to support new voluntary-aided schools for different faiths. We believe it is important that, where there is parental demand, we support such schools. We recognise that the costs to Church and other faith schools of funding 15 per cent of capital investment have been considerable, in particular with improved funding from government. I can today announce that, following discussion with the Churches and other faith groups, we intend to reduce this contribution to 10 per cent.
"To succeed in reforming standards in schools, we need to recruit and retain good teachers. There are 2,250 more people training to be teachers today than

33
a year ago. This is a direct result of action we undertook last year. This year's pay settlement, helping in particular new recruits and experienced teachers, is important. There has been a 12 per cent increase in those applying for training, along with more than a twofold increase in inquiries. However, we need to look further at how we can persuade good graduates to consider teaching and to stay in the profession.
"The Green Paper proposes that we consult universities about developing teaching modules within a wide range of undergraduate courses, so that young people gain a taste and experience of what teaching has to offer, and, for some, to complete the in-school graduate teaching programme on a fast track. Beyond this, in shortage subjects—maths, English, languages, science and technology—we will assist new teachers by paying off their student loans at the rate of one-tenth of their debt in each year that they remain teaching in the state sector. During that period, they will not have to make repayments. This is a substantial new incentive to graduates to come into and to stay in teaching.
"The programme I have announced today sets a clear direction for schools over the next five years. It builds on policies that work. It offers consistency and continuity together with modernisation. Teachers will be supported by improved training and by cutting out bureaucracy and addressing teacher workload. It will be backed by increased autonomy for headteachers of successful schools, building on changes in inspection and funding, including over the curriculum and improved pay and conditions for staff. It will be underpinned by the substantially increased investment we have provided in both the day-to-day running costs of our schools and in the fabric of their buildings.
"Our policies are designed to develop the potential of, and offer equality of opportunity to, every child from whichever background they come and whichever school they attend. We have today moved beyond the old arguments to create a schools system appropriate for the 21st century. I commend the Green Paper to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement in this House. I should also like to point out that we have seen the content of this Green Paper trailed throughout the weekend and this morning in the Sunday Times, the Sunday Telegraph, the Sunday People, the Independent, the Daily Mail and various other newspapers; on the BBC, on ITN, on Sky and Radio 4 and, of course, on almost every other broadcast media.
The Statement is breathtaking in its audacity. It is easy to understand that panic has given rise to it. We are told that the Government now believe in selection, in private sector running of schools for profit and in academies for talented, young children.
34
The Government have failed to deliver on education, and the Secretary of State knows that. After four years, the Government's policy on education is failing parents, children and governors, especially in our secondary schools.
The Secretary of State also knows that, under the Government, class sizes in secondary schools have risen—a point consistently made during the passage of the Bill in this House which dealt with primary school class sizes. As confirmed by Ofsted, the Government's targets on exclusions have undermined discipline in classrooms, and the energy and enthusiasm of our teachers has been absolutely stifled by burdening them with red tape and paperwork—a directive per day since the beginning of last year.
The Government are presiding over a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention, about which more will be said next week, that has left schools around the country without sufficient staff and has done serious harm to the education of tens of thousands of children. As we all know, many subjects are without specialist teachers in our secondary schools. What is the Government's answer to these problems today? Immediate steps to reduce bureaucracy and enforce discipline? A task force? A czar? No. I am afraid that all we have is a Green Paper and a speech from the Prime Minister mapping out his "agenda for the future". We have been here before. As your Lordships would expect, both the Prime Minister's speech and this Green Paper are awash with spin but very little promise of delivery.
In his speech last Thursday, the Prime Minister made some definite pledges in relation to students. However, each of those so-called new pledges had already been announced by the Secretary of State in a press release on 14th September 2000. Perhaps that slipped the Prime Minister's mind. In this regard, as in so much, the Government are at least predictable. Today on the radio we heard the Prime Minister pledging to increase, in the next Parliament, the share of national income spent on education—exactly the same pledge that the Prime Minister made before the previous Parliament, exactly the same pledge that the Government have failed to deliver in the present Parliament.
We have asked on a number of occasions for information about action zones. To date we have received none. Given today's Statement, will the Minister now let me have any evaluation reports on action zones and the part played in them by the private sector? Will the Minister also confirm that, during this Parliament, the Government have spent an average of 4.6 per cent of GDP on education, compared with an average of 5 per cent by the previous Conservative government, and have therefore failed to deliver on their 1997 manifesto commitment to spend a greater proportion of national income on education than the previous Conservative government? The Secretary of State has not delivered on that pledge. Why should we believe him this time?
There are even more pledges in today's Green Paper—diversity in secondary education, businesses to take over failing schools, head teachers to be given

35
greater management freedom from LEAs. We obviously welcome the language and the rhetoric of many of the proposals in the Green Paper—certainly those that have been copied word for word and pasted from the Conservative Party's website! We particularly welcome the Government's acceptance of the principle, which we have long advocated, that the private sector should be allowed to take over the management of schools. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Secretary of State has abandoned his previous dogmatic insistence that no private sector company could make a profit running state schools?
So far, we have something old and something borrowed. What is new in the Government's package? It has to be the Government's decision today that they suddenly favour selection. Everyone who watched the Secretary of State's lips at the 1995 Labour Party conference, saying, "No selection by examination or interview", will have been startled by today's announcement. On this issue, the Government are guilty of much confusion. The Secretary of State said that specialist schools would be able to select 10 per cent of their pupils. However, he told Radio 4 that they are not selective. And what of the new national academy? Will the Minister tell the House how pupils will be selected, if not by examination, interview or aptitude, to attend the national academy for gifted and talented children?
Labour's confusion over selection is symptomatic. They have attacked grammar schools but have introduced selection in inner cities for the brightest children and now propose to introduce it for those who wish to take vocational GCSE examinations. When will the Government stop their vendetta against grammar schools and scrap grammar school ballots? Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister's office that our comprehensive schools are merely "bog standard"? How does the Prime Minister believe that parents, children and staff in our schools will feel about being described in such an inelegant way?
The Secretary of State refers to diversity and choice. He offers bureaucracy and confusion. It is clear from the Statement that the centre will still impose its will on our schools. Will the Minister now accept that the only way to provide for the freedoms that she, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State advocate is to free our schools of the shackles of LEAs, to provide, on the basis of a national formula, direct funding for each school, and to set schools free to decide what is right for their pupils, untrammelled by bureaucratic and politically correct interference from central or local government? Why should we believe a government who abolished maintenance grants and introduced student loans, without any manifesto commitment, and now suggest paying off student loans? That would be tough on a teacher of music, history or geography, because they do not feature in the Secretary of State's list.
Our schools need to encourage and develop the talents and abilities of every child, enabling all children to achieve their full potential. Our aim is to provide the education that is right for every child. To achieve that,
36
we need an education system with hallmarks of excellence, diversity and choice. We need a system in which schools would be free to set their own ethos and maintain it through their admissions policy; free to set and exert discipline; free to receive the whole of their budgets direct and spend them in the interests of their pupils; a system in which teachers are trusted and free to get on with the job of teaching children and raising standards. This Green Paper does nothing to provide the freedom for which our teachers and schools are crying out.
Since coming to office, the Labour Government have conducted a vendetta against grammar schools. In opposition, the Labour Party opposed choice and diversity in schools, selection, performance tables, city technology colleges, specialist schools, freedom for schools to make their own decisions at local level and private sector involvement in the running of our schools. This is a most extraordinary volte-face. However, it remains rhetoric. The Government have not delivered in this Parliament. Why should we believe that they will in the next?
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for introducing the Green Paper. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I also noticed that over the weekend the Statement was widely leaked. However, that had the beneficial side-effect that those of us wanting to respond to it today were well briefed as to its contents. As with so many papers on education produced by the Government, we on these Benches regard it as a curate's egg. We welcome many of its proposals. There are other aspects of it about which we are extremely wary.
I begin with the issues that we welcome. First, we are delighted to see an expansion of the Sure Start programme. We all agree that there is an urgent need for an expansion of nursery provision, especially in the most deprived areas of this country.
Secondly, we welcome the new initiative on music and sport in primary schools. That is long overdue. Irrespective of their parents' income, children should be given opportunities to learn a musical instrument or enjoy specialist sporting facilities. It is not right that access to those provisions should depend on income and class.
Thirdly, we welcome the introduction of teaching modules to undergraduate courses. On a number of occasions undergraduates have already participated in teaching their specialist subjects in schools. I know that that was an initiative of Imperial College. It is a very important way of introducing undergraduates to the pleasures, perhaps as well as to the downside, of teaching. We on these Benches welcome that new initiative and wish it well.
Fourthly, we congratulate the Government on the success of the literacy and numeracy strategies. The report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools last week set out some very real achievements in that regard. We were delighted to learn of them. It is very

37
important that we should overturn the situation in which 20 per cent of the people of this country are functionally innumerate and illiterate. In that task, it is absolutely vital that we should start with the primary schools.
For that reason, we also welcome the fact that the Government are now turning their attention to secondary schools. For a long time, many of us have wondered what goes wrong in the first years of secondary school. Children going up from primary schools are often full of zest for learning but, in one way or another, they lose that zest in their first year. As we have seen from the inspector's reports, not only do they lose it but in some instances their performance goes down during those first years. It is therefore extremely important that we look at some secondary schools and try to improve the quality of teaching. There are, of course, very many good secondary schools but, sadly, perhaps too many that do not come up to scratch.
There is a question as to whether the move towards more specialist schools is the right one. It is on this issue, in particular, that we have doubts about the Green Paper. It raises the question of when is a specialist school a selective school. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, left us in no doubt whatever that, as far as she was concerned, this is an extension of the introduction of selection. The Secretary of State, Mr Blunkett, was more careful, both in the Frost interview yesterday and on the Today programme this morning. He talked about selection not by ability but by aptitude. But those are words, words, words. When is ability aptitude? What does "selection" mean?
The problem, quite frankly, is that we are moving towards a situation in which 46 per cent of secondary schools will have specialist status. That is fine. In Guildford, we have five secondary schools, four of which now have specialist status. I worry, to some extent, about the one that does not have specialist status; or, if you like, the other way round, the 54 per cent of secondary schools in this country that do not have specialist status.
The largest of our comprehensive schools in Guildford has only recently had specialist status. It was announced among the latest batch of schools to be given specialist status. It did not really want to become a specialist school—it is a very successful comprehensive school—but it felt that it could not afford not to apply for specialist status. Why? Because it means money. It means an extra £100,000 in terms of capital expenditure and, for the next four years, an extra £123 per pupil. It is therefore of considerable advantage to any school to claim specialist status. However, the danger is that the schools which do not get specialist status will be the schools which perhaps need the money and the resources most.
I am delighted that the Statement mentions that schools in the most deprived areas will receive resources. Perhaps the Minister can spell out precisely what is meant by that. It is left extremely vague. The Government will be,
"helping those schools facing the biggest economic and social disadvantage, through new pupil learning credits".
38
Neither the press statement nor the Green Paper tells us very much about what pupil learning credits are and what they will do. I should like to know much more about them. We need to know what the 56 per cent of secondary schools which do not have specialist status—those schools which may be, in the impolite phrase, bog standard comprehensives—will receive. Are they not the ones which need help the most?
This brings me to our final query on the Statement, the issue of teacher shortages. Again, it is nice to see the Government at long last admitting that there is a crisis in teaching. We on these Benches have been saying for a long time that we were building up to a very real crisis, and time and time again the Government have assured us, "Crisis"? What crisis?" There is a crisis. The Government have to face the fact that they cannot possibly deliver on their promises on secondary education unless they can get teachers into place in the schools.
I have been arguing for a long time that we need to do something special about science and maths. I have seen with my own eyes that, time and time again, we are not replacing teachers who retire. Increasingly, pupils are being taught maths by non-specialist teachers. It is not good enough. We now know that, in terms of recruitment of new people into teaching, teacher numbers are down not only in science and maths, but in modern languages, history and geography. Even English is now a shortage subject for secondary schools.
Yes, we need to attract many, many more good graduates into teaching, but I am wary of whether these sticking plaster gimmicks are the answer to the crisis. We need to pay the profession decently. Even more importantly, we need to give teachers the trust and status that their profession deserves. There has been a steady erosion of those two values, which, if I may say so, is as much a result of the policies pursued by the Opposition as the policies pursued by the Government. That has landed us in the crisis we now face. Until the Government take action to reverse the trend, I fear that they will never solve the problem.
4.46 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was amazed by the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to the Green Paper. Not a single thing could she bring herself to welcome. I accept that it is the job of the Opposition to oppose, but usually a thoughtful Opposition think deeply about a Green Paper of this kind and are able to find some areas where they can say, "The Government are doing the right thing. We welcome it and we support it". But not the noble Baroness.
I am, however, grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for the welcome that she gave to some of the proposals in the Green Paper and for the fact that she was willing to acknowledge that there have been improvements in our schools, notably in literacy and numeracy results in our primary schools.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, began by arguing that we had not done the job she thought we should have done on class sizes. So far as concerns infant class

39
sizes, we are now down from nearly 500,000 children in classes of over 30 to around 30,000. We have had the first fall for many years in class sizes in junior schools. As to secondary schools, there is a tiny increase in class sizes, but this increase is on a long-term trend; it was taking place in the very years in which the noble Baroness not only was a member of the government but also the Minister of State for schools. Adult pupil ratios in our secondary schools are fairly stable.
The noble Baroness went on to berate what she called red tape and the paper chase in our primary and secondary schools. She neglected to accept the absolute commitment that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made to reduce the amount of material that goes into our schools. He has pledged that there will be a reduction of one-third in the number of papers sent to schools, and that there will be a reduction of 50 per cent in the number of pages that teachers—in particular, head teachers and senior teachers—have to read. A good start has already been made.
The noble Baroness went on to claim that there is a very serious teacher shortage and a decline overall in the number of teachers in our schools. There are 7,000 more teachers today in our schools than in 1998. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was a little unfair in suggesting that the good ideas set out in the Green Paper about making sure that we increase the number of good graduates that we recruit into teaching—and, indeed, that we retain more teachers—was only sticking plaster. That is not the case. It is beholden on opposition spokesmen to come up with better ideas rather than always to be negative. I have not heard any better ideas from either of the two spokesmen opposite.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about education action zones. I cannot provide her with an evaluation report containing the information she asked for. We know that schools are improving faster in education action zones nation-wide, and the same is true of excellence in cities areas. In both cases, we are seeing a substantial improvement. Again, it is a pity that the noble Baroness felt unable to acknowledge that.
The noble Baroness asked about school funding. She was not quite accurate as regards the Government's pledge. What we said was that more of the national income would be spent on education at the end of this Parliament than at the beginning. That has been delivered. In 1996–97, 4.7 per cent of GNP went to education; in 2001–02 the figure is 5 per cent, and that will rise to 5.3 per cent by 2003–04. The figure is against a period of economic growth, when national income is going up, unlike under the previous government when, for a number of years, overall national income went down.
The noble Baroness went on to ask about specialist schools, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. We want all schools to have a distinct character and mission. We want all schools to be excellent at the basics and to play to strengths other than the basics. It is our intention to identify more beacon schools, as
40
well as more specialist schools. We shall examine more ways in which a school can become a beacon school—for example, by demonstrating excellence in working with the community.
As regards selection, only 7 per cent of specialist schools are making use of the option to select up to 10 per cent of pupils by aptitude. The noble Baroness laughs, but I think that answers the question she posed.
The noble Baroness asked about the national academy. There is a slight misunderstanding on the part of the noble Baroness as to the purpose of the centre for gifted and talented youth. It will co-ordinate better provision for gifted and talented young people through, for example, an extension of the summer school programme, which has already been seen to benefit such youngsters. We also want to involve the universities in continuing to work at the further development of what has been a very successful experiment.
I can say categorically that we have no intention of scrapping grammar school ballots. The noble Baroness cast aspersions on the Government's commitment to greater diversity and greater autonomy. The Government are serious about this. We have every intention of making it possible for our schools to be freer in a variety of respects: through what they pay their teachers and through the lifting of the national curriculum, especially for those young people who would benefit from more work-related learning and a more vocational programme. The noble Baroness seems to neglect the fact that financial delegation has increased to the maximum level that it makes any sense for it to reach without cutting into the vitally important funding that local education authorities need for special educational needs and the provision of decent school transport.
I believe that I have answered all the questions that were put to me, with one exception. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked about schools in deprived areas receiving pupil learning credits to make it possible for younger pupils to receive some of the benefits that middle class and upper middle class parents give to their children almost automatically. I think I can help her. We have plans in this area. Those schools with 35 per cent or more of their pupils on free school meals will benefit from this help. They will receive between £240 and £360 extra per pupil per year.
This is an imaginative and innovative programme. It is focused particularly on building on the success of changes in primary schools and on taking this through into secondary schools. I am disappointed that the Conservative Opposition were unable to welcome at least some of the proposals.
4.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I hope that I may give her a little encouragement. Like many diocesan bishops, I have responded to the Church Schools Review Group, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. He has encouraged all of us to increase the

41
provision of secondary schools in our dioceses. Therefore, I welcome some recognition by the Government of the clear moral and spiritual framework—the clear ethos and the mission statement—of many of our Church schools. That responds to the needs of parents and is an aid to raising standards in schools. The point needs to be acknowledged and recognised. Therefore, on behalf of the Churches and the other faith groups, I welcome the suggestion that this kind of provision may be extended and that the Government will explore further the idea of diversity among schools.
I also welcome the grant increase from 85 to 90 per cent to aid schools with the cost of capital works to provide, improve and repair school buildings. The Church schools are, I believe, the only group which is still paying VAT on such works. It is a continuing problem. Will the Minister give an indication of the timing of the introduction of the increased grant?
Will the Minister indicate how the Government will help the Churches and the minority faith providers to respond to the 100 new schools initiatives? I am sure that they would examine any such proposals with great interest. We want to do what we can. In the diocese of Lincoln, we are working with Lincolnshire County Council to support the teaching of religious education and to undergird the moral framework of many of the county's schools. We want to do all that we can to enhance and support the good relationships we enjoy in that regard. Some of the material in the Green Paper indicates that we may receive a little more encouragement. I should welcome any indication from the Government as to how that might be taken forward. On behalf of the Churches, I thank the Minister for the Green Paper. I welcome it, and in particular the generous increase in the grant.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the welcome that he has given to those aspects of the Green Paper that he identified. Because it is a Green Paper, we shall be consulting on much of the detail, including his final point. We shall want to talk to the Churches about those issues.
As regards the timing of the increase in the capital grant to Church schools, subject to consultation and the passage of the necessary legislative procedures, it should be implemented from 1st April 2002. I am especially grateful for the welcome given by the right reverend Prelate to the extension in the number of Church schools. We have read the report by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. We wish to talk further to the Churches about how we might move in that direction.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on what they have achieved thus far in education, and on what they are planning to achieve. Can the noble Baroness say whether the Government have any plans for that important minority of children who do not receive the support and encouragement of their parents in respect of education?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has a chance to read the Green
42
Paper he will notice a number of proposals within it that are geared to try to help the children whom he has identified. In responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I mentioned the new funding that we are providing for schools in deprived areas where not all children lack the support of their parents. This will provide access to sports facilities, extra music lessons, visits to museums and theatres; in other words, all the enriching activities that are extremely important. The additional help that we want to provide to those young people who come into secondary schools but who are still not reaching the target levels that the Government have set will, again, he an important way to help children who have not been given very much support at home.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on presenting such a radical Green Paper on education. The document is impressive in its scope, but also—at first glance—in the degree of detail that it addresses in relation to some of the most stubborn, long-standing and increasingly difficult issues that face our schools. I welcome the very clear statement that the process will be conducted in partnership with teachers and parents. I particularly welcome the fact that there is such an emphasis on the individual child, as well as on the circumstances of the family and on the home in very disadvantaged communities.
From what my noble friend has said, I believe that the new pupil learning credits will open up tremendous enrichment possibilities for children who would otherwise never go to a theatre, learn a musical instrument or participate in activities that other children take for granted. The Government have taken many steps in that direction; indeed, that is an extremely welcome development.
I have one question for my noble friend, building on what she said about transition between primary and secondary school. This is a time of extreme vulnerability for some children and a time when a good deal can go wrong. Does my noble friend have any further information on what the Government are doing to improve that process and make it easier for primary and secondary schools to work together?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend has said about the emphasis on the individual child. A great deal of the Green Paper focuses on raising standards, extending diversity and providing greater autonomy for schools. However, the needs of individual pupils must never be ignored. That is why we are considering pupil learning credits and why we are looking at extra provision for the gifted and talented. Indeed, it is why we are considering ways of lifting the national curriculum for those pupils in secondary schools who will benefit from a more vocational form of education and learning, thereby giving them greater opportunities to spend some of the week in their local FE colleges. We want to see much more collaboration between the FE sector and the secondary sector.

43
As regards the transition from primary to secondary school, it is absolutely vital that the progress we have been making in our primary schools with higher levels of literacy and numeracy, as well as better overall performance in science, is maintained when children make that move into the secondary sector. We expect there to be very good contact between secondary schools and feeder primary schools. We also expect those children who have not done as well as anticipated to be given extra help. They should be identified as a result of information being passed from primary to secondary schools right at the beginning of their secondary careers, so that they can receive the extra help that they need.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Blatch, I welcome many of the ideas in the Green Paper. The ideas of diversity and autonomy have long been at the heart of Conservative education policy. We must rejoice when the sinner repents, even if—as in this case—it is a rather late repentance in the life of this Parliament. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, my concern relates to the 54 per cent of secondary schools that will not be specialist schools.
As the Minister well knows, and as the Government have acknowledged, there is already a crisis in finding sufficient specialist teachers. The creation of so many specialist schools and the huge proportion of secondary schools becoming specialist schools will soak up a very large number of specialist teachers. Inevitably, they will see the attraction of teaching in a school that specialises in their subject. They will be mopped up as they finish initial training, and the good teachers will be instantly recruited by the specialist schools from wherever they worked. Can the noble Baroness say who will be left teaching in the 54 per cent "bog standard" schools? Where will we find the good teachers of history, geography, modern languages and mathematics? As a trustee of a city technology college, I already know that we have difficulties in securing enough technology teachers in specialist areas. Can the Minister say what will happen as regards finding good teachers—the best teachers—for those who may most need them in the other schools?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I shall not repeat what I said in my initial response to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about those schools that opt to stay and provide the whole range of the curriculum and do not wish to become specialist schools. I believe that I set out the Government's position in that respect in some detail.
The noble Baroness asked about teachers. There is a great deal of information in the Green Paper about finding new ways to recruit more and better teachers, and about getting teachers into the classroom quickly and retaining them. I do not believe that all teachers, even those teaching the subjects that will be the focus of some specialist schools, will necessarily want to teach in specialist schools. Many of them will be happy to teach in comprehensive schools that decide not to go
44
down the specialist route. That is certainly the case at present in those areas where there are a number of specialist schools.
The noble Baroness mentioned history and geography, which are not the subject of a specialism. We shall not have schools specialising in either history or geography. We expect all schools to teach those subjects and to teach them well. I believe that the noble Baroness is being unduly pessimistic, especially in the light of the numerous proposals in Chapter 5 of the document about finding ways to increase the number of people who come into secondary school teaching. Those proposals include introducing modules into undergraduate programmes, which will, I hope, encourage more students at that stage in their careers to think about teaching because they find it challenging, exciting and interesting—indeed, something to which they might not have been exposed were this change not introduced.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would be willing to dissociate herself from that extremely unfortunate phrase "bog standard" comprehensive schools which, in the experience of many people present in the Chamber, is injurious to those communities of both pupils and teachers with which so many of us have been involved during our working lives outside this House.
Further, will the noble Baroness admit that the information that we are short of teachers in maths, English, languages, science and technology—that is, the main subjects of the national curriculum—is most disconcerting and worrying, especially when the DfEE's own figures show that there has been a 14 per cent reduction in applications for student teachers in secondary schools, compared with 1997? These declines are particularly severe in maths, modern languages, English and in history and geography where the figure is more than a third. Class sizes are at their highest for the past 25 years. Heaven knows, I am no apologist for the former Conservative government, but that is a pretty startling statistic, as is the one that vacancies are at a 10-year high. I do not think that we can be fobbed off with platitudes about an extra 2,000 teachers in training positions this year.
Does the Minister think that the Liberal Democrat proposal to pay teacher trainees a £15,000 training salary would be of assistance? Has she any ideas as to how the inspection of schools can be conducted rigorously but without discouraging teachers?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked many questions. I start with the final point about the inspection of schools. We are talking to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector about a lighter touch as regards inspections, particularly in those schools that have demonstrated success over a sustained period of time, and about trying to reduce the bureaucracy of inspections. As regards shortages of teachers in some

45
of the subjects which are covered by specialist schools, the Government are not complacent about the shortages.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, my remarks were addressed to the national curriculum; that is, the bits of the education system that children arc supposed to have to do well in.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Baroness. I believe that she also made reference to the fact that these are the very subjects that are taught in specialist schools. It is absolutely true that we must have more well qualified teachers in these fundamental subjects that have to be taught to all pupils under the national curriculum. However, the document is full of proposals to try to overcome the shortages that the Government readily accept exist in these subjects. Some of the figures that the noble Baroness has just given are not altogether accurate. There are currently 7,000 more teachers in our schools than there were in 1998. This year I believe that there has been a 12 per cent increase in the number of applicants wishing to take a PGCE. The noble Baroness suggested that—
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the increase is in primary rather than secondary teachers?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness is a Front Bench spokesman and has already had her turn. It is not right for her to ask further questions when it is the turn of Back-Benchers.
The Liberal Democrats can always come up with proposals for paying trainee teachers £15,000 a year because they never have to do the sums that one has to do when in government. I do not think that £15,000 a year is a realistic figure to pay those who are literally training rather than people who are based in schools under a rather different kind of programme and who are paid more than the £6,000 training salary that we provide for those undertaking a PGCE course.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, may I welcome this further imaginative instalment of the Government's programme and perhaps suggest to my noble friend that the biggest danger she faces is being undermined by the actions of some local education authorities? I give just one example of this educational vandalism. In the most deprived area of Bristol it is proposed to close Whitehouse Primary and Gay Elms Primary, Gay Elms containing the only specialist autistic unit for children in the whole of Bristol. Will she be vigilant that this sort of outrage cannot be slipped past her because it will only undermine the very excellent efforts which have been pronounced?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot comment on my noble friend's question about the closure of two schools in a local education authority. The Government want to continue to work in a constructive way with LEAs right across the country. That is what we are doing.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, the Minister has not answered the question about bog standard schools. Does she agree after four years in office with Downing Street's statement that our comprehensive schools are bog standard? Can she tell the House how schools select by aptitude given that all parents think that their children have aptitude? How can one select on that basis?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, comprehensive schools are diverse and we wish to make them more so. There will be many different kinds of comprehensive school, some of which will specialise and others which will not. The Government wish to widen the autonomy of our comprehensive schools and make sure that all of them have the opportunities to excel in some areas. On the issue of whether all parents think that their children have aptitude, I do not think that that is entirely true. It is rather unfair to parents. I believe that all parents want to support their children. Speaking as a parent, I never thought that one of my children had an aptitude for modern languages. He found them extremely difficult. I would never have made that claim. However, I believe that teachers are able to identify children who demonstrate an aptitude for modern languages. They might want to encourage those children to go to an appropriate specialist secondary school.

International Criminal Court Bill [H.L.]
5.17 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Schedule 2 [Delivery up of persons subject to criminal proceedings, &c.]
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 43, line 35, at end insert ("and shall advise the Scottish Ministers of the result of such consultation.
(4) The Scottish Ministers may direct that the criminal proceedings shall be discontinued.
(5) Where the Scottish Ministers direct that the criminal proceedings shall be discontinued, the court before which the proceedings are pending, or in progress, shall?

(a) order their discontinuance, and

(b) make any other order necessary to enable the delivery order to be executed (including any necessary order as to the custody of the person concerned).

(6) The discontinuance of criminal proceedings under this paragraph in respect of an offence does not prevent the institution of fresh proceedings in respect of the offence.").
The noble Lord said: We turn from the rather wider issues of the previous discussion to some detailed amendments concerning the Scottish jurisdiction.
Amendment No. 75 ensures that the same provisions in relation to the discontinuance of criminal proceedings in a domestic court apply in Scotland as in England and Wales. As currently drafted, the provisions in relation to criminal proceedings in

47
Scotland make no reference to the fact that Scottish Ministers may direct the discontinuance of proceedings which are pending or in progress.
Amendment No. 76 ensures that the same provisions in relation to the discontinuance of extradition proceedings in a domestic court apply in Scotland as in England and Wales. Amendment No. 77 has the same effect in relation to the discontinuance of delivery proceedings in a domestic court and ensures that they apply in Scotland in the same way as in England or Wales. The reasoning behind the amendments is similar. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his explanation. It is not a necessary amendment for the following reason. In England and Wales there are a number of possible prosecuting authorities and therefore one needs to specify that the Secretary of State may direct discontinuance. In Scotland it is only the Lord Advocate or the procurator fiscal acting in his name who may prosecute. If there were a requirement to discontinue, the Lord Advocate would direct the procurator fiscal to desert the proceedings, prolocoet tempore, in accordance with the well established Scottish tradition. That is, therefore, the reason for the omission; not oversight.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. In the light of his view that the amendment is not necessary to meet the problem, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Meaning of "appropriate judicial officer" and "competent court"]:
[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 14, line 16, leave out ("the Sheriff of Lothian and Borders")") and insert ("in Scotland, a sheriff").
The noble Lord said: The amendment ensures that all sheriffs in Scotland, and not only those sitting in the sheriffdom of Lothian and Borders, can act as an appropriate judicial officer under the Bill.
We agree that the appropriate judicial officer in the Scottish context should be the sheriff and the competent court the sheriff's court. However, we can see no justification for restricting this function to sheriffs sitting in Lothian and Borders. Sheriffs all over Scotland have experience of endorsing warrants from foreign jurisdictions and implementing similar provisions in other statutes. It would seem appropriate to amend the section to enable all sheriffs to act as appropriate judicial officers.
As currently drafted, the Bill makes no distinction as to who would be regarded as an appropriate judicial officer in England and Wales. The amendment seeks to clarify the definition of the term as it relates to Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may again trouble the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General about the constitutional position regarding Scotland. The amendment touches on Scotland.
On 15th January at Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, told us that,
"the Scottish Parliament will be considering the ICC Bill in parallel. But certain provisions of our Bill also apply to devolved matters. The consent of the Scottish Parliament to these matters is being sought by the Scottish Executive".—[Official Report, 15/1/01; col. 928.]
It will be argued that in practice it is more than 99 per cent certain that the Scottish Parliament will do what is recommended to it. However, in constitutional law it is not obliged to do so. It can say, "No, we shall have nothing to do with this. We shall not play ball. We don't like the Bill for one reason or another and we refuse to pass either a parallel Bill or to deal with the ancillary provisions referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on 15th January". What happens in those circumstances? Does it render the Bill inoperable? How does it affect the United Kingdom's international treaty obligations? This is a possible, unintended consequence of devolution. The Scottish Parliament can do what it likes, but this could adversely affect the United Kingdom as a whole.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not sure that the latter question arises from the amendment. However, I repeat what my noble friend said. Discussions have been continuing. There seems to be no difficulty about the view of the Scottish Parliament in introducing parallel legislation.
On Amendment No. 80—I appreciate that Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 were not moved—the reason we have this designation in Scotland is the same underlying reason as in England and Wales. First, it was the model in the Extradition Act 1989. In that Act the competent court in Scotland is described as the Sheriff of Lothian and Borders.
More fundamentally, not simply that we have always done it this way, there will be a small number of cases. We think that there is virtue, as there has been with the former chief stipendiary in Bow Street, in having whatever expertise can be collected within a single court. That is the only reason for having the provision.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps he will answer this question. It goes back to what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said. If the Scots want to pass this Bill—the noble and learned Lord says they do—why should they not say who is the appropriate officer in Scotland. The noble and learned Lord says, "They will, won't they?" That may be true. They probably will. He is very often right. But now that we have got ourselves into this delicious

49
devolutionary muddle, it is surely up to the Scots in passing the Act of Parliament to state who should undertake this task, not for us to do so.
The noble and learned Lord has twice sloughed off the question of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Can he please give a well thought out answer to that question? It is a serious question.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Earl asks a different question. The answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has been given previously by my noble friend. It remains the same. My understanding is that it is for this Parliament in this legislation to nominate the sheriff of Lothian and Borders within the Scottish jurisdiction. If I am wrong about that—I undertake to check it with some care; it is a distinct point on the amendment—I shall write to the noble Earl. Subject to my own further inquires which I shall make as soon as possible, I understand that our Scottish colleagues have already agreed that that should be the appropriate judicial officer. However, I shall check that. Whether I am right or wrong, I shall write to the noble Earl and put a copy in the Library.
Lord Monson: Does the Minister agree that the Scottish Parliament has the right not to pass a parallel Bill if for any reason it decides that it does not want to do so?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That was implicit in the earlier answers which my colleague and I gave.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his response. I understand the reason underlying the limitation of the definition of "appropriate judicial officer" to the sheriff of Lothian and Borders. Expertise has been built up in that court in relation to extradition matters. It seems perfectly logical that that expertise should be applied to any matter which arises under this Bill, which may become an Act.
If that is so, should not the same proposition apply with regard to English courts? I do not understand why a parallel conclusion should not have been reached in relation to the courts of England and Wales.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It may be recalled that I dealt with this point on an earlier occasion by saying that it would either be the chief magistrate—whom the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland and I still remember as the chief metropolitan stipendiary—or, as I then indicated, district judges as designated by the Lord Chancellor, so they are likely to be few in number. If necessary that would be available in the larger jurisdiction. It is very unlikely that we would need more than the one court in Scotland.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for clarifying that matter. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 82:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause
GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN LAW AND ORDER
(". Nothing in the ICC Statute shall affect the responsibility of the Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State, or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State. by all legitimate means at its disposal.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the new clause after Clause 26 is to focus our minds on the issue of civil disorder and the means that the Government may have to use to quell civil disorder or place the country in a state of emergency. It will be important—the amendment is intended to achieve this—to ensure that the United Kingdom remains sovereign and free from any restraint or interference from the International Criminal Court. The amendment refers to "all legitimate means". That may mean—we have to accept it in a difficult world—in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the use of force. It is important to ensure that the ICC could not begin an investigation, raise charges or issue warrants to prosecute service personnel who had been engaged in those activities. That issue could be raised by the present wording of the Bill. We have tabled the amendment to avoid any doubt and to ensure that the internal problems of this nation are the preserve of the state.
We have rightly been reminded several times that the jurisdiction is not retrospective, but we can proceed only on examples of what has happened to try to understand how the legislation will work. The current inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday in 1972 in Northern Ireland is revealing various new facts and aspects. It could conclude that no further action is justified and that all the truth, rumours and legends have come out. Our Government would then decide that that was the end of the matter. Could the International Criminal Court then step in on such a matter of civil order and pursue the investigations on the grounds that they had not been dealt with thoroughly enough? The amendment would ensure that should another such event occur—we pray to God that it does not—and should the animosities, miseries and hatreds of that event be perpetuated, the Government would be within their rights in maintaining and establishing law and order throughout the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for indicating the nature of his concern. I hope that I can reassure him. Article 8.3, which is on page 11 of my copy of the statute, says:
"Nothing in paragraphs 2(c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means".
I am happy to give that reassurance.
Lord Howell of Guildford: The noble and learned Lord says that he is happy with the reassurance, but I do not suppose, by any chance, that he is telling me that he is happy with the amendment. Presumably he believes that it is not necessary.
There is a general point to be made, almost in passing. Certain things can be interpreted from reading the statute. Our purpose is to put them on to the statute book of the United Kingdom. My argument is that the more clarity and reassurance we put into our legislation, the less we might be left arguing later about what the statute really meant and why the provision was not in our legislation. However, I accept the Attorney-General's reassurance that the issue is dealt with in the statute. When we deal with such matters in future, we shall have to remember that this exchange has taken place and that what is in the statute is intended to be relevant to our law. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Rights of persons during investigation: article 55]:
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 48, line 11, at end insert—
(". Any waiver of rights under paragraph 2 above shall be documented in writing by that person and witnessed by an independent person.").
The noble Lord said: All the amendments in this group are concerned with one important issue—that the Act shall ensure that all the rights, protections and privileges that would be afforded by English law shall be afforded to persons from this country delivered up to the ICC. They should receive the same protection as they would if they were on trial in England or Wales.
Amendment No. 83 concentrates on the specific right of additional protection for all those involved in the investigation process by ensuring that a waiver of the person's rights to have counsel present would not be effective unless granted in writing and properly witnessed. That point was put forward by the Law Society of Scotland.
The other amendments raise broader questions. Our aim in Amendment No. 85 is to ensure that the rights of persons during an investigation are preserved as they would be if they were being tried in a domestic court in the United Kingdom. I accept that there is a difficulty. We are dealing with an ambience of international justice. The International Criminal Court is an international body and it will have its own procedures. The notion that it can provide for citizens of individual states the protection that their national law would give them on a criminal charge may be regarded as idealistic, but it is a worthy ideal that we should pursue as effectively as we can.
As has been said in earlier debates, this is the problem that has caused the United States Federal Government and Congress such enormous difficulty. It is one of the chief reasons why, although the United States has signed, it does not intend to ratify the ICC
52
project without substantial amendment. The US Federal Government do not have the power to take away from their citizens the constitutional right to a fair trial. That is one reason why the amendment would be of benefit.
One of the overall aims of the project is to bring the United States along. Those who founded the project and have worked so hard on it over the years—some of whom are sitting in your Lordships' House at the moment—must recognise that if the court cannot bring the United States on board, its credibility will be severely affected. Conversely, if the United States can be persuaded to take a constructive role in the assembly and to work for the necessary further changes—and even to wait the seven years until the statute may be formally amended—the project will be much further forward. The amendment would serve the higher purpose of making the project a success.
I should be glad if the noble and learned Lord could define what is being imposed on the English citizen and what rights are not underpinned by the Bill in its present form. That needs to be clarified. The amendment would at least address the United States' problem. It would enable any future Secretary of State faced with an ICC request relating to a US citizen to ensure that that person would at least have their basic US rights guaranteed before they were handed over to the International Criminal Court. That might make a difference, although it will be very uphill work with the United States whatever we do.
The same point is made in Amendment No. 86. A person subject to ICC proceedings should have no fewer rights than those that would be available to him or her in his or her home state. Those rights can be established by expert evidence. We attach specific importance to the possibility of an American being detained under an ICC warrant while in the United Kingdom. That is perfectly possible.
That provides enough detail to establish our reasons for tabling the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that I can demonstrate that the safeguards which troubled the noble Lord are provided satisfactorily either in the statute or in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
Schedule 3 to the Bill reproduces Article 55 of the Rome Statute. That article sets out in detail the rights of persons during investigations. The persons concerned cannot be questioned until they have been informed of their rights under Article 55 and have consented to interview. Such consent must be either in writing or, if given orally, recorded in writing. Therefore, the element of consent to interview is important.
As I said, the written waiver requirement is provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the ICC—in Rule 112(b). Those rules are in final form, subject to adoption by the first Assembly of States parties. I have no doubt that the consent provisions in the Bill and in the rules of procedure give full safeguards to a person being interviewed—not least, for example, the right to counsel.

53
With regard to Amendments Nos. 84 and 85, I believe that the rights are fully provided for. The right relating to, for example, the presumption of innocence is found in Article 66 of the statute. The right not to be tried twice for the same offence is in Article 20. The right to a trial in public is in Article 67, as are the rights to cross-examine witnesses, to representation by counsel of the person's choosing without payment, and—I must be careful about this—to remain silent without the drawing of adverse inferences from such silence. Therefore, I do not believe that it could be said that any fewer rights would be provided than those which apply in domestic tribunals here.
I have mentioned before but believe that it may be convenient to refer again to the right to assistance, free of cost, of a competent interpreter and translation in any of the proceedings. English will be one of the two working languages of the ICC. Having signed up to the statute, I do not believe that we should try unilaterally to impose obligations on the ICC and to impose conditions on co-operation.
Perhaps I may turn to Amendment No. 86. Clause 29(4) goes no further than existing domestic legislation, which allows us to assist other countries in requests for evidence. It reflects the provisions of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, which does not distinguish between persons on nationality alone. This amendment would have the effect of giving our courts lesser powers for obtaining evidence than they have in relation to domestic cases before them. Therefore, it would mean that in some cases a duality of approach would arise.
If one traces the matter through—I agree that one must trace it quite carefully through the statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence—I do not believe that the concerns expressed by the noble Lord are well founded. I do not believe that any disadvantage arises.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord wanted to speak to Amendment No. 87, which was originally placed in this group. There are so many in the same grouping. Amendment No. 87 relates to costs. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to speak to it in this grouping or later.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I thank the noble and learned Lord. I overlooked that final amendment. In a sense, it relates to a specific right. The amendment is put forward in the belief that there is no justification for precluding a costs order in favour of a person ordered to produce under the section. That is the belief behind the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It may be helpful if I respond to Amendment No. 87 at this stage. Again, subsection (6) is based on Schedule 1 to the Act to which I referred earlier, the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary. It would increase the likelihood of the domestic taxpayer meeting the costs of these cases.
54
If an order for costs were to be made, one of the parties would be the government acting on behalf of the ICC. We could not then pass on the costs to the ICC because Article 100 of the statute provides that the costs of the execution of requests in the territory of the requested state shall be met by that state, apart from a few exceptions which do not involve this type of assistance. Therefore, any costs would have to be met by our public purse. We do not consider the amendment to be necessary.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question relating to a matter touched on by my noble friend on the Front Bench. It may save time if I refer to it now rather than during the debate on whether the schedule shall stand part. It is the question of retrospection. As my noble friend referred to the provision not being retrospective, can the Minister comment on that? Can he also give us an absolutely copper-bottomed assurance—in so far as a Minister's assurance on such a matter can hold water—that the Bill definitely would not he retrospective?
I say that because I was puzzled by an issue which arose in the recent case relating to Senator Pinochet. I checked in Hansard and found that when the torture convention was introduced in, I believe, 1987 or 1988 by my noble friend Lord Patten, it was stated unequivocally in the House of Commons that the legislation was not retrospective. Yet, I was puzzled that it took until the third hearing of the Law Lords on a seven-to-two judgment before allegations relating to pre-1988 were ruled out of order. If the matter was so crystal clear, one would have thought that it would have been obvious to the Law Lords who ruled in the previous judgment. Therefore, I am sceptical and anxious about the assurances that have been given that what is being proposed in this Bill is not, and could not in any circumstances be, retrospective.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am happy to give that assurance.
Lord Howell of Guildford: The noble and learned Lord also reassured us that the rights of people who are delivered up to the International Criminal Court will be secured. He went through in considerable detail a list of the rights which would be secured. In this type of exchange, one must remember that whatever reassurances we may give or receive here, a problem exists in the minds of many very senior figures in the United States. In their Congress, in parts of their legal system—although I see that the American Bar Association has taken a less stringent view—and certainly in political and presidential circles there is a conviction that the constitution of the United States provides rights which will not be provided by what will be a foreign court.
I notice one right on our list that the noble and learned Lord did not enumerate, and I understand exactly why—because it may be an impossible demand. It is that there will be a right to trial by jury.

55
Can one imagine trying to piece together a jury structure for the International Criminal Court? I believe that enormous difficulties would arise in that regard. Of course, the rights listed in our amendments are not comprehensive; there are others.
Therefore, given the binding fact that the statute has been signed, this exchange leaves one uneasy as to whether we have done all that we can. Whether it was right to have signed up to the statute in its present form is another matter outside the purview of this debate. However, the question arises as to whether we are doing all that we can to ensure that every possible right is secured and, in doing so, to open the way for the United States to see its way to accede to and ratify the statute.
In this debate we have talked a great deal about models and examples. As well as the models and examples which we hope will influence other countries with less high traditions of democracy and less routine and strict adherence to the rule of law, perhaps we should consider models and examples which will make the project work and bring along the most powerful nation on earth. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 not moved.
Clause 29 [Taking or production of evidence]:
[Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Taking or production of evidence: further provisions]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 15, line 37, leave out ("sensitive").
The noble Lord said: Clause 29 concerns the taking or production of evidence. It applies where the Secretary of State receives a request from the International Criminal Court for assistance in the taking or production of evidence in the United Kingdom. Clause 30, to which Amendment No. 88 applies, deals with provisions in relation to proceedings before a nominated court in the United Kingdom, that is to say a court nominated under Clause 29.
Under Clause 30, the Bill provides that a court nominated under Clause 29 can sit in private, if it considers it necessary, in order to protect victims, witnesses or suspects, or to protect confidential or sensitive information. The clause is in line with Article 64.7 of the Rome Statute under which the International Criminal Court can decide to sit in closed session.
The purpose of the amendment is to test the Government's view as to what categories of evidence they feel might fall within the expression "sensitive". It is easy to see why confidential information should form part of Clause 30, and admirable that victims and witnesses, or a person alleged to have committed an
56
ICC crime, should in certain circumstances be protected. But why do we need this wide category of "sensitive"?
It is an important principle of court proceedings in our country that they be held in public. It is only in exceptional circumstances that that principle is not respected. If it is not to be respected, in our submission that should be so only in specific circumstances. We believe that those circumstance should be set out on the face of the Bill. Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to react to that thought. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful, again, as always, to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for his careful explanation. He is right that this is taken from Article 64.7 of the statute. It is important to note that that article starts with the words:
"The trial shall be held in public".
That sets down the marker. It continues:
"The trial chamber may, however, determine that special circumstances require that certain proceedings be in closed session for the purposes set forth in Article 68"
and then the relevant words, as he rightly observed,
"or to protect confidential or sensitive information to be given in evidence".
A large number of people would be traumatised in these cases—and it is not limited simply to young children—and although the material is not strictly speaking confidential in the sense of legal confidentiality or medical record confidentiality, it would be—I use my words carefully—a double attack on such people if certain intimate private matters, which are not capable of definition but capable of being categorised, would necessarily have to be in the public domain.
The important matters in Article 64.7 are, first, the presumption that the trial should be in public, and secondly, the discretion given to the court. That discretion has to be scrupulously exercised. It seems to me, without prejudging the conclusion of the judges, that they would need to think carefully about Article 10, for instance, on freedom of expression, and so forth. But there must be an area of evidence which really is so sensitive—I do not speak of national security sensitivity in this context—that it should not be in the public domain.
The curiosity is that if the amendment is accepted, it would mean that material which could not become public in the ICC would already have been made public at the evidence-gathering stage in this country. It seems to me to be the wiser course that if the discretion is to be exercised, it should be exercised determinatively by the trial court and not allowed to be open to the domestic court in effect to pre-empt that discretion. If the sensitive material is taken in public in

57
this country, there is no discretion left for the ICC to have it in private session. I do not think that is simply a lawyer's forensic argument; it goes to the substance of matters.
Lord Avebury: Does the Minister envisage that a request will be made by the ICC to hear this particular evidence in confidence? I refer to the case he mentions, where child victims of or child witnesses to atrocities might be giving evidence and their identities and relationships to the events in question need to be confidential for their own protection. First, why should that not be dealt with under the provisions which allow protection of victims and witnesses? Secondly, would the court decide of its own volition what the ICC is likely to want to treat as confidential information or will it have received a notice from the ICC saying, "In the case of this particular witness, if the case comes before us, we intend to maintain confidentiality. Therefore, will you do so also?"
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is an interesting question. The answer that offers itself to me, speaking immediately in answer to it, is that there might be three distinct sets of circumstances. First, it might be that the court of its own volition would take the point. Courts are now much more proactive in such matters, which I would suggest, in parenthesis, is right. Secondly, there might be a request from the ICC, and thirdly, there might be a request put forward by the individual, if he or she were represented, or by someone who is not a legal representative but who might be a representative of an authority in the relevant country.
It seems to me that all of those are possible. It is likely that the ICC might well make the kind of request referred to by the noble Lord. If the request were not made and the opportunity was then lost, its own discretion is taken away.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question, which I ask in a spirit of constructive inquiry. I know that he will always pick his words carefully; I have never heard him not do so. Can he tell me how this compares with English law as it stands currently?
Lord McCluskey: This is a matter on which I was going to speak, not in relation to English law, but it is perfectly common for judges to have to make a ruling of this kind in cases at present. Thus, for example, in cases in which there has been a sexual type of assault, the court may exclude the public, and commonly does so. That is a perfectly normal type of provision, already operated by judges. However, what interests me is that when a judge excludes the public from the court, the press is not excluded. However, there is an understanding, which can be buttressed by certain powers of the court, that the press will not report the matter publicly. However, it is important that the press is allowed to be present as representing the public, but exercising a self-denying ordinance in relation to reporting prurient and other sensitive matters.
6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful. In courts north of the Border the discretion has been exercised for significantly longer. In answer to the noble Earl's request for a review of every conceivable circumstance in which courts in this country may sit in private, the legislation is relatively recent. In part, it was modelled on the Scottish experience. Therefore, there is the possibility in rare circumstances—and they should be rare—to have evidence taken in closed session. I exclude issues of national security, which I do not believe were behind the noble Earl's question.
As regards the press, today I received a letter from the Society of Editors. Unfortunately, it arrived almost as I entered the Chamber. It made the noble and learned Lord's point that if the public are to have eyes and ears there, perhaps there should one or two members of the press to represent the media, but, more fundamentally, to represent the public. I should like to examine that issue because we were able to meet those concerns in earlier criminal justice legislation. However, as the letter arrived only today I have had no opportunity to make inquiries. I am sympathetic to the point which the noble Earl implied and the noble and learned Lord spelt out.
Lord Kingsland: I, too, just received the letter but after I had introduced the amendment. The noble and learned Lord has reassured me by saying that he will reflect on the matter. Between now and the Report state I, too, want to reflect on his thoughtful answer but I will ask him one question arising out of his initial response. He spoke of the possibility of a public hearing of a matter in this country subsequently reheard by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, in circumstances in which it would have reached the conclusion that it ought to have been heard in private in The Hague but was faced with the fact that it had already been heard in public in the United Kingdom. Would the International Criminal Court of Justice be rehearing evidence which had already been heard at its request in a nation state?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: In some circumstances, yes. It would not be rehearing it; it would be receiving it for the first time. If the evidence had been given in public in a United Kingdom court, it would be receiving evidence that had already been given. It would not be a rehearing; the court would be receiving for the first time in The Hague material which had already been received domestically.
Lord Kingsland: I understand that, but I had thought—wrongly, as it turns out—that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General had said that in certain circumstances The Hague court might hear the evidence again. In all those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Transfer of prisoner to give evidence or assist in investigation]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 16, line 24, at end insert—
("(1A) Where the prisoner is detained in Scotland, the Secretary of State shall transmit the request to the Scottish Ministers.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 90, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 91 to 95 and 136. Under Article 93.7 of the statue, the ICC may request the temporary transfer of a person in custody for purposes of identification or to give testimony. The person may be transferred only with his consent and the consent of the country concerned. He will remain in custody throughout and will be returned to the state when the purposes of the transfer have been fulfilled. Clause 32 enables us to meet our obligations under Article 93.7.
The government amendments to Clause 32 have two aims. The first aim is to extend the clause to Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has already given its consent for this to happen. This will ensure that there is consistency throughout the UK with respect to the temporary transfer of persons in custody to the ICC. The mechanism for dealing with ICC requests for temporary transfer will mirror that in Clause 43 of the Bill, which relates to the temporary transfer back to the ICC of persons who are serving ICC sentences in this country. The second aim is to ensure that all persons in custody in the UK are covered by this clause.
Amendment No. 94 would extend the definition of "prisoner" for the purposes of Clause 32. The amended definition would include not only all persons serving a sentence but also all persons detained in custody otherwise than serving a sentence. That would include, for example, someone in custody in relation to ongoing extradition proceedings or someone in custody for contempt.
It would also include persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971. In order to ensure that such persons are not disadvantaged in respect of any ongoing claim under any immigration Act by agreeing to give assistance to the ICC, the person would, for the purposes of immigration legislation, be considered not to have left the UK while he was subject to the temporary transfer warrant.
Amendment No. 136 is consequential on the earlier amendments. By virtue of the extension of Clause 32 to Scotland, Clause 78, which defines the extent of this Bill, will also need to be amended.
We believe that these amendments will improve Clause 32 and make us better able to fulfil our obligations and to provide support to the ICC. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 91 to 95:
Page 16, line 25, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("relevant Minister").
Page 16, line 27, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("relevant Minister").
Page 16, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) a person serving a sentence in a prison, or in a young offenders institution, to which the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 applies,").
Page 16, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert—
("(ba) a person detained in custody otherwise than in pursuance of a sentence, including in particular—

(i) a person in custody awaiting trial or sentence,

(ii) a person committed to prison for contempt or for default in paying a fine,

(iii) a person in custody in connection with proceedings to which Part II or III of Schedule 2 applies (extradition or other delivery proceedings),

(iv) a person detained under any provision of the Immigration Act 1971.

(5A) For the purposes of the Immigration Acts (within the meaning of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999) a person detained under any provision of the Immigration Act 1971 is not to be regarded as having left the United Kingdom at any time when a transfer warrant is in force in respect of him (including any time when he is in the custody of the ICC).").
Page 16, line 42, at end insert—
("(6) In this section, "the relevant Minister" means—

(a) in relation to a person detained in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State:

(b) in relation to a person detained in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 37 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Investigation of proceeds of ICC crime]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 51, line 37, leave out paragraph 5 and insert
("5.—(1) A person affected by the making of an order under this Part of this Schedule shall be entitled to apply on 24 hours' notice in writing for the discharge of the same.
(2) The application shall be heard by a judge, other than the judge who made the order, without notice.
(3) An appeal against the refusal to discharge shall lie without leave to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).").
The noble Lord said: Most telegraphically, Schedule 5 deals with the investigation of proceeds of an ICC crime. Part I deals with production or access orders and the amendment seeks to replace paragraph 5 of the schedule. We believe that provision should be made on the face of the Bill for a right to apply on notice for the discharge ofsuch an order and for an appeal against refusing to discharge. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Clause 29(4) exactly mirrors Sections 93H(7) and 93H(8) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The amendment would have the effect of putting on the face of the Bill provisions which I am happy to reassure the Committee the Government intend to make in Crown Court Rules on

61
the general effect of production and access orders. With his usual courtesy, the noble Lord nods. I could go further and explain the unmitigated defects of the amendment as drafted, but I believe that it is purposeless.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Freezing orders in respect of property liable to forfeiture]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I should advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 97 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 98 and 99. If Amendment No. 98 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 91.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 55, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 on page 57.
The noble Lord said: In effect Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 cancel each other out or cover the same ground. Amendment No. 97 would remove from the schedule paragraph 9 and Amendment No. 98 would remove both paragraphs 9 and 10. These amendments are concerned with the position of unsecured creditors in relation to a bankrupt's estate, which is already subject to Crown preference for debts and the effect of mortgage securities.
As I understand it, under the schedule as currently drafted if a person subject to ICC jurisdiction is adjudicated bankrupt any property owned by him which is subject to a freezing order, whether made on the basis of an actual conviction and forfeiture order, or on the basis of a threat of one—either can be the case under this legislation—will not form part of his estate. I am advised that in real terms this means that the unsecured creditors of the bankrupt, which exclude the Crown as preferential creditor, will be deprived of the benefit of those assets which form part of the estate available for distribution. One must ask two questions. First, where does the Crown fit into this, or does the ICC have preference over Crown preference? Secondly, what justification is there for a provision which in the event of insolvency places the unsecured creditors in an even worse position than many believe they are already? These amendments have the effect of removing from the schedule what we regard as the offending paragraphs. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I wish I was able to claim such intimate knowledge of the bankruptcy legislation as the noble Lord. I am happy to say that God has saved me from that in the past but his protection is now being taken away from me. The noble Lord is quite right. However, if as the amendments suggest, paragraphs 9 and 10 were removed, there would be no provision left in the Bill as to how freezing orders
62
should be enforced. I also agree with the noble Lord that if paragraph 9(1) was deleted it would mean that when a person became bankrupt after a freezing order, property subject to that order could not be used to pay off a bankrupt's debt. If that provision was removed we would be unable to implement an ICC forfeiture order and thus would be in breach of our obligation under the statute to enforce it. If the noble Lord suggests that perhaps the degrees of preference are sometimes capable of unfairness, in theory that may well be so. However, we have our statutory obligations.
The noble Lord asked me a particular question about precedence. I am assured that the answer is that the precedence given to the ICC is the same as precedence given to domestic criminal confiscation orders and overseas orders. The recovery of the proceeds of crime takes precedence. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's last question. We believe that we must give precedence to our international obligations. If the amendments were carried the gap created would mean that we could not do it.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He takes a very kind view of my grasp of these matters, but I assure him that I do not plead guilty to being an expert in this field either. However, based on layman's experience there is considerable discontent even now as to the position of the Crown as preferential creditor. Many believe that in a commercial nation that should not be applied with its usual vigour.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My understanding is that the Crown is a preferential but not a secured creditor. The Crown simply has a right of preference over other unsecured creditors and, therefore, is not perhaps in such a favourable position as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I defer to the noble Lord. I understand that that is the position, which many people still regard as unsatisfactory. This legislation places someone else at the head of the queue. That may be necessary in order to conform to the statute, which is a hoop from which we cannot escape in this particular legislation. However, I do not believe that this news will be joyfully received. In the light of the response of the noble and learned Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 55, line 45, after ("order") insert (", or an order having the like effect in Scotland,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 99 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 100 to 102. These amendments seek to ensure consistency between England, Wales, Northern

63
Ireland and Scotland. The purpose of the amendments is very simple. At present paragraphs 9 to 12 of Schedule 6 explain how a freezing order made by a court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland would interact with legislation on bankruptcy and insolvency. In certain circumstances it would mean that property subject to a freezing order would be excluded from the estate of a bankrupt individual or the property of a company being wound up. Since our insolvency and bankruptcy legislation vests property in the trustee wherever it is, it may be that the property of the bankrupt individual is in Scotland and conceivably may be subject to a freezing order issued by a Scottish court. The amendments ensure that the provisions of paragraphs 9 to 12 of Schedule 6 apply to a freezing order issued by a Scottish court under the equivalent Scottish legislation as they would to a freezing order made under the Bill. I believe that this is a sensible technical change. I beg to move.
Lord Howell of Guildford: We have already indicated in earlier debate that we are not very happy with paragraphs 9 or 10. If, however, these provisions are to be part of the Bill the tidying-up amendments just spoken to improve the drafting. In the light of that, we do not seek to oppose them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 100 to 102:
Page 56, line 35, after ("order") insert (", or an order having the like effect in Scotland,").
Page 57, line 30, after ("order") insert (", or an order having the like effect in Scotland,").
Page 58, line 16, after ("order") insert (", or an order having the like effect in Scotland,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 6, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Schedule 6 is related to Schedule 5. Schedule 5 is concerned with the investigation of the proceeds of ICC crime, and Schedule 6 is about freezing orders in respect of property that is liable to forfeiture. Can one take it that freezing orders can be applied only in respect of ICC crimes, or is it possible for the court to issue a general freezing order just to exert pressure on somebody, which would seem to be more questionable and a far wider practice? Is it limited simply to freezing what are alleged to be the proceeds of ICC crime?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the noble Lord pointed out, the schedule is designed to enable the freezing of property at the request of the ICC with a view to eventual forfeiture. He asked the question: must the property in question relate to ICC crimes or can it be a general freezing order, either to cast the net wider or perhaps to maintain improper pressure? The answer is that it relates only to ICC crimes.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Production or disclosure prejudicial to national security]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 18, line 11, at end insert ("save in so far as such production or disclosure is reasonably required to ensure the protection of the rights of the subject of the ICC proceedings").
The noble Lord said: Clause 39(1) of the Bill states:
"Nothing in any of the provisions of this Part, or any corresponding provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament, requires or authorises the production of documents, or the disclosure of information, which would be prejudicial to the security of the United Kingdom".
Amendment No. 103 seeks to add to the end of that expression, "save in so far as such production or disclosure is reasonably required to ensure the protection of the rights of the subject of the ICC proceedings".
In other words, we wish to put the authorities to their election; either they disclose the information to the extent that is required to ensure the protection of the rights of an individual—or, if they do not produce the information to the extent necessary, they will not succeed. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand the motive. It is a perfectly honourable one because it is designed to protect the rights of an individual coming to trial at the ICC. I must reserve the right to protect the national security of the United Kingdom. There is that dilemma. In Article 72, which deals with all these matters, it is fairly met. Article 72.5 states:
"If, in the opinion of a State, disclosure of information would prejudice its national security interests, all reasonable steps will be taken by the State, acting in conjunction with the Prosecutor, the defence or the Pre-Trial Chamber or Trial Chamber, as the case may be, to seek to resolve the matter by cooperative means. Such steps may include:

(a) Modification or clarification of the request;

(b) A determination by the Court regarding the relevance of the information or evidence sought, or a determination as to whether the evidence, though relevant, could be or has been obtained from a source other than the requested State;

(c) Obtaining the information or evidence from a different source or in a different form;"—

those words are very important—
"or; (d) Agreement on conditions under which the assistance could be provided including, among other things, providing summaries or redactions, limitations on disclosure, use of in camera or ex parte proceedings, or other protective measures permissible under the Statute and the Rules".
I hope that I can fairly paraphrase Article 72.6. It says that once all reasonable steps have been taken and there are no means in the state's view under which the information or documents could be provided, it shall notify the prosecutor or the court of the specific reasons for its decision unless a specific description of the reasons would itself necessarily result in such prejudice to the state's national security interests.
I know a smile appears. It sounds like George Orwell until one takes a minute or two to look at it. Everyone who has had to deal with a matter of this kind knows perfectly well that sometimes you cannot say why you cannot say, because if you did say why you cannot say, people would work it out. It is called

65
the "jigsaw effect". It is a perfectly easy technique which can be adopted by those who wish us no good. So I have responded to the smiles. I have smiled in that way before. But on some occasions it is legitimate to be as cautious as this. Article 72.7 states,
"Thereafter, if the court determines that the evidence is relevant and necessary for the establishment of guilt or innocence of the accused"—
it can take all kinds of different steps as are appropriate, including making inferences. If one goes through all that procedure, I respectfully suggest that it is significant tender care for the interests of the defendant as opposed to the legitimate interests the state may have—not always—when national security assertions are raised. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland., will be able to agree with me that those Article 72 protections meet his reasonable concern. They are set out in very full detail and require a good deal of thought, check and counter-check and balance and counter-balance.
Lord Kingsland: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his helpful response. Does he agree that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate to have an express reference in Clause 39(1) to Article 72?
Lord 'Williams of Mostyn: I do not believe so, otherwise, on every occasion one will have references. The Bill as it stands is perfectly simple to follow. One then looks at how the matter will be dealt with in the ICC.
Lord Kingsland: I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. But this is not any old matter in the Bill; this is one of the most crucial clauses in the Bill. It deals with the rights of the individual confronted by the so-called interests of the state. In the circumstances, it is particularly appropriate for the rights of the individual to be spelt out on the face of the Bill, or, at least, to be easily accessible to someone reading the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not think it should be on the face of the Bill. I believe it is in its proper place. I take the point that if there is a post-legislative explanatory memorandum, or if there are some materials to be provided, this would be a useful reference to go into any such explanatory material that comes out after the Bill is passed. But one does not need to incorporate Article 72 onto the face of the Bill. Anyway, that has not been the scheme of the Bill.
Lord Kingsland: I do not want to prolong this matter. It may be appropriate for us to return to it on Report. I was not suggesting that the whole of the article should be on the face of the Bill, merely that reference should be made to it. For example, reference has been made to the rules of procedure. Under Clause 3 of the Bill, which deals with provisional warrants, there is an example of an ICC document expressly mentioned. Here is another opportunity for the noble and learned Lord to follow a similar precedent.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take the noble Lord's point. He has caught me on that one.
Lord Kingsland: On that very satisfactory note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 42 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Domestic provisions not applicable to ICC prisoners]:
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 60, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding anything in the preceding sections, a person convicted by the ICC and serving his sentence in the United Kingdom shall serve a sentence which is no longer than the maximum for that offence in the United Kingdom, and shall be subject to the same rules on parole, remission, credit for time served on remand and early release as other serving prisoners who are United Kingdom nationals.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment concerns the length of sentence passed by the International Criminal Court. The amendment suggests that on conviction a UK national should serve a sentence no longer than the maximum for that offence in the United Kingdom. It seeks to have other conditions apply which are the same as those of nationals serving sentences for the same kind of offence. To some extent, it reflects the declaration on the ratification status document put down by the Spanish Government which argues for similar legislation.
That raises, en passant, the question that I raised earlier in Committee: when will we know about the declarations, interpretative clauses and reservations that will go down should the Bill become law and should the Government decide to ratify the Statute of Rome? These are clearly very important matters which enable the public and Parliament to judge novel legislation and what we are committed to as a nation. If the answer is that this cannot be because the statute would not allow us, that would not come as a surprise to me, because it is another feature of the Bill that there seems to be one set of laws for the International Criminal Court which differ fundamentally from the criminal law of England and Wales. That is regrettable, but we proposed the amendment to ascertain the Government's response. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I respond by referring to the fundamental principle, which is that states parties will implement, and not unilaterally modify, the sentences of the International Criminal Court. I do not see how such a court could operate if that principle were not adhered to.
On prison sentences, Article 78 of the statute, which is helpful, provides that the ICC will take into account various factors that are familiar to our criminal justice system; for example, previous time spent in detention must be deducted. The total prison sentence must not to be more than 30 years, or life, under Article 78.3. The statute provides that the ICC will review the

67
sentence after the prisoner has served two-thirds of it, or in the case of life prisoners, after 25 years, to see whether there should be a reduction.
We could not go down the route suggested in the amendments. Article 110 states:
"The State of enforcement shall not release the person before the expiry of the sentence pronounced by the Court".
It says unambiguously:
"The Court alone shall have the right to decide any reduction of sentence".
Article 105 provides:
"Subject to conditions which a State may have specified",
in declaring its willingness to accept prisoners from the ICC,
"the sentence of imprisonment shall be binding on the States Parties, which shall in no case modify it".
The amendment to Schedule 7, relating to parole, remission, credit for time served on remand and early release, would make redundant the provisions of the schedule and would violate the provisions of the statute, to which I referred briefly. That would mean that we could never accept any ICC prisoners. I do not think that that would be a good outcome for prisoners in this category.
I understand the motive that has impelled the noble Lord, but if one goes through the articles which I specified, one can see that it would not be possible to do that. We would have sentences passed by the ICC and a multiplicity of serving jurisdictions, as it were, which might have all sorts of consequences. After all, a state has to indicate that it is willing to accept prisoners, under Article 103, and when it has done so, it has to abide by the rest of the articles. I regret that I cannot accept the amendments.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I must say that the response of the noble and learned Lord does not surprise me, but if the position is as rigid as he says, will he relieve my mind on a particular aspect? How is the Kingdom of Spain free to put down on the ratification status document a reservation, or declaration, which has roughly the same effect as the amendment would have? I cannot understand that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have not seen that interpretative statement. It may be that there is an internal Spanish justification; I simply do not know. If the noble Lord can provide me with that, I shall be happy to research it and write to him, and put a copy in the Library. My advice and understanding is that it is not possible for us to do that.
I was saying that an accepting state—one which accepts prisoners into its domestic prisons—has to indicate its willingness to accept prisoners. Any country such as Spain is entitled to say that it will accept prisoners, pursuant to Article 103.1, which may mean that no prisoner will go to that jurisdiction. That would be a misfortune for many.
68
It may be that that short paraphrase has not been perfectly expressed. Perhaps I should write to the noble Lord on that point in any event, if he will allow me a day or two to do so. I shall also put a copy in the Library.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I shall be happy to do that. I take it from what the noble and learned Lord said that such declarations are possible—indeed, they have occurred—but that the British Government would not wish to make such a declaration. I look forward to receiving a note from the noble and learned Lord, and thank him for his kind offer.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Lord sits down, is he clear about whether the Government will declare their willingness to accept prisoners under the statute? If so, it would be useful to have it on the record.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As far as I am aware, we are willing to take prisoners. That will be some way down the road—temporarily.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clauses 43 to 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Power to make provision for enforcement of other orders]:
On Question, Whether Clause 49 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Howell of Guildford: We come to an important matter on which we seek strong reassurance. The purpose of proposing that Clause 49 should not stand part of the Bill is that the provisions for the enforcement of ICC-generated or originated fines, forfeiture or compensation orders should be included in primary legislation, and not left to subordinate provision. It appears that the Bill allows that there should be no limit on the future extension of additional crimes which can be tagged on to the Bill or its schedules. We do not believe that that is right. Perhaps there are reassurances in the Bill. If so, we should like to hear them.
We propose that any attempt to amend the schedule should come back before Parliament, rather than being adjusted simply by Orders in Council. Any updating of statutory instruments, regulations or schedules must be brought before Parliament. That is why we seek to remove the clause and that is the reason behind some amendments that have yet to be moved. Such an amendment was accepted by the government in the New Zealand Parliament, and there is no reason why the same should not apply here. It is a principle of our democracy and parliamentary system that new crimes, when identified, should be added to the statute book by primary legislation. That should certainly be the case for future ICC crimes which have not yet been defined, but which may be added to our statutes in due course.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord about the purpose of Clause 49. It is not to do with new crimes, but the enforcement of other orders. In other words, it is about an order that is not a sentence of imprisonment. Clause 49 states:
"The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations for the enforcement"—
it is simply provisions for enforcement—
"of fines or forfeitures … orders by the ICC against convicted persons, specifying reparations to, or in respect of, victims".
What has to be in the regulations is then set out.
The regulations could not be made without scrutiny. The provision simply gives effect to our states party obligation to enforce the orders. Those orders are set out in Clause 49(1)(a) and (b). They relate to fines, forfeiture of property derived directly or indirectly from the crime for which the person has been convicted. What is also important I hope—that the Committee will affirm this—is the order requiring a person to make reparation to the victims, a power which our delegation in Rome worked hard to include in the statute.
Enforcement orders can be made only after conviction and after any appeal has been determined. So the provision is not as dramatic as the noble Lord feared. It simply provides the mechanism by which fines, property orders and reparation orders can be gathered. We envisage that the regulations would follow established procedures along the lines of the enforcement of forfeiture orders which we receive from other countries. We would anticipate a process by which the order would be registered and then enforced by a domestic court as if it were an order of the court. But there will be safeguards in the procedure in respect of persons with an interest or rights in the property affected by any order.
I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Lord. I do not think that his fears, which I recognise as legitimate, bear on Clause 49, which is to do with the recovery of a fine, a recovery of property order and the recovery of reparations. The scheme of regulations will be published and there will be the opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the regulations. I do not think that it is the worrying problem that we have had on other occasions and about which I have been able to meet noble Lords' concerns by accepting the views of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It is quite different in concept.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The stand part debate is concerned primarily with fine, forfeiture or compensation orders. I believe that those should be put into primary legislation. The noble and learned Lord disagrees with that and believes that the established procedures are acceptable. As to crimes, I accept that I was reaching forward into the debate on the next amendment where we will be concerned with that matter.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Meaning of "genocide", "crime against humanity" and "war crime"]:
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 23, line 38, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Lord said: We come now to the amendment which expands the scene on which. I wish to comment. Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 50 appear to provide for the imposition of serious criminal liability on a retrospective basis. In other words, something that was not a crime is subsequently seen to be a crime. We believe that criminal sanctions should be clearly defined in advance of the acts concerned. Any proposed additions to the types of offences which are to be added to the ICC armoury—additions will come because the assembly will get its teeth into these matters—should be the subject of primary legislation, something which, again drawing on the New Zealand example, has been ensured in the legislation of that country.
Can the Minister say whether that is the case? What other crimes might be added? How will they be handled? Can we be sure that they will be handled by primary legislation and that new crimes will not be whistled onto the statute book by Order in Council or by a minor regulatory provision?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Perhaps I may say straight away that we do not see the difficulty that the noble Lord has outlined in relation to interpretation and we do not see Clause 50 as having a retrospective basis. Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 would have the effect of removing consideration by domestic courts of like cases before the ICC and internationally. They would also take the Elements of Crimes document out of the process of defining these crimes. Perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to Clause 50(2) and (3), which the noble Lord seeks to have removed. It is a guide in relation to interpretation in terms of what the court should take into account. Subsection (2) provides:
"In interpreting and applying the provisions of those articles the court shall take into account—

(a) any relevant Elements of Crimes adopted in accordance with article 9, and

(b) until such time as Elements of Crimes are adopted under that article, any relevant Elements of Crimes contained in the report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court adopted on 30th June 2000".

Members of the Committee will be aware that international consensus was arrived at in relation to the Elements of Crimes and they will have persuasive and helpful authority for any courts seeking to determine it. I am quite sure that the noble Lord's intention in putting forward the amendment is not to remove or disable our courts from being in an equal position to deal with matters relevant to the ICC. If that was the purpose, it would not be a sensible step.
ICC cases are likely to be few and far between. That will be amplified at domestic level. There will be no large body of case law for our courts to consider when faced with a difficult ICC trial. We should afford them

71
every opportunity to take into account how like cases have been decided in other jurisdictions, especially at the ICC itself.
Subsection (3) states:
"The Secretary of State shall set out in regulations the text of the Elements of Crimes referred to in subsection (2), as amended from time to time".
We would say that that is a helpful and necessary provision in terms of development of this issue.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 115 to 118, which seek to amend Clause 54 in a number of ways. Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 have a similar aim to the ones I have just mentioned. They seek to exclude, or make discretionary, consideration of ICC judgments and decisions relating to the interpretation of part of the Rome Statute. As I explained, in relation to Clause 50, that does not seem a sensible course to take.
Our courts will rarely face cases where someone is being tried for offences against the administration of justice of the ICC. We should afford them every opportunity to take into account how like cases have been decided and considered, especially at the ICC itself given the nature of the offence we are discussing.
It is our belief that Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 would not add anything of substance to the Bill. Subsection (5), which they seek to amend, follows the drafting of other Acts with an international criminal element; for example, the corresponding subsection of the War Crimes Act 1991. We see no reason to deviate from that construction. We should not invite judicial review in this way for matters ordinarily dealt with in the course of a criminal trial. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not seek to press his amendments.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Having listened to the discussion, can I ask the noble Baroness whether the concerns of my noble friend Lord Howell could be met by an interpretative statement on ratification relevant to elements of crimes?
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Baroness responds to the question put by the noble Lord, could she also respond to a question that I wish to put to her? The noble Baroness mentioned the War Crimes Act 1991 as a precedent for the construction of these clauses. Were equivalent clauses included in the statutes which enabled us to ratify the International Criminal Tribunals on Rwanda and on the former Yugoslavia? Were similar provisions contained in those pieces of legislation?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall deal first with the point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. We think that the interpretation has been made clear on the face of the statute. We do not believe that it will cause any difficulty. It is clear that the court would be entitled to take those matters into consideration.
I do not have a direct answer to give to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I believe that what he said is right, but I shall have to confirm it to the noble Lord before taking the matter further.
72
I have just received further briefing. It is true that, in relation to Rwanda and Yugoslavia, judges have elaborated elements themselves, although those have not been renegotiated. I shall clarify the matter more fully and I shall write to the noble Lord in due course.
Lord Howell of Guildford: In the light of what the noble Baroness has said, as well as her comments made after receiving a fresh supply of ammunition to enable her to give the Committee an up-to-date response, I should like to examine carefully what she has said about this matter. Despite the reassurances she has given as regards the elements of crimes and so forth, I am left with the feeling, on which I should like to dwell further, that we could find the statute law of this country being changed in relation to crimes as set down in the statute book in ways that are not consistent with our normal practice of passing primary legislation. Perhaps I have that wrong, but the noble Baroness had to deal with extremely complicated legal points here.
In my earlier remarks I should have commented on Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 which have been included in this grouping. However, they do not address quite the same point. The purpose of those two amendments was to probe whether any person other than the Attorney-General should be able to institute proceedings and where we would stand, once this legislation has been passed, in relation to so-called public interest litigators. They may seek this consent and perhaps move on to question the Attorney-General's decision and then even subject such a decision to judicial review. This is a matter of concern connected with what we have been discussing. However, it raises slightly different issues. Perhaps the noble Baroness covered this point, but if she did not, I should be grateful if she could reiterate that she has noted our concerns on this point and indicate whether she has a response to make to them.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I certainly note the concerns expressed by the noble Lord. Perhaps I may make it absolutely clear that as far as we are concerned these provisions are not concerned with retrospection. I think that I said that earlier. The offences were those negotiated in Rome for the statute, not those interpreted elements of crimes. Any new crimes, such as aggression, would require primary legislation in due course. I hope that I am able to reassure the noble Lord in relation to that matter.
Furthermore, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the UK courts will not be bound by the decisions of other bodies, but it is right that they should be guided by them and be able to take such issues into consideration. I hope that I have now covered the points raised by the noble Lord.
Lord Howell of Guildford: In view of those comments and given that I should like to read carefully all that the noble Baroness has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes: articles 6 to 9]:
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Schedule 8 agreed to.
7 p.m.
Clause 51 [Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 24, line 29, after ("person") insert (", whatever his nationality,").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment has been tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. We appear to have been playing a game of "box and cox" throughout these debates. It covers very much the same ground as Amendment No. 110, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, my noble friend Lord Goldsmith and myself. For that reason, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was kind enough to suggest that I might introduce the debate. In order to do that, I understand that at this point I shall have to move Amendment No. 108. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is still occupied with the business of the Human Rights Committee. For that reason, he cannot be here to move the amendment himself.
It may be convenient for the Committee if, in moving Amendment No. 108, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 109 to 114 and 120 to 125. All the amendments address the same point, so this is not as complicated as the groupings list might indicate at first sight.
We have discussed the processes of the international court. Now we are discussing amendments to the domestic law of this country. The fundamental principle of the statute, set out in Article 1, is the principle of complementarity. The first question which falls to be decided before a prosecution may proceed is whether a state having jurisdiction in the case is investigating the offence or is already prosecuting. That is the burden of Articles 19 and 20.
It is expected that normally the offences in question shall be dealt with by individual states under their domestic law. It follows that they should make appropriate provision in their domestic law. As my noble friend Lady Scotland pointed out in answer to our previous debate, it is unlikely that there will be a flood of cases before the International Criminal Court because most will be decided elsewhere.
I know of no reason why the opportunity could not have been taken to extend to our domestic courts a universal jurisdiction in respect of offences under the statute. As I recollect, the only reason given in the debate on Second Reading was that the statute does not require it. At a later stage, my noble and learned friend was duly lectured by me on this point; he knows my feelings.
It sounded a little as though the purpose of the Bill was to enact the bare minimum required of us and not a scintilla more. I do not believe that the Government
74
mean to legislate in that spirit. This is an opportunity to offer a lead to other countries in an exciting new, international venture. Despite what was said at an earlier stage by, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, I still venture to think that this country carries enough credit internationally to have some of its better leads followed—or at least, in the interests of my grandchildren, I hope that that is the case.
We should not sidle towards the matter at the edge of the crowd; we ought to be looking to give a lead here. However, that is only a subsidiary reason for the step required by this amendment. The fact that the statute does not require the introduction of universal jurisdiction is not a reason for individual states to omit it from their domestic jurisdictions, but to include it. If the offender is physically within the jurisdiction of the English courts, and the international court cannot try him—for example, because his own state is not a party to the statute and does not give consent—it would be a scandal if he were then allowed to go free because we have no jurisdiction to try him in this country.
If the reason for the omission is simply because we have not claimed universal jurisdiction in the past, I believe that there are two responses to that. First, this is not a situation in which the past is a role model for the future. It is a new departure in global affairs. At last the world is beginning to recognise that national sovereignty is not a sanctuary for evil doers. That is why we have a statute.
Secondly, it is not true that this is new to United Kingdom law. The concept of universal jurisdiction is not an alien life form to us. At Second Reading I referred to the Geneva Conventions Act 1957. Other noble Lords gave similar examples. If those who tender advice to my noble friend would find it convenient to have a list of examples of legislation in which accountability in the British courts for criminal offences is not conditional upon being a national of the United Kingdom, I suggest the Sexual Offences Act 1956, the Geneva Conventions Act, which I have mentioned, the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978, the Taking of Hostages Act 1982, the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Other examples have from time to time been given. However, there may be room for arguing whether they are genuine examples. I believe that the ones I have given are genuine examples. There is no single jurisprudential principle running through them. Each provision has been introduced where it seems necessary to respect our international obligations, or where it is obviously fair and just and needed to protect vulnerable victims.
If the Bill remains unamended, we may prosecute someone for torture. However, if he had committed genocide, he would be immune from prosecution. The withholding of universal jurisdiction from our domestic courts would give rise to a number of anomalies. Let us imagine a situation in which people of various nationalities were involved and a force of mercenaries assembled, supporting one side in a conflict. Let us also suppose that a British and a foreign national were both involved in the same

75
incident and accused of an offence under the statute. If they were both found within the jurisdiction of the British courts, the British national could be prosecuted and, if the occasion arose, sentenced, the foreign national permitted to walk away.
If a foreign national is accused of an offence against a British national—by no means a fanciful situation in cases of aid workers visiting an increasing number of locations to assist civilians—and the alleged offender is found in the jurisdiction of the British courts, the authorities can take no step to punish the offence against the British victim. They must allow the alleged offender to make his way, possibly unmolested, to some safe haven that is not a signatory to the statute.
Another example arises out of the Pinochet case. If Senator Pinochet is found in our jurisdiction, he may be prosecuted for torture committed abroad. But if, instead, he murders his victims, there is no power to prosecute him for that offence. The list of anomalies is endless. I shall not weary the Committee with all of them. Other noble Lords may cite examples.
However, I should like to tender one more example—a situation in which United Nations workers and representatives of non-governmental organisations together seek to bring relief to the victims of a tragedy and a paramilitary group arranges a mass kidnapping in order to either extract a ransom or some concession from the international community. If any of the offenders are found in the jurisdiction of British courts, they may be prosecuted, under the Taking of Hostages Act 1982, for kidnapping the United Nations workers. However, the mercenaries, unless British subjects, cannot be prosecuted for offences against workers from the British NGOs, such as, for example, Mr Terry Waite.
If the Government's reasons relate to the difficulty of finding and producing evidence of crimes committed abroad, the successful prosecution of Antony Savoniuk should be reputation enough. In that case, the crimes were committed long ago. In cases of alleged offences committed more recently, the evidence would be more readily available. Belgium, Germany, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa appear to have no reservations about their capacity to mount successful prosecutions. Instead of receiving universal acclaim for the part played by the Government in the negotiations leading to the treaty, there is a danger that Britain will acquire a reputation as a safe haven for pariahs who dare not show their faces in any other country.
The human rights NGOs, to whom I referred in an earlier debate, are reinforced in respect of this issue. The Bar Human Rights Committee, of which my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General and my noble friend Lady Scotland will have affectionate recollections, has added its not inconsiderable voice to the debate. My noble friends may have seen a memorandum from Michael Birnbaum QC and Peter Carter QC.
In this venture the Government have many friends who seek to make the process for which we are legislating more effective. They really should listen to them. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: I am delighted to follow the noble and learnedLord, Lord Archer. I should like to expand on one aspect of the important case that he has made out, that is, the anomaly that exists in relation to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which deals with offences against civilians committed in the course of domestic armed conflicts.
The noble Lord, Lord Archer, referred to crimes committed against British citizens. I should like to refer to the events at Balibo, East Timor, in early December 1975 when, before they acknowledged the invasion, the Indonesians sent clandestine forces into the territories and murdered five journalists, including two British citizens. That crime has from time to time been investigated—the Committee may think inadequately, because no one has ever been brought to justice—but Mr Yunus Yosfiah, the Commander of the Indonesian troops in Balibo, was at one time a guest of Her Majesty's Government and, unknown to anybody here at the time, attended a defence college in this country.
If in the future such a case occurred, in which a person accused of murdering our own citizens happened to enter our jurisdiction, we would not be able to try him because the offence would have been committed, as the Indonesians had claimed, in the course of a domestic armed conflict. I do not want to develop the argument whether the fourth Geneva Convention applied to the Indonesian activities in East Timor because that has never been clarified. However, if this Bill is left as it stands and we do not have jurisdiction over Article 3 offences, a criminal who had murdered British citizens in the course of a domestic armed conflict would not be triable before courts of the United Kingdom. We should have to rely on the ICC to make a request for arrest and extradition of such a person to be brought to justice.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may ask whether there is a reciprocal proposal to his. Would it not follow from his proposal that we should have to accept foreign jurisdiction over crimes that might have been committed here? For example, if a member of Sinn Fein was released from prison under provisions in this country and then arrested in New York, he would have to stand trial in New York if he had murdered an American in this country.
Lord Avebury: I think most authorities would acknowledge that the threshold for the application of Article 3 has not been reached in relation to Northern Ireland. There has to be a certain level of armed violence before a conflict can be treated as non-international within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions, and particularly within the meaning of Article 3. What has happened in Northern Ireland, or what may happen in a similar situation in the United

77
Kingdom in future, would not be the same as what happened in East Timor where plainly there was a domestic armed conflict. Forces were engaged in an organised way on both sides and no one questions the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to that conflict.
A more recent example which shows the absurdity of the situation outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, is what happened in Bosnia. At one point, the Bosnian conflict was a domestic armed conflict—a non-international armed conflict, to use the terminology in the Geneva Conventions. The states concerned were then recognised by the United Kingdom and others and it became an international armed conflict. Therefore, a crime committed on one day against civilians would not have been justiciable in the British courts under these proposals, and on the following day it would have suddenly become justiciable, even though the crime itself would have been of exactly the same nature and extent.
I very much hope that the Government will think again about this issue. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said, we are getting into a very difficult position when we attempt to distinguish between domestic armed conflicts and conflicts of an international character. I would point out to the Committee that the vast majority of conflicts nowadays occur within state boundaries and not between states. When the Geneva Conventions were first accepted by the international community, international conflict was the rule. Now it is not; it is the exception. If we look at the conflicts in Africa, for instance, the only international conflict which has taken place in recent years is the one between Eritrea and Ethiopia, whereas one can think of countless conflicts which have taken place within the borders of states such as Sierra Leone, Angola, Sudan and so on. I do not need to enumerate them.
The vast majority of crimes committed against civilians are, to use the Geneva Conventions terminology, Article 3 crimes, and they will not be covered by the Bill. I hope that the Government will think again and agree to the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, or something very like it.
Lord Goldsmith: I wish to say a few words on this topic, which I also raised at Second Reading, not because I believe for a moment that the case made by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is not convincing—indeed, overwhelming but—because it is an important point.
We should remember that unless and until all countries ratify the Rome statute, there will be gaps in jurisdiction. People who do not come from countries which have ratified, or who have not committed acts in places which have ratified, will not be subject to the court's jurisdiction except in exceptional cases. The concern is that there will be tyrants and despots who have committed atrocious and vile acts and who may not be subject to the jurisdiction of the court. What
78
will happen then? This is an opportunity for us to say that in those cases we will be prepared to prosecute those crimes.
As my noble and learned friend said, other countries have taken that view. I mentioned at Second Reading that my understanding then was that that was the position in relation to Canada and New Zealand. I mentioned also, I believe, Belgium and Germany. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General will be able to confirm that that is the position. I am grateful for information received from the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, New York, which has also drawn to our attention, as my noble and learned friend Lord Archer said, the position in relation to South Africa. Indeed, the member states of the Southern African Development Community have apparently similarly adopted as an intention an ICC ratification kit, which will include universal jurisdiction.
Those countries have taken that line. The question is: what anomalies will there be if we do not take the same line, and what are the objections to our doing so? As my noble and learned friend Lord Archer said, an argument advanced at Second Reading was that we were not required under the statute to assume universal jurisdiction and somehow, therefore, we ought not to. I entirely agree with his observations on that. The list of statutes to which he referred indicates that we do take universal jurisdiction in some cases. There is no clear and single strand which links them and there is no reason in law why we should not take it here.
But what, in clear terms, are the anomalies? First, two men who are alleged to have committed the same offence could be together in England. One will be subject to our courts and our law, and the other we could not touch: the one because he is a British subject and the other because he is not. In those cases, the International Criminal Court may not be able to touch them either. How absurd.
The second anomaly is that the victims of these crimes may have been British subjects, and yet still we cannot deal with those crimes because the alleged perpetrator is a national of another country and the victim suffered abroad.
Thirdly, we may even find ourselves, if I understand the position correctly, extraditing someone to another country—not to the country of nationality of the alleged perpetrator but to one of the countries have mentioned, New Zealand or South Africa. We are not ourselves prepared to assume jurisdiction but we may send this person to another country.
Fourthly, and most frightening, is the anomaly of the distinction between crimes such as torture and genocide. Will we yet again see the horrific spectacle—which I believe we came close to with Pinochet—of arguing in a British court that if he killed people quickly, it was not torture and we have no jurisdiction; if they had slow and lingering deaths, that was torture and we had jurisdiction under the torture convention.

79
What are the objections to this course? The practical objection is that we cannot try someone who is not here. That is straightforward; we do not have any ability to bring someone here, save through extradition. What about the problem that we may not have the evidence here? The guidelines of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will deal with situations where there is not the evidence sufficient to meet a prosecution.
There is a middle course—and I, like others, look forward to hearing the Government's response—the Canadian course, which is to limit universal jurisdiction to the extent that there has at least been the connection that the perpetrator in that case in Canada has been here in the United Kingdom. I cannot see any reason why, at least in that case, we should not accept universal jurisdiction.
At the end of the day, tyrants must know that there is no place for them to hide. The purpose of the Bill and the statute is that there should be nowhere for tyrants to hide. If there is to be somewhere that they can hide, let there at least not be somewhere for them to hide in this country. Let them know that in this country, at least, we will assume jurisdiction; that if they come here and try to hide here, they will find no peace.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I support my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, my noble friend Lord Goldsmith and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who spoke from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
I shall be very short. Unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, I speak not as a Queen's Counsel but as a humble member of the lower profession. I think that it is quite wrong that there should be any chance of the escape from justice to which those noble Lords referred. The burden of proving that there is no risk of that falls squarely and fairly on whoever is to reply for the Government. I do not want to embarrass the Government, but I think that a case has been made out for them to think again about this important issue.
Why have we not heard from the Conservative Benches? Are Members opposite not concerned about people being able to escape justice? I am mesmerised by their silence. I hope that my noble and learned friend will see an opportunity to reflect on this important issue. No one should be allowed to escape justice; and that is the risk that we run.
The Earl of Onslow: It seems that if we are to have this provision, with all the caveats laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—doubts which I share on purely practical and possibly cynical political grounds, and on the ground that the provision could lead to more deaths and destruction than others—the case set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, follows as night follows day. In this context, his point seems perfectly reasonable and fair. As I say, I have other doubts, but that is a different question. I am trying to
80
narrow my view solely to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is now "unmesmerised".
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: We have been challenged to make some comments. Perhaps I may do so briefly, as a layman, on the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. I very much hope that the Government will not be persuaded by what has been said.
Perhaps I may make two points. It seems to me that there ought to be an element of reciprocality, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said. The noble Lord talked about thresholds of violence. When one looks at the number of deaths in relation to the total population of Northern Ireland, it comes pretty close to the kind of threshold of violence and genocide that makes headlines in larger countries. We should see considerable disadvantages if American judicial authorities were to interfere in the affairs of Northern Ireland or to bring people before the courts of the United States for matters arising from the domestic problems of Northern Ireland.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. There is substantial literature on what constitutes the threshold below which Article 3 of the Geneva Convention does not apply. I felt confident in stating that in the case of Northern Ireland that threshold had not been reached. However, in East Timor 200,000 people are reported to have been killed or to have died as a result of the invasion by the Indonesians, and that constitutes a third of the population.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Of course the figure comes nowhere near that in East Timor. I did not suggest that it did. I merely suggested that if one looks at the population of Northern Ireland, a figure of one and a half million—some 3,000 dead—the number killed in relation to the population, and seen in relation to other countries to which the word "genocide" is applied, is not so different.
The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Goldsmith, referred to the different treatment of people who came here and who might be charged with torture as opposed to those who would not be able to be charged with murder. They have a point. However, the weakness of that argument is that so much of it—this was implicit in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith—depends on the doctrine of command responsibility, which we shall debate shortly. It depends on one or all of the assumptions that the accused was "intimately involved in what happened", "had the knowledge", "could have prevented", or "did order". Such assumptions are extremely difficult to prove in a country thousands of miles away from where tragic events may have taken place. It seems to me that justice has to be related to a time and a place.

81
As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, there have been some tragic examples of aid workers becoming caught up in—
Lord Goldsmith: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is it his view that one cannot have confidence in a British court to determine the difficult but important questions to which he refers?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I am not sure that I would have entire confidence. For reasons that I shall not go into, I was very much shaken by some of the ways in which certain points were tackled in the most controversial case which was referred to in the noble and learned Lord's comments. I am sure that a British court would attempt to deal with the matter impartially; however, I do not see how a court can tackle the problem of knowing precisely what a government official, a head of state or a senior person in a foreign army knew, ordered or did not know.
It is one thing to argue that such matters should be dealt with by an international criminal court—and many people, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, drew the lesson from the Pinochet case. They said that it illustrated the need for an international criminal court rather than attempting to deal with these matters through national courts or through action, for example, in the Spanish courts.
Justice must be related to a time and a place. Notwithstanding some tragic incidents, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, involving aid workers, there are other examples of people going to countries and becoming involved in the politics of those countries. Tragic, wrong and atrocious things have happened to them. But at the end of the day the circumstances and the reasons why such events took place are best judged by the judiciary and the laws of that country.
Lord Goodhart: I am pleased to see my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill in his place. My noble friend apologises for the fact that he was unable to be present earlier, and because he did not arrive for the start of this debate, he has not spoken in it. As was mentioned, he was detained on the affairs of the new Joint Committee on human rights.
I want to make clear the complete support on these Benches for this group of amendments. This country has had a long tradition of territoriality as regards criminal liability. For most offences we could not even prosecute British subjects who had committed crimes outside the UK unless part of the crime or conspiracy to commit it had taken place here. But there has been a gradual departure from that approach. Sometimes it has been departed from in the case of sex crimes against children; but more often—and this is the important feature—it has happened in relation to the gravest crimes against international law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, gave a list to which I do not want to add.
One Act which requires some comment is the War Crimes Act 1991. That Act was controversial. It was rejected by this House and was eventually passed
82
under the Parliament Act. There were arguments that the legislation was retrospective. I understood them at the time and I do not know which way I should have voted had I been a Member of this House. However, I do not believe that to be correct. The war crimes that were the subject of the Act were plainly criminal under general international law, as are the acts that this Bill seeks to attack. Perhaps more convincing were the arguments on the lapse of time, on the difficulty of obtaining evidence, and so on, in the case of offences that must, at the very latest, have been committed more than 45 years before the War Crimes Act was enacted. But that does not apply in any way to the present Bill. Plainly, in any sense, it is not retrospective legislation. Although there may be a time lapse, there may well not be. Certainly, it is very unlikely that there will be anything like the period covered by the 1991 Act.
For the reasons that have already been very eloquently expressed, the absence of universal jurisdiction for the courts of the United Kingdom is a major gap in the Bill. The amendments that we are discussing in this debate will concern only very grave crimes—such as, genocide, which is possibly the gravest crime known to humankind, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Surely it is right that we should not apply a principle of territoriality to this, but if we find on our territory those who are alleged to have committed these terribly serious crimes and if, for one reason or another, there is no possibility of the ICC exercising its own jurisdiction, we should exercise our jurisdiction in this country whatever the location of such crimes and whatever the nationality of the person alleged to have committed them.
The only speaker in this debate who has spoken against the assumption of universal liability is the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. I have to say that I do not find his arguments remotely convincing. Reciprocality was one of them. I find no force in that argument. In the case of these exceptionally grave crimes, it seems to me that there is no reason why we should not claim responsibility for ourselves, quite irrespective of what may or may not happen in any other country.
The point about command responsibility was also made. Of course there will be cases in which it is difficult to prove this; but, equally, there will be cases in which it is clear. If it is impossible to prove to the standard required by the court, the accused will, quite properly, be acquitted. However, if it is proved, surely it is right that the accused should be convicted by a court in this country. I hope most profoundly that the Government will be able to accept the principle behind these amendments on this occasion, and that they will give universal jurisdiction to the courts of the United Kingdom in the case of these quite exceptionally grave crimes.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may challenge him on one point. He said that the crimes about which we are talking are very grave. He mentioned genocide—of course, I agree with him in that respect—and war crimes. Some of the war

83
crimes listed in Article 7 are, indeed, very grave. I have in mind crimes against humanity and war crimes. However, others, such as the forced movement of population, which involve a great deal of hardship, are not always grave in the general sense.
Every partition that has taken place in the 20th century—there have been a great many of them—involved coercion and the forced movement of people. That was very regrettable for the individuals concerned, but it did not constitute a grave crime in the same category as genocide or anything of that nature. Does the noble Lord agree?
Lord Goodhart: No, I do not. It seems to me that the forced transfer of population, as was practised by Stalin when he removed many populations from one part of the former Soviet Union to an entirely different area, is very rightly described as "a crime against humanity" and, indeed, is a very serious crime.
Lord Monson: What about the Atatürk-Venizelos accord of 1923, which resulted in the Treaty of Lausanne and the enforced movement of about 3 million people?
Lord Goodhart: I believe that that was an historical tragedy. It was something that should never have happened. I am afraid that there are many cases where people move voluntarily for fear of what might happen if they stayed behind. The forced and compulsory transfer of populations is, and should remain, a crime against humanity.
The Earl of Onslow: Will the noble Lord comment on Israel, which has such a deliciously decent reputation vis-à-vis the Palestinians, whom they have herded into ghettos, the Gaza Strip, the Lebanon, and all the other places? Alternatively, what about the Malaysian emergency, where we had to do it for the general good? I accept that we must be very careful in this respect. However, I do not believe that this subject is particularly germane to the amendments now before us. If we are to move into population exchanges, we must keep the record straight. It is not quite so simple. Venizelos is one such situation, and the beautiful record of Israel is another.
Lord Goodhart: I shall start with the question of Israel. Speaking as someone who is of Jewish descent on my father's side, I deplore many of the activities in which various Israeli governments have indulged over the 53 years, or so, since the creation of the state of Israel. Israel contains many people—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. This could give rise to a most interesting debate and, indeed, has done so on other occasions. However, does the noble Lord agree that we are considering the Bill, and that we cannot change the statute?
Lord Goodhart: That is exactly right. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for intervening.
84
The debate has perhaps gone beyond the points with which we should be dealing. I shall not, therefore, continue.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: This debate has been raging for quite some time. Her Majesty's Government have given a great deal of thought and consideration to the issue. It has come as no surprise to us that a number of noble Lords have pursued the issue with such commendable vigour. The question of whether we should take universal jurisdiction in this Bill has been a matter of acute debate ever since we published the draft in August of last year. Should we use this Bill to provide for United Kingdom courts to take jurisdiction over ICC crimes, wherever in the world they were committed and whoever committed them?
Members of the Committee will know that we have taken the view that it would be inappropriate for the UK to adopt the role of global prosecutor. The way that the ICC is intended to work is for states of the nationality of the accused, or on whose territory the crime was committed, to take jurisdiction and, failing that, the ICC. We continue to believe that the best place for an effective prosecution is the state of the accused where investigation and prosecution are likely to be most practical.
However, I have listened most carefully to the points made by a number of noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber. I am very grateful to them for their thoughtful contributions. The proposals behind these amendments are commendably ambitious. It is not a practical proposition to bring cases in the United Kingdom courts where the crime and the criminal have no link to this country: the evidence is inaccessible, witnesses are hard to come by and successful prosecutions are almost impossible.
We must also bear in mind why we are creating the ICC. As I said, it will operate with complementary jurisdiction. UK courts will be able to bring cases against UK nationals and crimes committed on UK territory. That principle should also apply elsewhere. It is the primary responsibility of the state of nationality of the accused, or where the crime took place, to bring the crime to trial. If they are unable or unwilling to do so, we are creating an ICC to step in. That is the whole purpose of the court. It is important that we do not over-extend ourselves to the point where we could be accused of undermining the very court we seek to promote.
That said, I have listened with particular care to the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and to the hypothetical situations put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer and by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith whereby a crime could be committed by a UK national and his non-British friend. They could commit a crime overseas together and return to the UK. The UK national could offer to provide a home for his friend. UK courts would not have jurisdiction over that friend because he was not a UK national. He may not be of sufficiently high rank to interest the ICC. His host country may not be one to which he can be extradited. Those issues have given

85
us pause. Information about his crime might be available through British peacekeepers in the area in which he operated and his British friend may ultimately even want to testify against him.
The possibility of that situation arising seems to us to be slight. However, the Government recognise the concern that is expressed. That being the case, and having considered all the arguments put forward during the debate, the Government are minded to bring forward amendments on this issue at Report stage.
The amendments the Government intend to bring forward will not convey universal jurisdiction on UK courts but will give UK courts jurisdiction over UK residents. This builds on the precedent of the 1991 War Crimes Act. The Government's intention is to provide that any individual who chooses to make the UK his home from now on will be liable before UK courts for his actions overseas, which were crimes under this Bill, before he arrived here.
Lord Avebury: When the Minister says UK residents, does she mean persons who are ordinarily resident in the UK or does that extend to people who come here in some other capacity as, for example, a visitor or a student, or the case that I mentioned, Colonel Yunus Yosfiah, who came here as a guest of the Ministry of Defence?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble Baroness answers that, I hope that I may put the same kind of question in a slightly different way. Do I understand that the effect of the amendment would be similar to the situation in Canada, as I understand their statute, though less far-reaching than the situation in New Zealand? As I understand the situation in Canada, there is jurisdiction where after the time the offence is alleged to have been committed the person is present in Canada. Is it based upon that notion of presence?
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The definition of residence is a difficult and complex one. A number of Members of the Committee will know that it is interpreted in different ways in different statutes. One cannot say with any certainty, for example, that every person who has come to the UK and stayed for two or three years is definitely a resident here. On the other hand, someone who has been here for a matter of days but has displayed every sign of residing here on a more permanent basis may be considered a resident. It is right that the decision on whether someone is resident here should be made by a competent court with the benefit of all the evidence in a particular case. The concept of residence in the UK also appears in the War Crimes Act. No definition is provided for that and it does not appear to have affected the operation of that Act.
I deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. We do not have the precise definition that is being used by the Canadians. It looks as if they take the view that if someone is present within their jurisdiction that suffices. I cannot say at this stage whether we shall
86
go down that road. It seems to us that the use of the term "residence" gives us a certain flexibility that would be capable of being interpreted in a purposeful way when one deals with different situations as they may arise on a case by case basis.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The argument as to whether someone is resident is a difficult one. Would it not be much easier for the noble Baroness to explain to the Committee that anyone who is here permanently or on a temporary basis should be subject to the will of the court? I hope that she will answer in the affirmative.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As I said, this is a complex situation. The Committee may remember the case of Levene, the Inland Revenue case, in which a few days were considered to be appropriate. In other cases that is not so. The term "residence" appears to give us the kind of flexibility—
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Baroness seems to be making the position much more complicated than it need be. If a person has to argue as to whether or not he is a resident and quotes several different statutes with different descriptions of resident, that seems to me an unnecessarily complicated way to do things. As the noble Baroness knows, I have major doubts about the whole concept of the Bill but at least there is a logicality to what Members of the Committee opposite say. However, the moment you introduce the concept of whether someone is or is not a resident, it does not seem to me that you bring any clarity to the matter. We must have clarity in the criminal law.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I hope that I may acid a further point, having raised the matter in the first place and having argued the case of Shah in the House of' Lords about what is meant by ordinary residence. Will the Minister carefully consider the unnecessary complexities that would be introduced by bringing in residence or even ordinary residence? Will she also consider with her colleagues how undesirable it would look for the United Kingdom to have a different and narrower test than, for example, the Canadian test which seems to me a fair balance of argument and rather less wide-ranging than the New Zealand test? Could one consider the wider Commonwealth attitude taken in other common law countries in arriving at a workable solution to the problem? I greatly welcome what she said. What we are all trying to do is to find a workable test.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We shall, of course, consider that before tabling our own amendments. However, I reiterate that the concept of residence does not seem to have caused problems in relation to the War Crimes Act. No definition was provided there but it has worked well. For the moment that is the way we are thinking. I can certainly reassure the noble Lord that we have taken on board everything that has been said. That will be factored into the way in which we frame any amendment on Report.

87
The important issue is that anyone thinking of coming to this country should know that we shall not be a haven for war criminals and that they will be subject to the full force of the law. That is the import of what we want to achieve.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate, particularly those who supported the amendment. The sole exception was the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. I was a little surprised to hear my noble friend Lady Scotland using precisely the argument which underlay all that the noble Lord said. I see him nod with satisfaction. I think that they are both wrong.
What the noble Lord said in so many words at the end of his intervention was that offences are better tried in the country where they are committed. Of course they are. That is not the issue. No one disputes that. What is important is that if they are not going to be tried there, they should be tried somewhere. Yet most of the offences with which we are concerned are not likely to be tried in the country where they are committed. The question then arises: how do we ensure that they are tried somewhere? With such horrific offences, it is vitally important that they should be tried.International opinion cries out for it. But, perhaps even more importantly, it is important that future potential victims should know that someone cares for them.
I am grateful to my noble friend for the consideration which the Government clearly have given to the matter. The Minister said that the concept of residence introduced an element of flexibility into what was proposed. That is precisely what worries some of us. You can be too flexible when you are dealing with the criminal law. But the noble Baroness has held out the hand of friendship and I can do no less than wait to see what she has in it. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 109 to 111 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 51 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify one point. I understand that the Bill widens the definition of the crime of genocide beyond that of the Act of 1969. I should like to know in what respect that happens. I ask for this reason. As has been said, genocide is the most horrible and terrible crime which canbe committed. However, in my experience it is a word which has become slightly debased by over-usage in other crimes. Even in legal circles, I have noticed the term "genocide" being, to my mind, used somewhat exaggeratedly. That is not to say that there were not other crimes involved, but I take the term "genocide" to mean the killing of a class of people. I should be interested to know in what way and why this definition—it is already being strained—is being widened.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear what the noble Lord says. Genocide is fully set out in Article 6 of the Rome Statute. It provides that for the purpose of the statute genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethical, racial or religious group. It sets out five elements: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. The definition of the crime is the same and is clearly stated there.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill begin again not before 8.55 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill
7.54 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Constitutional Committee
7.55 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree Lord Dean of Harptree rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they support the proposal for a Constitutional Committee in the House of Lords; and, if so, what they believe the role of such a committee would be.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who will speak, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the Government Chief Whip who will reply, and my noble friend Lord Henley who will speak from the Opposition Front Bench
I warmly welcome the setting up of the Constitutional Committee which was approved by the House on 8th February. I wish it every success, and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, its chairman, and all members. I believe that this committee could be as important to the functioning of this House as the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It could give the House an early warning of constitutional matters in public Bills and how they should be dealt with.
In this Parliament we have had a lot of Bills changing our constitution. That has convinced me that we need more effective parliamentary safeguards than exist at present. I remind noble Lords that the terms of reference of the committee are,
"to examine the constitutional implications of all public Bills coming before the House; and to keep under review the operation of the constitution".
Those are comprehensive terms of reference. I imagine that there will not be too many public Bills which have significance for the constitution. It may well be that the committee will be able to give quite a lot of its time to the second part of its terms of reference; namely, to review the operation of the constitution.
I mention two separate points concerning the operation and work of the committee. The first is the use of the Parliament Acts. Since the first Parliament Act was put on the statute book in 1911 it has been rarely used. The fact that it was on the statute book proved enough. But in this Parliament it has been used on two or three occasions. It has been used on a matter of conscience where, by long tradition, both Houses have a free vote. I suggest to the House that this is contrary to the spirit of the Act. An unhappy impression has been created that there has been little or no attempt to listen to the views of your Lordships' House and to try to accommodate them. This cannot be good for Parliament or for the effective scrutiny of government. I believe that this attitude tends to undermine your Lordships' important role in trying to ensure that the checks and balances in our constitution are maintained.
In his debate on 24th January, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—I am delighted to see him in his place today—spoke about the abuse of the Parliament Acts. I suggest to your Lordships that he has unrivalled authority and that we should take seriously the comments he made. It may well be that this matter is too delicate, too controversial, for the Constitutional Committee to consider particularly in its early stages. However, I ask the Government to recognise that there is unease in many parts of the House about the way in which the Parliament Act has been used in this Parliament.
My second point concerns the relations between Westminster and the new devolved bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is a separate point that has not been raised in our recent debates on constitutional matters. There are concordats governing the conduct of Ministers in relation to the devolved Assemblies. I want to talk about the relations between the Parliaments, on which no view has yet been formed.
There will inevitably be differing views on policy matters. That is understandable. However, we should do our utmost to develop good relations between Westminster and the devolved Parliament and Assemblies and to try to avoid demarcation disputes. Your Lordships' House is eminently suited for that role. I call in aid the Wakeham Royal Commission and
90
the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. Recommendation 32 on page 65 of the Wakeham commission's report stated:
"The reformed second chamber should consider establishing a committee to provide a focus for its consideration of issues raised by devolution, possibly as a further Sub-committee of the proposed Constitutional Committee".
In other words, it would be a devolution committee.
The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee produced a special report dated. 24th November 2000, which referred to the procedural consequences of devolution and quoted written evidence to the Royal Commission. On pages 17 and 18, it stated:
"The House of Lords should be addressing this issue now, separately from House of Lords reform. The issue is all the more pressing for the House of Lords as, unlike the House of Commons, the House of Lords has no obvious first port of call for relations with the Parliament and Assemblies. In our view, the House of Lords should consider this issue as a matter of high priority".
Those are powerful recommendations from two highly authoritative committees. I understand that no action has been taken so far on the issue. If so, that is disappointing. We are feeling our way. We are in uncharted territory and we need landmarks. It is not a question of big brother at Westminster telling little brothers what to do; it is a question of developing good working relationships between bodies that are independent of each other but need to work together for the good of the United Kingdom as a whole. I hope that the new Constitution Committee will be able to give a high priority to the issue. It may well also be an appropriate subject for the Liaison Committee. I hope that the Chief Whip will be able to answer my points.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dean, brings exceptional experience and authority to the subject of the constitution. We are also indebted to him this evening because his Question relates to the establishment of an institution that has been lacking in our public life. That may have gone unnoticed because we have an unwritten constitution. A written constitution, particularly a federal constitution, almost inevitably demands a constitutional court or its equivalent.
On a number of occasions during the last Parliament, Cross-Benchers urged the Government to establish a Royal Commission on the constitution. Minister after Minister said that it was unnecessary, because everything in the constitutional garden was lovely. It never seemed to occur to them that an alternative government might follow that viewed the existing balance of the constitution with less enchantment. That has occurred.
On the eve of the last election, The Economist produced an extraordinary leading article. The Economist had been critical of the Conservative Government, but in the end it concluded, "Labour doesn't deserve it". Its reason was that in Mr Blair's,
"one declared area of radicalism—constitutional reform—his ideas are half-baked".

91
That was a remarkable judgment in the circumstances, but it proved to be true when we embarked on the proposed constitutional reforms. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect was one that has recently been raised again by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—the fact that we embarked on more than one referendum without thinking through what they involved. The referendums in Scotland and Wales went ahead with no consultation with the far more numerous citizens of England, who were affected, and without any thought as to who should frame the questions. They were framed by Parliament, but they were somewhat loaded.
I am encouraged to see so many members of the new committee attending the debate. No doubt it will consider issues such as the circumstances in which there should be a referendum, who should call it and who should frame the question. That is only a beginning of some of the questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, has adverted to a number of questions which undoubtedly would fall to the consideration of the committee. However, in my respectful submission, there is one overriding and all-pervading question; namely, the balance of the constitution and whether our executive is increasingly aggrandizing. I say "increasingly" because it was already notable in the previous administration. What we have seen recently is what we saw before, but now it is more noticeable; namely, an attempt to talk up a practice into a convention and a convention into a rule of law when it suits the executive, as it practically always does.
I very much trust that the noble Lord, Lord Acton, who is present, will bear out to the committee the wisdom of his great-grandfather regarding the potential corruptibility of all power. Therefore, I very much welcome this question, which is now to be answered by the noble Lord the Chief Whip. I noted one or two other points, but the important ones have been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. Again, I particularly advert to the responsibility which exists in an unwritten constitution of relying on a balance of power rather than a separation of power, such as one sees in America. That is the responsibility to be addressed by the committee, whose establishment we welcome so much and whose membership commands our admiration.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is both daunting and a privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord. He is the acknowledged expert in your Lordships' House on constitutional affairs and was so long before I ever had the privilege of attending this House. The House will be much indebted to my noble friend Lord Dean for having offered this opportunity for debate on what may lie within the remit of the Constitution Committee.
Inevitably, what is said in this debate and what was said on 13th December on the fifth day of the debate on the gracious Speech, on 19th January on the
92
Parliament Acts (Amendment) Bill, on 24th January on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on the Salisbury convention, and on 31st January at Second Reading of the Parliamentary Referendum Bill is all relevant to this Motion moved by my noble friend today and to the Motion which will be moved by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth on Wednesday.
Intervening on Tuesday will be the Report stage of the Regulatory Reform Bill. On any showing, that is a main constitutional Bill which, as such, falls within the remit of the Constitution Committee, albeit that it is concerned with delegated power, and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has already reported on it. On Royal Assent no doubt the Constitution Committee will wish to keep under review that aspect of the constitution.
Assuredly during a dinner hour debate it is not appropriate to deploy any of those arguments, which are already recorded in the Official Report; nor is it appropriate to pre-empt tomorrow's debate on the Regulatory Reform Bill, which will no doubt be considered on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth.
However, in the course of all those previous debates one matter arose but was never discussed. No attention was given to it. It was the rather curious concept which certainly on two occasions appears to have been formed on the Government Front Bench and on which some clarification will be sought from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, during his reply to the debate. As I always do, I have given the noble Lord notice of the question that I was intending to ask.
That concept, as I understand it, subject to correction, is based upon the assumption that this House is subservient to another place. The other place, elected by the people, has a mandate during the period of its office until the next general election to introduce whatever legislation it pleases. Therefore, your Lordships should not exercise the power of objection but only the power to amend.
However, surely unless and until some new form of self-denying ordinance is established by consensus, does not that concept conflict with the express provisions of the Parliament Acts, which preserve the independence of your Lordships' House and the delaying power? Would not that concept inhibit the due exercise of your Lordships' function as the acknowledged guardian of the constitution in circumstances where the nation is substantially divided? Is this question a matter of importance not only with regard to this Motion but also the Motion to be introduced on Wednesday?
Does not another question arise on both Motions as to whether this new form of self-denying ordinance, including, in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, a reappraisal of the mandate doctrine to represent a new balance of authority between the two Houses, should not be sought by consensus? Should there not be meaningful consultation—I believe that that phrase was used by

93
the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—between all political parties, the Cross Benches and the spiritual Benches to seek to devise a practical, acceptable resolution?
I turn to the abuse of the Parliament Acts. In that regard, the references for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, are as follows: 19th January, col. 1320; 24th January, col. 267; and 31st January, col. 783. The noble and learned Lord says that the only constitutional manner in which to seek to control abuse of the Parliament Acts is by a self-denying ordinance. That can be done in two ways. One is self-denying by the Government in resorting to the Parliament Acts, and the other is self-denying by the House in the exercise of its power of rejection and power to insist.
With regard to referendums, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said on 31st January at col 769:
"The urgent question is in what circumstances constitutionally do we need or desire a referendum … that is a matter on which we should take advice from the Constitution Committee".
That was in context with the Parliamentary Referendum Bill, which the noble and learned Lord supported, and which dealt with the provision of Bills which substantially affect the constitution. That was also supported by my noble friends Lord Dean of Harptree and Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. While we are on the subject of referendums, surely the stance that there must be a referendum on stage two as affecting the constitution is wholly well conceived?
There are other matters of constitutional importance relevant to today's debate and the Wednesday debate, such as the disparagement of the status and dignity of Parliament by doctored spin direct to the media, the re-affirmation of the guardianship role of your Lordships' House and the reaffirmation of the sovereignty of each House under its own rules and procedures. There is also the most important contribution today from my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree on the relationship between Westminster and the devolved bodies based on concordats, where, as my noble friend said, in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, good working relationships must be established, and that is within the remit of this House.
Like it or not, we have already entered into a new constitutional dimension in which a new convention which represents a new balance of authority between the two Houses has, as yet, not been devised. On that the House is in urgent need of the advice of the Constitution Committee, albeit that the resolution may be had only by consultation and consensus.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in the three minutes remaining before the Front Benchers speak, I seek to put on record a few words on the assumption that the committee, when formed, will read this debate. I should like to remind them that Parliament was invented when the Crown, which was the executive
94
government of this country, could not find sufficient resources with which to govern it without the consent of the people paying the taxes.
There was a battle between Parliament and the Crown which continued until the Stuarts, who tried to do without Parliament, finished up having to do without their head, and the Roundheads, who tried to do without the Crown, finished up by appointing a Lord Protector who was a king in almost everything but name. The constitution settled down in the glorious revolution of 1688 to the House of Orange, and there the matter might have rested. but the Hanovarians came in with a king who could not speak any English. At that point we get into the game which we are now playing. The executive government came in from outside Parliament and was no longer distinct from it. The executive now sits in the House of Commons with a few representatives on the Front Bench in this building.
What I shall suggest will appeal to my noble friend the Conservative Chief Whip and, I hope, to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. However, it will not appeal to the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip until he changes places. Then he will see the force of what I say. The function of Parliament is to control the executive. This committee needs to have that in mind and to see whether or not it is capable of so doing. That is an important concept. I ask the members of the committee to keep that in the forefront of their minds throughout their deliberations.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, for introducing this short debate. He is a distinguished former member of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which I suppose is the nearest thing we have had up until now to a constitution committee.
I warmly welcome the setting up of the new Constitution Committee. I also welcome the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, to chair it. I am sorry to see that he is not in his place. I hope that he will not mind if I say in his absence that he is a distinguished expert on the constitution and also, I believe, notably independent minded.
Whatever the future of your Lordships' House, it will undoubtedly remain a revising and scrutinising chamber. However, I think that it can do much more than that. The Select Committees of your Lordships' House are an important way of achieving that. As the European Union Committee and the Science and Technology Committee have shown, Select Committees do not have to be reactive. They do not just have to deal with current legislation. They can be forward looking and can, indeed, be a kind of think-tank, not just an ordinary think-tank but one of the highest authority.
The quality of the staff, the clerks and the expert adviser, is very high indeed. Even though the committees in your Lordships' House have no power to compel attendance of witnesses, they are able to persuade important players in the game to appear as

95
witnesses. The all-party and cross-bench membership of the committees adds weight to their reports, especially when, as they commonly are, unanimous. Our Select Committees produce reports of quality and authority. In setting up the Constitution Committee we are building on strength.
I believe that there are three roles for the Constitution Committee. The first and obvious one, because it is spelt out in its remit, is to report on the constitutional implications of legislative proposals, either in current Bills or in pre-legislative scrutinies. I am sorry that this committee was not in existence some years ago. We have had what I think has been an unrivalled flood of important constitutional legislation in this Parliament, certainly for a very long time indeed. Even in this Session we have had the Regulatory Reform Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, that raises important constitutional issues, both by extending powers to act by secondary legislation and by developing further the relatively new form of what might be called "hybrid secondary legislation", the super affirmative resolution procedure, as it is sometimes called, which involves an extensive degree of consultation.
It is too late for the new committee to report on the Regulatory Reform Bill, which has its Report stage tomorrow and, provisionally, Third Reading next Monday. But the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has already reported fully on that Bill. Undoubtedly, at least if the present Government are returned at the next election, there will be more to come in the way of constitutional legislation. I refer in particular to the stage two reform of your Lordships' House.
The second role I see for the Constitution Committee is the monitoring of the working of the current constitutional arrangements. As the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, said, it is a vital question to study how the devolution is working. Is the balance of devolved and reserved powers satisfactory? Is the partial system of devolution to Wales, which gives power over secondary but not primary legislation, workable? Will the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act work properly or is it, on the one hand, too easy to evade its restrictions or, on the other, unnecessarily bureaucratic? Will the Freedom of Information Act work when it is brought into force?
Although I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, in suggesting that the two recent cases in which the Parliament Acts have been used were inappropriate, I very much agree with him that these issues are matters which the Constitution Committee should consider. It should look at the Parliament Acts and, indeed, the Salisbury Convention. It is difficult, if not impossible, for the Constitution Committee to reach a conclusion and make formal recommendations on this because it is too controversial as between the parties. But certainly reports could clarify the issues and set out the arguments on either side.
96
I believe that the third and final role for a Constitution Committee is to look at the detailed implications of the constitutional changes that could happen in future but have not yet taken place.
It is unlikely that the committee would put forward recommendations for a new constitutional settlement because they are likely to be highly politically controversial. However, it could examine the perceived advantages and disadvantages of constitutional proposals. We could, for instance, ask the Constitutional Committee to review the various electoral systems now in force in this country. There is a multiplication of them—in our view there are too many but some are desirable.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested that the role of the Constitutional Committee was to defend or strengthen the hand of Parliament against the executive. He will be pleased to hear that I strongly agree with him. I hardly dare mention one issue which the committee might examine; that is, whether all Ministers need to be Members of one or other House of Parliament. They need to be accountable to Parliament and to answer questions, but do they need to be Members in order to be accountable? Might it not be better to have a larger pool of people from whom Ministers can be appointed.
I shall not go further into that matter, which is a hobby-horse of mine. I return to the main issue. I believe that the Select Committee on the Constitution will strengthen the position of the constitution. I believe that it can and will strengthen the role and reputation of your Lordships' House and I extend a warm welcome to it.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree for having initiated this important debate. I also welcome its timing, coming as it does so soon after the resolution of the House to set up a Select Committee on the Constitution. I am also pleased that Her Majesty's Government listened to us on these Benches, in particular to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, and agreed to set up the committee. I hope—this hope will be shared by Members on all sides—that the committee develops and grows in stature, as have other recently appointed committees of the House. I think in particular of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee which was set up in 1994 or 1995 by my noble friend Lord Cranborne when he was Leader of the House. We take it seriously and the Government take it even more seriously.
It is a matter for members of the new committee to determine the agenda. I have no doubt that they will follow all that was said in our recent debates on the constitution; those initiated by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and by other noble and learned Lords. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth on having been selected to be chairman of the committee.
Whatever one's standpoint in the recent debates to which I referred, no noble Lord can deny that a common thread which runs through all of them has

97
been a sense of new uncertainty and, potentially, instability in our constitution that has followed the maelstrom of change pushed through by this Government.
There is no part of the constitution—from the local council chamber to this House—which has not been shaken by these changes. At the same time, we have seen the deliberate transfer of authority away from the Westminster Parliament to European institutions, to the judiciary, domestic and overseas, and to devolved bodies. It has been one of the most tumultuous periods of constitutional change for a long time.
Perhaps I may set out a few issues which the committee could examine. Obviously, other suggestions will come from other parts of the House and some from the Government Front Bench. It might have a special role in the evolving structure of new devolved parliaments and assemblies, as put forward by my noble friend Lord Dean. But as centrifugal forces grow, and they surely will, who will watch the process and hold the threads of the constitution together? Let us examine, for example, the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Elis-Thomas, on the matter raised by my noble friend Lord. Peyton of Yeovil only last week; that we may need to examine the ways in which both Houses now devise primary legislation in relation to the Assembly in Wales. As I read those exchanges, I thought that there was an appropriate function for this House, in particular for this new Select Committee.
The Select Committee may also want to look at the relations between Holyrood and Westminster, the smooth functioning of which is vital to the survival of the United Kingdom. I do not agree with the idea once loosely floated by the late First Minister of Scotland, Mr Dewar, that one day this House might be given the power to review and revise Scottish legislation. Such a proposition would be premature, even though some of the difficulties of unicameral government are already becoming apparent north of the Border—an issue which the committee might review.
On the other hand, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde suggested in 1999 when he first suggested the idea of such a committee to your Lordships' House, the new committee might scrutinise the work of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the new Northern Ireland Assembly so as to sound a warning nationally if the Government—for example, through the over-use of the Section 28(7) power in the Scotland Act—were intruding on the privileges of those bodies.
The devolved bodies could themselves bring complaints to the House of Lords if they felt that the executive was encroaching on them and their rights. Equally, the committee could warn if those bodies were seeking to remove the constitutional boundary stones set down for them by Westminster. Although in theory the Presiding Officer—and, indeed, the Advocate-General or the Lord Advocate—have a "whistle-blowing" role, it is not impossible to envisage political circumstances in which they might not blow that whistle.
98
Finally, the Select Committee might develop the expertise and authority to be the arbiter of problems arising from the working of the so-called "concordats" between the executives in London and Edinburgh.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde suggested other potential roles. There is the evolving relationship between Parliament and the judiciary and Parliament and the EU institutions to which I have alluded. There is also the use of the huge powers reserved by Ministers in much recent legislation. One example would be the powers taken in the Greater London Act to require the Mayor of London's policy to be in line with national policy.
Some have floated the idea that constitutional Bills might be given a new and separate status to avoid unilateral imposition of major constitutional change by one party with a majority in another place. The committee might equally report adversely on proposals for referendums where there was unequal funding or where the procedures were not in line with the Neill committee rules. Others, including my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, have raised the question of post-legislative referendums on matters of great constitutional importance.
One has only to review that list, and many other ideas put forward in this debate and elsewhere, to realise that the committee set up by your Lordships may come to have the same importance and authority as the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee so ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon.
I greatly welcome the Unstarred Question and the establishment of the committee. Against the background of all the uncertainty following the government changes and against their apparent intention to plunge on with further changes without consulting other parties or seeking any cross-party consensus, I venture to say that few things could be more timely than the setting up of this committee. We always need someone to watch the executive's manoeuvres. This House is uniquely equipped to do so and I believe that the Select Committee will do the job for this House uniquely well.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House is once again indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, for introducing an important topic about the role of your Lordships' House. As a number of noble Lords have said, this is one of a series of debates held this year which follow on from the two Bills introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the topical debate initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Not surprisingly, most speakers have concentrated on the second half of the noble Lord's Question regarding the role of the Constitutional Committee, and I want to do the same.
For the record, the Government entirely support the decision of the House to set up the committee which was recommended by the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. We look forward,

99
as I am sure does the whole House, to the committee establishing itself as a respected and authoritative body on a par with the other investigative committees of your Lordships' House. The genesis of the committee was the report of the Royal Commission. It noted that proposals for some such committee had come from a number of sources, in particular the right honourable Member for Huntingdon, Mr John Major, the Labour Party and your Lordships' own Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
Following its consideration of those representations, the Royal Commission recommended that the committee should consider all Public Bills, other than those concerned with supply or consolidation, on their arrival in the Second Chamber and prepare a comprehensive report on any constitutional implications; and, more generally, it should keep the operation of the constitution under review. The terms of reference which your Lordships have now agreed for the committee faithfully reflect those two suggestions. The Government likewise accept that this should be the dual focus of the committee. The terms of reference have deliberately been widely drawn to enable the committee to develop its role as it sees fit. All noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have agreed that the committee must be allowed to develop in its own way.
I should like to comment on a few issues which I believe would enhance the effectiveness of the committee. First, comparatively few Bills have a direct constitutional implication, and they are not always the obvious ones. For example, the Clergy Disqualification Bill which is presently in another place is agreed to be a constitutional Bill, but I do not believe many would seriously argue that it has wide-ranging constitutional implications. I believe that, therefore, the committee will establish a reputation for authoritative reporting if it very carefully selects the Bills on which it seeks to do a full report.
Secondly, and perhaps even more important, there are aspects of Bills which in the first instance may appear to be constitutional but fall within the remit of other committees. The Regulatory Reform Bill is perhaps an example of the potential for overlap between the new and an existing committee. I am thinking also particularly of human rights in respect of which there is now a Joint Committee of both Houses, and the balance between the powers of Parliament and the executive as represented by the degree to which Ministers are given delegated powers which fall to be considered by your Lordships' Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
I believe that the constitution committee would be more effective if it concentrated its work on other areas and did not seek to duplicate the work of other committees. In addition, the committee will have to consider how it can best deploy its resources in a comparatively limited period of time. The Royal Commission recommended that it should consider Bills only when they arrive in this House. That will give the committee only a couple of weeks to consider a Bill before it can have its Second Reading. Again, a
100
focused, targeted approach will, we believe, yield dividends in the quality of the committee's work. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who I am delighted to learn is to be chairman of the new committee, has already thought of these and many other considerations. However, I was asked for the Government's views and so I give them.
The ability to comment on Bills is to be only one part of the committee's remit. The other is to,
"keep under review the operation of the constitution".
That is a much more long-term project. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, and other noble Lords asked whether the Government saw issues, such as the operation of the Parliament Acts and the effectiveness of the devolution settlements, as falling within the committee's remit. It is not for the Government to interpret the committee's remit; that is a matter for the committee itself. However, in principle it could be said that both fall within it. I suspect that in particular the latter—the devolution settlements—was what many people, including the Labour Party, had in mind when they recommended to the Royal Commission the establishment of the committee. The Royal Commission itself recommended that the committee might consider setting up a specific devolution sub-committee. Since devolution is obviously a major constitutional change—the decentralisation of power while maintaining the Union—clearly it would be wrong to say that it should fall outside the remit of a constitution committee.
Whether particular aspects of the settlements, in particular the way in which the concordats work at administrative level, would be appropriate for the committee to consider would depend on certain matters. The noble Lord asked particularly about the relationship between Westminster and the devolved legislatures generally. That seems to be central to devolution, and I see no reason why the committee should not do useful work on that to complement that which is done within government and by the relevant Select Committees in another place. However, whatever the interpretation of its remit, I believe that the committee would be wise to consider extremely carefully the way in which it looked into other questions, for example, the structure of the other place in the light of devolution. It seems to me that that would not be a proper subject for a committee of this House to undertake. We must be careful that the undoubted expertise of the members of the committee does not lead the House to assume that as a whole it has a greater standing in constitutional matters than another place.
The noble Lord also asked whether the Parliament Acts, the Salisbury Convention and so on would be within the remit of the committee. The terms of reference would certainly allow it, but whether a particular inquiry was a sensible and proper use of the committee's time and resources would be a matter of extremely careful judgment. As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said on 31st January in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when the latter raised the point in debate on the Parliamentary Referendum Bill promoted by the

101
noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, we do not accept that this Government's use of the Parliament Acts in any way calls into question their continued validity. I was pleased to note that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, made the same point in a trenchant contribution to the debate on 24th January.
In addition, we also believe that if there is—we do not accept that there is—a problem in the relationship between the executive and the other place, that is a matter to be resolved by the other place. It is not an issue to be resolved by increasing the powers of this House at the expense of those of the elected Chamber, especially not by this House unilaterally arrogating powers to itself. Therefore, I believe that the committee should be extremely careful about any investigation of the relationship between the executive and the elected Chamber.
I turn to just two of the main points raised in the debate, because there were a number of overlapping contributions. The point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Dean of Harptree, about the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament, the use of the Parliament Acts and a possible self-denying ordinance affecting the use of the powers of this House is well taken. Speaking as Chief Whip, there is one very important and obvious aspect of this matter which, as far as I know, has not been fully considered. Whatever form future reform of this House may take, I am not aware of any proposals which would give the government of the day a majority in this House. Any government of whatever persuasion would always be in the minority in this Chamber under the many and varied proposals that I have seen for the reform of this House.
How does one square the undoubted voting power of this House to deny the Government some parts of their legislative programme with the long-standing convention that the elected government of the day are entitled to get their business? I can do no more than enunciate the problem. It could well be a matter that the Constitution Committee would wish to consider at some time in the future in order to find a practicable and acceptable rubric regarding the operation of the two Houses and the way in which the Government achieve their programme, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, very fairly mentioned.
The noble Lord also raised the question of the Constitution Committee in relation to referendums. It is a subject on which I know he takes a particular interest. As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said when we debated the Parliamentary Referendum Bill on 31st January, there is nothing to prevent the Constitution Committee proposing, before a measure comes into force, an amendment to a Bill to provide for a referendum. Whether or not such a referendum then takes place will be a matter for the two Houses to decide, as it would be for any other proposed amendment to a Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, in his brief intervention, referred to the role of Parliament to provide a check on the executive. He said that I might
102
be prepared to change my mind if I moved across the House. I reply to the noble Lord that I speak as much as a parliamentarian as I do as a Chief Whip.
We have had an extremely interesting debate. It is clear from the terms of the debate that there will be plenty of work for the new committee to do. It is essential that it chooses its programme of work and its topics for consideration extremely carefully. If one attempted to put together all the suggestions made in the debate for the work of the new committee it would be very busy indeed. It must choose its early work extremely carefully so that it gets the balance right. I am sure that there will be requests for debates in your Lordship's Chamber on that work and its report.
I conclude that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, for initiating the debate. We look forward to the Constitution Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, establishing itself by its actions as a respected part of your Lordships' House.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.55 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.52 to 8.55 p.m.]

International Criminal Court Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 52 [Conduct ancillary to genocide, etc. committed outside jurisdiction]:
[Amendments Nos. 112 to 114 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 52 shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Can the Minister give a brief explanation, particularly of that part in the Explanatory Notes stating that,
"it will be an offence under this clause to incite, in England and Wales, the commission of genocide by a non-UK national overseas".
Why is it necessary to have this provision? What gap is it aimed at? Why do some of our existing laws on incitement not cover that matter? Can one have genocide by a non-UK national overseas in the singular? Some explanation would be gratefully received.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: One could have incitement by a single person or persons of a single person or a number of persons abroad. The provision deals with a new situation, which is that criminal offences are brought into judicable effect by the statute, if it is incorporated by the Bill.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: But can there be genocide by a single person?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is certainly possible, although I accept the noble Lord's underlying proposition that it is unlikely.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Offences in relation to the ICC]:
[Amendments Nos. 115 to 118 not moved.]
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 26, line 22, at end insert?
(?( ) The courts shall have no power to grant an injunction or other interim relief against the Crown, its agents or any member of Her Majesty's armed forces in respect of an offence or ancillary offence.?).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 119 is a probing amendment. It seeks to safeguard against a particular possibility which could arise in domestic courts under the new legislation. Ministers may say that this is not the perfect place in the Bill to have the amendment. But it is hard to find any place to fill the particular hole we believe we have identified. We are concerned to ensure that there is no scope for domestic courts to interfere in current or potential operational matters or to be so moved to bring injunctions, or to feel impelled to bring injunctions, to stop the Armed Forces pursuing activities which they say are of a political nature. I have in mind injunctions that seek to prevent the Armed Forces operating in any way connected with nuclear weaponry. If that sounds far-fetched, it is a matter of record that the Scottish devolved Parliament is about to consider the legality of nuclear weapons.
I am advised that back in 1996, the international court of justice gave an opinion that all nuclear weapons were illegal. It is possible to think of a range of injunctions that active people, with a strong political case to press, might bring against the Armed Forces who were seeking to carry out their normal duties, or who were about to go into a military action required by international peacekeeping interests or engaged in the pursuit of national interests.
If the amendment is rejected, may we at least have an explanation as to why the possibility of an injunction is left in place in the Bill, given the new crimes that we are placing on the statute book? I am told that under English criminal law, courts have an inherent jurisdiction to issue injunctions to prevent threatened criminal offences. If something that hitherto was not regarded as a criminal offence, or identified as such, now becomes a criminal offence, how can we ensure that groups do not engineer injunctions, which interfere with the proper pursuit of national and security interests and the work of the military? I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Clause 54 seeks to implement Article 70.4 of the statute, which extends existing offences against the administration of justice to cover the administration of justice of the ICC.
I confess to being somewhat perplexed by Amendment No. 119 as it purports to exclude any injunctive relief in respect of a possible offence committed by Her Majesty's forces. While we do not
104
accept that such a remedy would lie, the amendment has no place in a criminal law statute of this kind. It is a matter for the civil courts. I hope that the noble Lord will not seek to press his amendment.
The Government remain confident that our entirely defensive minimum nuclear deterrent is consistent with international law and consequently there is no question of military personnel and civilians engaged in support of the United Kingdom's nuclear capability acting illegally or being in breach of the Nuremberg principles.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I thank the noble Baroness and ask whether her final comment, which is reassuring, will be placed on the record as a declaration or interpretative note? Will it be placed on the record on the ratification status or made explicit in some other way? The noble Baroness will know that the Republic of France has done precisely that, and that other countries are also concerned about the matter.
I fully accept, as I said, that this is not the ideal place to make the point, but in probing the Government's views I was anxious to have the assurance that such injunctions, which are not unknown, and which may not be unknown in the future, are ones that the courts will not readily grant, merely because new crimes have been added to the statute book. That assurance is fair enough, although I do not know whether it will be enough for people outside. On the question of defence for military operations that could involve things that are now described under the appropriate schedules to the Bill, it is reassuring to have the certainty that there will not be injunctions or court interference of any kind. May I ask the noble Baroness to answer my one question on the declaration before I seek to withdraw the amendment?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that I have said as clearly as I can that we shall certainly consider whether a declaration is appropriate. I reassure the noble Lord that our understanding is as I have outlined.
Lord Howell of Guildford: In the light of that reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes]:
[Amendments Nos. 120 to 122 not moved.]
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Conduct ancillary to genocide, etc. committed outside jurisdiction]:
[Amendments Nos. 123 to 125 not moved.]
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clauses 60 to 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Responsibility of commanders and other superiors]:
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 31, line 10, leave out from ("or") to ("that") in line 11 and insert ("consciously disregarded information which clearly indicated").
The noble Lord said: Clause 65 sets out the responsibilities of commanders and other superiors who are held responsible for offences committed by forces under their effective command and control. The clause introduces an additional form of criminal culpability and responsibility; namely, that of commanders and superiors for the acts of their subordinates. I understand that the wording of the clause is taken from the Rome Statute and therefore, given the way in which the Committee stage has gone, that the Government line on any changes or improvements to the interpretation of the Rome Statute will be a resistant one. Nevertheless, our amendment seeks to change Clause 65(1)(a) by removing the words,
"or owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known".
By removing those words, we are seeking some protection for the Armed Forces going about their legitimate business, which may include, internationally, the use of force. As I said at the beginning of the Committee stage, we must avoid criminalising that in all cases, as that would be to the vast advantage of the world's tyrants and perpetrators of atrocities whom we are trying to bring to justice.
The problem as usual is one of subjectivity. It is easy with hindsight to say that a commander under the circumstances at the time should have known. What is the test? What is he supposed to have known? How should he have known it? As is stands, the clause allows for the dissection and scrutiny of the actions of commanders and other superior officers after the event, presumably by the investigatory branch and the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. If something really horrible happened, as does happen in times of violence and force and is happening all round the world, it might well be in the ambit of debriefs, international investigations and perhaps even court martial. However, can we be sure that the ICC, which may not understand the details of military action and the pressures that operate during a military action, will know the ways of armed forces and be able to apportion blame to a commander because of what he should have known in the circumstances of the time? It may well be that he ought to have known very many things. But let us suppose that a radio failure cut him off from what was going on. How would the court seek to establish the truth of complex circumstances like that?
We have here yet one more example of a matter that concerns those of us who want to see perpetrators of atrocities brought to justice and yet fear that we may be creating a web which will catch some innocent people and a set of conditions that will be politically distorted and used as devices for score settling and vexatious charges and investigations. We have been told throughout the Committee stage that these
106
matters can be held at bay. Indeed, it seems that we have not only belt and braces but the powers for the Secretary of State to turn down any investigation or any proposal from the ICC that it should inquire into anything. That seems to have been the purport of some of the assurances given earlier, which we shall certainly need to examine when we come to the Report stage. In the meantime, we feel that an amendment of this kind would at least relieve one of the concerns—it is a strong concern—felt among the Armed Forces who want to go about their business in a legitimate, sensible and responsible way but where it is possible that they may be involved in ugly developments which could not have been avoided and which may now become the subject of an investigation, a warrant and a prosecution. That cannot be a right ambience in which to continue to conduct a balanced approach to international relations, which ideally should involve diplomacy but may, sadly and inevitably, involve force. I beg to move.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Perhaps I may go a little wider than the amendment because I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question, That Clause 65 stand part of the Bill. If we deal with the points more generally, it will not be necessary to have a debate on clause stand part.
I regard the concept of command responsibility as being at the heart of the Bill. I raised the issue with the noble and learned Lord on the first day of Committee. When I raised the question of its being subjective, he implied that it was not subjective and said that it could be proved directly in an illustration or might he proved structurally. It is to that response that I wish to direct my remarks.
It will not surprise the Committee if I say that I became interested in the concept of command responsibility in the case of Senator Pinochet. A number of allegations were made about what happened in various parts of the country, as well as what happened in certain police stations. However, in the proceedings before the British courts, no evidence was produced in the sense that the person in question—the accused—had any knowledge of or had issued orders in relation to those particular crimes. Reflecting on that, it seems to me that this is an extremely important point of principle in relation to crimes against humanity and war crimes.
An interesting illustration of this has arisen recently and I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on this directly. We have had the trial of the Lockerbie bombers, one of whom was found guilty while the other was acquitted. However, what was interesting about that case was that the doctrine of command responsibility did not apply. If someone planted a bomb on an aircraft in order to sabotage it and kill people because he was a member of the Libyan secret service, is it remotely conceivable that this was done without the order of the Libyan head of state? Yet the British Government have used the device of the trial as an excuse to enable them to resume diplomatic relations with Libya. If the Government really believed in the concept of command responsibility,

107
then I suggest that they should have adopted a rather more robust attitude towards the resumption of diplomatic relations with Libya. It is difficult to believe that an act of that kind, if it were committed by Libyan secret service personnel, could possibility have gone ahead without the connivance and agreement of the head of state.
More generally, the whole idea of command responsibility is rather dangerous and has to be balanced against the needs of justice. It is all too easy for it to be capable of a rather expansive interpretation. Certainly, anyone who commands his troops or subordinates to commit criminal acts, or who knowingly fails to discipline his troops, or to take corrective measures, should be held criminally responsible. But one ought to secure evidence that command responsibility actually involved some explicit or implicit command. The fact that someone structurally—that was the word used by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General—was in charge does not make him criminally liable for the actions of his subordinates any more than it would make Mayor Rudolph Giuliani criminally responsible for the occasional abuses of the New York Police Department.
As the Attorney-General pointed out, this issue arose after the Second World War. The United States Supreme Court was asked to consider such a question in January 1946 in the case of General Tumoyuki Yamashita, the defeated commander of the Japanese forces in the Philippines. It is beyond doubt that those forces had committed numerous atrocities as the war drew to its close, but no specific evidence was produced to implicate General Yamashita in any of those events. Despite that, he was found guilty, based on what was then the novel responsibility of command responsibility. He was sentenced to hang by an American military tribunal and was then executed.
Despite the fact that he had clearly been denied the rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to all defendants before the US courts, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction. However, a dissenting opinion was voiced by Mr Justice Frank Murphy, who remarked that, when it came to matters of due process, the horror, the scale, the emotion that surrounds such atrocities did not,
"justify the abandonment of our devotion to justice in dealing with a fallen enemy commander".
He went on to argue that:
"To conclude otherwise is to admit that the enemy has lost the battle but destroyed our ideals. Stark retribution will be free to masquerade in a cloak of false legalism".
Lord Avebury: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will tell us whether in that case the general should have been aware of the circumstances of the crimes, which, if I remember rightly, continued over a period of time. Although he might not initially have been aware that the subordinates intended to commit such offences, as time went on and it became obvious to him that they were committing the offences, at which time the second leg of the statute would come
108
into play, did he take such measures necessary to put an end to the crimes being committed under his command?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I do not know. I was not in the court room. I can only repeat what Mr Justice Murphy said about the case, and I know that others have held a similar opinion. I suggest to the Committee that, without concrete proof, there is a very real risk of injustice being done. It is very easy to say, "He should have known". It is also easy to imagine the circumstances even though one was not there. A commander might not know everything. It was certainly the opinion of Mr Justice Murphy in the United States that justice was not done. I should feel happier with this statute if more emphasis was placed on concrete proof rather than the somewhat slippery words, "should have known", which are very easy for anyone to adopt.
Earl Attlee: I remind the Committee that I have an interest. I strongly support this amendment. There is much concern in the Armed Forces, particularly at a high level, about some of the potential undesirable effects of this legislation. The fog of war clears very rapidly after the end of an incident.
I fully accept that commanders have an important role to play in these matters. They are particularly responsible for maintaining a high level of leadership and training in their units in order to minimise any possibility of operations going wrong. However, I should like to ask the Minister to what extent she expects commanders to compromise the possible success of an operation in order to ensure that no offences are committed.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I deal first with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I can reassure him that it is not proposed that commanders should compromise the success of operations. However, it is imperative that they behave honourably and properly within the confines of the law.
I understand the concerns and anxieties that have been expressed about this clause. However, I should like to allay the fears that may exist in relation to it. I appreciate the desire of noble Lords to ensure that we carefully and fully consider provisions that affect service personnel. I should like to reassure noble Lords that we have done that.
Clause 65 makes a military commander responsible for offences committed by forces under his command and control as a result of a failure to exercise proper control, and a superior responsible for offences committed by subordinates under his control, subject to specified conditions. That provision, which is taken directly from Article 28 of the ICC statute, embodies an established principle of international law, designed to reflect the hierarchical structure of disciplined forces. There is nothing new about the concept; it is known, tried and tested. In international law, the principle of command responsibility has been used in war crimes trials since Nuremberg. In this clause we

109
have deliberately reproduced the language of Article 28, because it is important to us that the provisions of this subject should exactly mirror the Rome Statute.
As I have already said, we do not want a divergence between the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom and that of the ICC in relation to these crimes. We want to make absolutely sure that we can try British military personnel, including, if necessary, commanders, rather than leave room for the ICC to be able to say, "We were unable to try them" and for the ICC to take jurisdiction. I am quite sure that the Members of the Committee opposite would not like that to be the case.
Turning to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, I should remind him a little of the history in relation to Lockerbie. He will recall that diplomatic relations were not broken off as a result of Lockerbie; they had already been broken off with the country in question because of the death of Yvonne Fletcher. The two incidents were not connected. Indeed, diplomatic relations is not a mark of approval or a reward for good behaviour.
The noble Lord inferred that command alone could be sufficient for a military commander to be held responsible. Article 28 and Clause 65 require more than mere command alone. They require—I paraphrase—the effective command and control where the military commander either knew or should have known that his or her forces were committing or about to commit an ICC crime, and the military commander failed to take all reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress commission, or to submit the matter for investigation and prosecution.
The noble Lord raised the celebrated case of Yamashita, which involved, as he rightly said, brutal atrocities. I think there were 123 in total listed in the charges, which were committed by troops under the command of the General while he was military governor of the Philippine Islands. I think it will assist the Committee to hear what Mr Chief Justice Stone said in delivering the majority decision of the US Supreme Court on the question of command responsibility. He said:
"The question is whether the law of war imposes on an army commander a duty to take such appropriate measures as are within his power to control the troops under his command for the prevention of the specific acts which are violations of the law of war and which are likely to attend the occupation of hostile territory by uncontrolled soldiery, and whether he may be charged with personal responsibility for his failure to take such measures when violation; result …
It is evident that the conduct of military operations by troops whose excesses are unrestrained by the orders or efforts of their commander would almost certainly result in violations which it is the purpose of the law of war to prevent. Its purpose … would largely be defeated if the commander … could with impunity neglect to take reasonable measures for their protection. Hence the law of war presupposes that its violation is to be avoided through the control of the operations of war commanders who are to some extent responsible for their subordinates".
If I may respectfully say so, we are treading very well oiled boards that many have trodden before us. I invite the Committee to say that this matter is properly covered. The amendment as drafted would undermine
110
the goal that we all have jointly in this regard and would reduce our chances of being able to take advantage of the complementarity provisions. I am sure that this is not the intention of noble Lords opposite. I hope that in the light of this assurance, the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Howell of Guildford: The noble Baroness argues that we are treading well oiled boards and refers to war crimes trials in the past. Reference is often made in this context to the Nuremberg trials. Of course, the Nuremberg trials were what some people call "victor justice". They were, indeed, trials of the most horrific crimes committed by and under the command of some of the people who were charged at Nuremberg, but it was the justice of the winning side against those who had lost the war. That has applied to a number of other war trials since.The noble Baroness says that these arguments are "well oiled boards", and that there is nothing new that should concern us—
9.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Do I understand him to say that the principles of international justice that were formulated by the international military tribunal in Nuremberg for the trial of Nazi war criminals were not generally recognised principles in all civilised states, but that they were somehow victor's justice and were therefore partial?
Lord Howell of Guildford: No, the noble Lord is not to understand that. He is to understand that some people have made that comment and I am repeating it. That is obviously not the general view.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Will my noble friend allow me to intervene? Will he make the point to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the Nuremberg authorities and the Nuremberg trials were not an international court in any sense; they were the duly constituted sovereign authority of Germany?
Lord Howell of Guildford: I am grateful to my noble friend for elucidating that matter.
To say there is "nothing new" in the situation that we are addressing tends to bypass two elements that are indeed new. The first is that we are introducing new crimes on to the statute book of the United Kingdom. The second is that, should the Bill become law and should the appropriate number of countries ratify the Rome Statute, we shall bring into being a permanent court which will be ready to step in.
I totally accept the need to have in place the machinery to hunt down and bring to justice the butchers and perpetrators of atrocities around the world who have gone free. That will be a difficult enough task. However, the new situation is not the same as that of past war trials, whatever the debate about their status. We should be blind not to recognise that new fears and worries need to be allayed in the ranks of the military and among those who believe that they carry out difficult tasks. In the heat of war things

111
are done which may be profoundly regrettable. Now, we should be entering into a complicated and highly subjective debate about situations involving the tragic death of civilians, or an over-reaction in terms of violence against violence or some counter-measure against snipers who have slaughtered a soldier standing beside other soldiers. Tempers can fray.
In a mild, modest and inadequate sense, I have talked to soldiers in Northern Ireland who have just lost a companion, slaughtered by a sniper. The need for restraint is very great indeed. The feeling of these lads is that one of their people has been unnecessarily cut down, and the revenge impulse is very strong. It can be contained, but sadly that does not always happen. In such circumstances, where does the commander stand? Is he or she now to be indicted if something terrible is done, or can it be handled through the processes of the court martial? All these questions are in the minds of the military. To ignore them or to say that there is nothing new here is not the right way to proceed in terms of the reassurance that is needed.
If the reply given by the noble Baroness is all that she can offer at this time, we shall certainly want to return to the matter on Report. We have not received the assurance that we need in order to see not only that the guilty are brought to justice, but that the innocent and those who are servants of the state are properly protected. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 127:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
DEFENCE AGAINST UNLAWFUL USE OF FORCE
(".—(1) A person acts reasonably to defend himself or herself or another person or, in the case of war crimes, property which is essential for survival of the person, or another person, or property which is essential for accomplishing a military mission, when he acts against an imminent and unlawful use of force in a manner proportionate to the degree of danger to that person, or the other person, or property protected.
(2) A person may rely on the above defence if he can establish, on the balance of probabilities, that he was acting as part of a defensive operation and/or there was a necessity to act in this way.
(3) It shall be a defence, to any allegation under the ICC Statute, that the conduct which is alleged to constitute a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been"

(a) caused by duress resulting from a threat of imminent death or of continuing or imminent serious bodily harm against that person, or another person, and

(b) the person acts necessarily and reasonably to avoid this threat.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is also moved with the intentions and actions of our Armed Forces very much in mind. The purpose of the amendment is to create a defence against what would otherwise be an
112
unlawful use of force, or one that might be alleged to be unlawful. It would allow a person to defend himself, or others, or property, if it were,
"essential for accomplishing a military mission".
There are many obvious examples of this that we could list. Subsection (2) of the amendment sets out the defence; namely, on the balance of probabilities, which, as I understand it, is the test for any defence in criminal law.
Subsection (3) of the amendment also creates a defence as regards an allegation under the ICC statute regarding a person's conduct. The defence of "duress" from imminent death or imminent serious harm is created. Thereafter, paragraph (b) refers to a person acting,
"necessarily and reasonably to avoid this threat".
As I said, we have the concerns of the Armed Forces very much in mind in this amendment. It cannot be right not to have available the defence of defending oneself, or others, in what would otherwise be judged by the ICC as an unlawful use of force. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The Bill does not incorporate the definitions in the ICC statute of "self-defence" or of "duress" into domestic criminal law. As I understand it, that is left to English law, which is probably a wise judgment. It is important to ensure that the Bill does not produce definitions of "self-defence" or of "duress" that are inconsistent on their face with what is contained in Article 31 of the statute.
By way of these amendments, the Conservative Front Bench has managed to secure a double violation of the definitions in Article 31. In the first place, when "self- defence" is defined in the amendment, the words that one finds in the tail-piece of Article 31(1)(c) are omitted. Those words read:
"The fact that the person was involved in a defensive operation conducted by forces shall not in itself constitute a ground for excluding criminal responsibility under this subparagraph".
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong, but my view is that the words of Article 31.1.(c) are exactly the same as the position under English law as it stands; in other words, a person could not successfully plead self-defence merely because he was involved in,
"a defensive operation conducted by forces".
Therefore, if I am right, by omitting those words from the definition in the amendment, there is a conflict both with traditional English criminal law and also with the definition in the ICC statute.
The Conservatives then make the same mistake when they come to define the word "duress". Again, the definition falls short of what the statute defines in Article 31 because the statute's defence is subject to a limitation that is ignored by the amendment. The statute's defence can only be exercised where,
"the person does not intend to cause greater harm than the one sought to be avoided"—
a kind of principle of proportionality. Again, unless I am much mistaken, that concept would be well recognised in English criminal law in relation to the defence of duress. Therefore, both because it is

113
inconsistent with the ICC statute and also because it is not on good "speaking terms" with traditional English criminal law on the defence of self-defence and on that of duress, we oppose these amendments.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say once again that I understand the nature of the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I also understand that by seeking to introduce two defences to the allegation that an ICC crime has been committed, he does so with the purpose of being helpful.
However, I reassure him by saying that the defences which are currently available under our law will also be available in cases where there is an allegation that an ICC' crime has been committed. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is right to say that these issues are covered by our law. This is made possible by Clause 56(1) of the ICC Bill, which applies the,
"principles of the law of England and Wales",
in,
"determining whether an offence under this Part has been committed".
I emphasise that it imports or implies the whole of the principles or the laws in England and Wales. I hope that the Committee will agree that the matter is more conveniently expressed in that way than annexed to any Bill of this kind in volumes.
In applying the principles of the law, defences both statutory and at common law are invoked. Should a person find himself or herself accused of an ICC crime resulting from a situation described in subsections (1) and (2) of the amendment, a possible defence could be provided under the common law or by Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, where reasonable force is used.
In respect of the proposed subsection (3), the common law recognises the availability of defence of duress which may be applied by our courts in certain circumstances, although not in relation to murder, as the Committee will know. To incorporate these amendments would run the risk of excluding other common law defences. I am sure that Members of the Committee opposite do not want that. The defences under our own law are the best defences for individuals before our courts.
I also note that the proposed amendment departs in certain serious respects from the provisions of the statute that have already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. In sharp contrast to Article 31 of the statute, the amendment would allow the person a defence if he can establish that he was acting as part of a defensive operation. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has already outlined that point.
Subsection (3) of the proposed amendment reflects part of Article 31 of the statute. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lester, also made clear, it does not include certain important elements of that provision. I shall not repeat them as I believe that the noble Lord has already referred to them.
114
If we incorporate these defences in terms which would allow an acquittal where the ICC would convict, we run the risk that the ICC would hold that our courts had not tried a suspect for a statute offence, and thus would take jurisdiction itself; that is, we would not be able to take advantage of the principle of complementarity. We are confident that the defences available in the laws of England and Wales are applicable and should be those which British citizens who are tried on these cases would be able to take advantage of. We would not like to see them restricted or confined in the way in which the amendment suggests, although we absolutely understand the purpose that the noble Lord sought to achieve by so amending.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I am grateful for the noble Baroness's comments, which I found reassuring. In as far as she is able to explain that under the common law these matters would be fairly handled, that must be reassuring to those outside the Chamber and outside the skilled and expert but sometimes rather baffling world of legal interpretation who are worried as they go about their business, particularly in the military world where ugly things do happen tragically. I found the noble Baroness's comments useful and valuable. They will be on the Hansard record. In the light of that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Clauses 67 to 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Extradition: Orders in Council under the 1870 Act]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 33, line 36, at end insert ("any Part V offence.
(2A) "Part V offence" means—").
The noble Baroness said: The amendments are brought forward for the avoidance of doubt. Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 are technical ones which do not change the policy as set out in the Bill. They are proposed in the light of the recent Court of Appeal decision in Al-Fawwaz v. the Governor of Brixton Prison which exposed a discrepancy in some extradition cases. The amendments are intended to give better effect to the lifting of the dual criminality rule in respect of Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act than is presently provided in Clause 70 as drafted.
The amendments bring Schedule 1 extradition cases in line with the position in respect of other extradition cases dealt with under the Extradition Act 1989. It does so by enabling extradition for the extra-territorial offences of a requesting state under Schedule 1 as is the case with other requesting states under the main body of the 1989 Act. I beg to move.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Perhaps I may raise a point which is not directly relevant to the amendment but to the clause.

115
Clause 72 covers offences not regarded as of a political character. It provides that extradition can take place for these offences even if they were not offences at the time and place where they were allegedly committed. Can the noble Baroness comment on that? We have been continuously reassured that there is no retrospection in the Bill.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: There is no retrospection for new offences. Of course there are already existing provisions in relation to old offences as regards extradition.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness of Scotland of Asthal Baroness of Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 33, line 42, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

("(2B) For the purposes of Schedule 1 to the 1989 Act, conduct, wherever committed, which constitutes—

(a) a Part V offence, and

(b) an offence against the law of any state in relation to which that Schedule has effect,
shall be deemed to be an offence committed within the jurisdiction of that state.

(2C) If any conduct would constitute a Part V offence if committed in the United Kingdom then, notwithstanding that it does not constitute such an offence—

(a) a person whose surrender is sought in respect of that conduct may be surrendered by the United Kingdom in pursuance of an Order in Council to which subsection (2) applies, and

(b) subsection (2B) applies to the conduct as if it constituted a Part V offence.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 130:
After Clause 70, insert the following new clause—
REPORTING OF CONSULTATION BETWEEN ICC AND SECRETARY OF STATE
(". The Secretary of State shall following any consultation prior to any proposed warrant, or actual warrant, from the ICC lay a report before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons, or any ad hoc committee of that Committee, setting out in particular—

(a) the nature of the proposed warrant;

(b) the grounds for refusal to accept the warrant; and

(c) any reasons given by the Secretary of State why he considers that a warrant should not be issued, or that the case has been dealt with and or, that the case will be dealt with under United Kingdom jurisdiction").

The noble Lord said: Although the hour is getting late, I make no apology for bringing to the attention of the Committee a matter which I believe to be central to the effectiveness of the legislation and which to me is somewhat puzzling in the light of the many remarks made in Committee by Ministers.
In Committee it is our job to scrutinise the proceedings, jurisdiction and extent of the powers of the international court. Where powers are being created or transferred, that is a matter of proper
116
concern in the interests of the subjects of this country. We have been told more than once that our amendments cannot be considered, not because of their merits—they may be technically inadequate—but because "this is what the Rome Statute states and that is what goes".
That leaves us in a slightly difficult position. While we have said that we welcome the Bill and its aims, we seek reassurance on a number of aspects. We can only do so by amendment. I hope that this amendment will not meet with the same response as others for this reason. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has said during the course of the debate—I do not think that I distort his words—that we shall not have the situation where, in taking proceedings against an alleged war criminal, we are faced with a warrant from the ICC. He said that the ICC would alert us to the fact that it proposed to issue a warrant to someone suspected of being in the United Kingdom, resident or otherwise—we shall come to that another time. I hope that he is right in assuring us that national courts in signatory countries to the statute will have primacy.
That is all very well. The aim of the amendment is to get behind that and find how we can become aware of any discussions or consultations between the Secretary of State and the ICC that could lead to the rejection of an ICC investigation. In other words, how do we set out the reporting requirements for that very important procedure? My understanding of what has been said earlier in Committee by a number of authorities, including Ministers, is that the Secretary of State can say, before a warrant is issued—in other words, during the discussions or consultations with the ICC—that we in the United Kingdom will deal with the matter, that we believe that we have dealt with the person sufficiently or that we believe that there is no need to pursue the matter and that will then be the end of it. That is certainly a safeguard, although I tremble slightly at the thought of how other countries, with maybe less commitment to the rule of law or with a commitment to other kinds of law, such as Islamic law, will interpret that provision, but there it is. That is apparently what we have said.
If the International Criminal Court is not satisfied with the Secretary of State's assertion that the matter has been investigated and there is nothing more to do, can it issue a warrant in any case? Does it have the power to initiate proceedings against a state party and signatory country if it believes that an alleged war criminal is not going to be prosecuted or was not sufficiently prosecuted—or for some other reason? It appears that the Secretary of State of a signatory country can deal with an alleged war criminal nationally and insist to the ICC that the nation state has dealt with the alleged criminal. Is that all within the bounds of the Rome Statute and the treaty?
There is some clarity lacking on that issue. The aim of the amendment is to bring the contents of such discussions and decisions within the realm of Parliament. Of course it will be said that we should soon hear of any such proceedings that were knocking around. It is doubtful that the ICC would not know about them. However, the issue has been raised in your

117
Lordships' House. Under those circumstances, if the ICC' issued a warrant or proposed to the Secretary of State that one should be issued, Parliament should be made aware of the matter and would wish to know about it.
Finally, the amendment would put such discussions on a formal footing. We are talking about extremely serious matters and the most hideous of crimes. We would want to know what was being considered by the Secretary of State and the International Criminal Court. The Minister may have in mind some reporting regime to Parliament. If so, it would be good to hear about it, because we need more than just a statement that it is a matter of interpreting or enshrining the statute in the law of this land. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Clause 2 deals with requests for arrest and surrender, and Clause 3 with requests for provisional arrest. They give the Secretary of State very little discretion. That is especially true in relation to the issuing of warrants.
The function of the Secretary of State is to forward either the ICC warrant or the ICC request to the appropriate judicial authority, or, in the case of a provisional warrant, to a constable. In the case of a provisional warrant, his role is slightly expanded. Under Clause 3 he forwards the request to a constable only if it appears to him that an application for a warrant should be made. However, if that is read together, as it must be, with the statute, the Secretary of State would have little reason to refuse to issue a warrant.
As has been said many times during the debate, the safeguards under the Bill and the statute are partly to be found in the national judicial system in relation to habeas corpus and respect for fundamental rights, and mainly in the International Criminal Court procedures. Given the very limited breadth of ministerial discretion, we cannot understand how such a matter could possibly need to be reported either to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the other place or to any other parliamentary oversight body. For those reasons, we do not consider the amendment to be necessary or appropriate.
Earl Attlee: Does the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, agree that if a warrant arrives it is most likely to be directed at a member or former member of Her Majesty"s Armed Forces? Such a situation could be extremely damaging for morale in the Armed Forces, and therefore Parliament should know about the difficulties.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Of course, I realise that it is possible—one hopes that it will never happen—that members of the Armed Forces may be guilty of crimes against humanity, of war crimes or of genocide. In that case, they should be treated in the same way as the perpetrators of that type of crime in any other country. As to whether such a case should be reported to Parliament, I have no doubt at all that in a country with a vigorous press the fact that the request has been made will be noted. I also have no doubt that Members
118
of this House and of the other place will make quite sure, as they always have done in the past, that such matters are debated.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I want to reassure noble Lords opposite and all Members of the Committee in relation to this matter. When appropriate, matters relating to requests from the ICC will be brought to the attention of Parliament in the usual manner without a requirement formally to lay a report. That has been the practice on many occasions and, indeed, was the approach taken in the Pinochet case, when the Home Secretary's reasons for his decision were brought to the attention of another place.
The ICC would have to consider any challenge to its jurisdiction at a preliminary admissibility hearing in accordance with Articles 17 and 19. Members of the Committee will know that Article 17 provides that a case should be investigated by a state which has jurisdiction over it where the state has decided not to prosecute the person concerned unless the decision has altered from the unwillingness or inability of the state genuinely to prosecute. Article 19 provides that the court shall satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in any case brought before it. The court may, on its own motion, determine the admissibility of a case in accordance with Article 17.
We do not believe that a problem will arise in that respect. In the light of our assurance that the matter would be brought before Parliament in the usual way, we hope that noble Lords will agree to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Howell of Guildford: As I understand it, the noble Baroness is saying that these matters will come before Parliament but that one does not require further formality, procedures or definition of procedures in codifying the way that they will come forward because come forward they will. I believe that that is what she is saying. That I understand and accept. However, I remain a little puzzled. My mind is far less clear about the nature of the procedure than are the clear minds of those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Lester, are obviously reassured by the situation. Perhaps this does not arise but let us suppose that the ICC says, "We have had notification" perhaps from some other country or a former enemy—I know that this is not retrospective—"that back in Bosnia, something really dreadful happened and some atrocities were committed which we, the recipients, believe involved brutality and war crimes which should be brought to justice". That comes from the ICC to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State might say, "We have looked into this. We have concluded that the matter should not be pursued because the military personnel concerned were under intense pressure. They bombarded the wrong village and blew up an alleged ammunition dump, which turned out to be full of civilians. We have looked into that and we do not believe that any further blame can be apportioned". Or the Secretary of State might say, "Yes, we have proceeded to a court martial and those involved were acquitted".

119
I think that I understand that in the second instance that is enough and the ICC will go away; but in the first instance, what is the nature of the consultation? Is it correct that the ICC, if told by the Secretary of State that the matter will not be pursued nationally—which, in another language, one could say was an indication that the nation state was unwilling, not unable, to proceed with the matter—will then have to go away? If it is, does not that somewhat weaken the impulses and momentum which are meant to be behind the Bill, as has been put so eloquently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith?
I should like to be told that that analysis is wrong, that there is not that defence by the Secretary of State, and that the investigation could proceed. Before we finish Committee stage it is important to get absolutely clear and on the record the safeguards or limitations which the Secretary of State—or, in any other country trying to pass similar legislation to ours, a senior minister, Minister of Justice, or whatever—can deploy to prevent an investigation going ahead. I repeat that that applies in particular, obviously, to the armed services and the inevitably violent situations in which they have to conduct their difficult business. I should like the Minister to address that point before we go further.
10 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: The noble Lord referred to me as one of those who had been happy about the Bill and anxious that it should go forward. Perhaps I may say, before the Minister replies, so that she can indicate whether this is right, that the answer to his question is to be found in Article 17.1(b). If the Secretary of State or whoever it is says that the case has been investigated and a decision has been taken not to prosecute, the case will be inadmissible so far as concerns the ICC, unless the ICC takes the view that that decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the state genuinely to prosecute. In other words, it is another example in which the ICC does not step in where a country is able and willing genuinely to prosecute and to investigate, but will do so if it is not. That is my understanding. My noble friend will confirm or say otherwise on that point. I hope that answers the question.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I can confirm that what the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, says is right. Earlier I read out Article 17.1(b). Perhaps I may assist noble Lords. The articles which perhaps help most start with Article 5.4, there are then Articles 17, 18 and 19. In addition to those three articles—I am happy to go through them with a little care if Members of the Committee would like—full procedures are provided for in relation to admissibility and the challenges before the ICC in the rules of procedure at Articles 51 to 62. The scheme is clear. The noble Lord, Lord
120
Goldsmith, is right to say that Article 17.1(b) assists as he and I have already outlined. Article 17.1(c) goes on to state:
"The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20".
Indeed, the whole of Article 17 is relevant.
I ask Members of the Committee to look also at Article 18.2, which provides for more specific provision, and then at Article 19. The issue appears to be comprehensively covered in relation to those matters. I am sure that in close scrutiny of those parts of the statute the noble Lord will find the reassurance he seeks.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I thank the Minister for that answer. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for his intervention, which cast a beam of light. But his light falls on what I am afraid is still a grey area. The questions that hang in the air are: what is unwilling; who decides; and by what public or private consultation is it established that the state believes it is not a sensible matter to pursue or is unwilling? At what level inside the office of the prosecutors, the pre-trial chambers and all the other apparatus of the Bill is that decided?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am happy to read out all the provisions but I invited Members of the Committee to look at Article 17.2, which provides that:
"In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized in international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable".
I respectfully suggest that the noble Lord scrutinises the provisions in each of them because he will find the help he needs.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I am happy to receive that invitation. Having done the scrutinising I shall do it again, but I am still uneasy about the subjectivity of the decisions and the need for the Parliament of this nation to be fully apprised of the nature of any disputes and exchanges which may arise over an area where there is not an objective, a perfect solution, no matter how many times one reads the detailed articles of the statute. That is in the nature of the thing because we are dealing with matters which are associated with judgments which can be subjective and are not always objective.
However, as time is getting on I shall seek to return to these matters. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 72 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I thank the Minister for having answered the questions I sought to raise about

121
Clause 72 when addressing Clause 70. I am sure that she realised I was speaking at cross purposes to the wrong clause. I assume that her answer to me applies.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Consequential amendments of armed forces legislation.]
[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clauses 74 and 75 agreed to. [Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
Clause 76 [Application of provisions in relation to other International Tribunals]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 37, line 20, leave out ("and (3)") and insert (", (3) and (4A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 77 [Crown application]
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 37, line 37, leave out from ("Crown") to (", and") in line 38.
The noble Lord said: As we near the end of Committee stage I return to the familiar theme, which we discussed a moment ago, of the protection of innocent persons, not the pursuit of international butchers and monsters, to which the Bill and project are dedicated, who must be brought to justice, if that can be done. I refer to the people of our nation who are in the service of the Crown. The reasons for the amendment are simple enough. Armed Forces personnel are subject to military discipline and, if they act pursuant to orders, they should not be liable to ICC prosecution.
Some Members of the Committee have had difficulty in imagining what may go through the minds of soldiers when they read some of the provisions of the Bill and how the whole project is to move forward. On the whole, this country is on good terms with most states in the world. One of the matters that I found most wonderful and gratifying in the years that I chaired the Foreign Affairs Committee and travelled around the globe was how the world was such a Britain-friendly place. On the whole, people do not seek to settle scores with us and build up revenge cases, although there are plenty of reasons in history why they may do so.
As I understand it, in the statute a check is provided against abuse and politically motivated prosecutions, in addition to all the pre-trial machinery and so on built into the conduct and procedures of the ICC as provided by the Security Council of the United Nations. In theory, the many extensions of criminal definitions could apply to a number of countries; for example, those in the Middle East. Israel is accused daily of deportation, forced transfers, genocide and murder against the Palestinians. Turkey is also
122
accused of those crimes against the Kurds, and Iraq is accused of committing crimes against its own people, the marsh Arabs. Although they may appear to us to be remote concerns, they indicate how, even when countries have not signed the statute, for example Turkey and Iraq—Iran and Israel have done so—there is pressure for the political settling of scores to be incorporated in the procedures of the ICC.
These are very complex problems. Unless the safeguards at the highest level are made absolutely clear in ordinary English, not just (dare I say?) in the reassuring language of legality, criminalisation of the use of international force may be on the cards. People will look over their shoulders, even when they act under UN authority in the name of peacekeeping, and retaliation against violence may potentially become a more dangerous pastime for the individuals involved. It is for that reason that at the end of Committee stage we table one further amendment to give reassurance to those who serve the Crown and their country and are involved in actions, which other people, far from our own definitions, describe as war crimes, and find themselves fingered. They may be investigated or named only in the tabloids but that can mean destruction for many of them. That is the danger. Every assurance we can extract from the Government and legal luminaries, both in this House and elsewhere, that that danger is not there, and that there are safeguards against it, is one more support for the success of the Bill. Every lack of assurance is one more weakness in the Bill and one more danger that it could fail. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I wonder what the noble Lord would think if a similar immunity clause were inserted into the law of Ruritania, immunising anyone acting in the discharge of their duties in the public service of the People's Republic of Ruritania, in circumstances in which the Armed Forces of Ruritania had committed atrocities and barbarities of the kind that are stigmatised by customary international law as well as conventional international law? In other words, I wonder whether he would be able to apply the standards he has just outlined to another country that committed these kinds of barbarities against our own people? I venture to think that he would not dream of defending immunity of that kind.
Under the law as it stands, if members of the Armed Forces in the service of the Crown of this country act in breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights by unlawfully killing, then there is no immunity at all. Their case has to be determined under British law, and, if necessary, by the European courts. If they are guilty of acts of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of the convention, there is no immunity.
If they act in breach of the Geneva Conventions Act, there is no immunity. If they act in breach of the Criminal Justice Act as it applies to acts of torture, there is no immunity. I fail to understand why it is thought that such an immunity could even be dreamt

123
of as being appropriate. It would be directly contrary to the ICC Statute to insert such an immunity. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Instead of using "Ruritania" why does the noble Lord not simply use the "United States"?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Because I am using a state that is an enemy or an unattractive state, a real example of one that would commit crimes against humanity or war crimes and so on. What I am dealing with here is not immunising United States forces, but immunising our own United Kingdom forces. The point I am trying to make is that we would never dream of tolerating such a provision in relation to an unfriendly foreign state; for example, Nazi Germany.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I wonder if that really is what the noble Lord was advocating or whether he was just advocating it in respect of "another country", because what he has said is very much what the United States wants to do with regard to giving itself protection from this legislation. He may know that Senator Helms has talked of introducing a Bill that would authorise the President to use military force to rescue an American held for trial by the ICC.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I doubt that anything I or most Members of this House could say would ever satisfy Senator Jesse Helms. I do not aspire to that level, if that is the right way to put the matter.
As the United States has been mentioned, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, knows that during the negotiations the United States delegation and, separately, the United States military representatives sought and obtained concession after concession in the drafting of the ICC statute. Those concessions were made by the United Kingdom and the others who signed and wish to ratify, in the hope of persuading the United States to follow suit. However, in spite of the broad concessions that have been made, Senator Jesse Helms and many others like him did not wish to sign and ratify. They regret the fact that there has been signature by the United States.
I would not dream of counselling the United States as to what might be in its best interests. The question that we are considering is whether it is compatible with the ICC statute to confer immunity, whether that would be consistent with the other international human rights treaties to which I have drawn attention and whether it is really a matter of principle or is something that we could possibly condone. Why on earth, I ask, should the armed forces of our country be above international law, customary international law or in this case conventional international law? If they are properly suspected and charged with committing these sorts of crimes, why should they have general immunity? Perhaps I may add that this is an ICC
124
statute with more safeguards, properly written in, under United States pressure, than any other international human rights treaty of which I am aware.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: If those remarks were addressed to the United States as well as the United Kingdom, while the principle that the noble Lord advocates is laudable, common sense indicates that one would pursue this matter with considerable reticence if one belonged to the country that carries out more peacekeeping than any other country in the world.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The United States has its own proper concerns. Indeed, it is not alone in that. I am seeking to address the issues of principle, and it would be impertinent of me to talk about what is in the best interests of the United States. I recognise the concerns, but I believe that they have been properly met in the concessions made in the ICC statute. I very much hope that it takes less time to ratify this statute than the genocide convention, which the noble Lord will remember was not ratified by the United States until many years after other democratic and civilised states throughout the world had done so.
Lord Avebury: Let us consider the matter from the viewpoint of Senator Jesse Helms. The reason why he does not want the United States to sign the ICC statute is that he knows that there cannot be any exemption for the personnel of the American armed forces, apart from the protections that have been rehearsed time and again, such as those in Article 17 and so on. The senator's position is logical. He does not want the United States to accept a statute from which there is no exemption, whereas the noble Lord on the Tory Front Bench is trying to add to the Bill an exemption that is totally incompatible with the statute. Senator Jesse Helms is at least more consistent than the noble Lord on the Front Bench.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the concerns of the Members opposite. They are seeking to protect service personnel who are acting properly in the discharge of their duty. I reassure the noble Lord that this Bill does not seek to entrap those who behave properly in the discharge of their duty in accordance with international law. However, it seeks to catch those acting outside the proper boundaries or borders of permissible activity.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, made clear, the amendment would catch none of those whom we wish to be trapped by the Bill, but would set all free. I am sure that that is not the purpose behind the amendment. If it were, I should have become confused and bemused about the stance being taken by Members of the Committee opposite. What I say to reassure the noble Lord is that the whole fabric of the Bill is constructed so as to make sure that those who behave properly will have nothing to fear from it. But, by the same token, we hope that the Bill will strike terror in the heart of the war criminal and will act as a tool to reinforce proper behaviour by all personnel.

125
I understand why the amendment has been put forward, but it does not cure the ill which the noble Lord seeks to cure. What it may do is simply spread the disease. I know that that is not the noble Lord's intention. I invite him not to pursue the matter and to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that invitation. I am rather sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, brought Ruritania into the debate as an unfriendly country. I have always had a special affection for Strelsau, the Rassendyll family and even the castle of Zenda. But let us suppose that we are talking about countries that are hostile and that really exist. Those are countries for which, in many cases, legal processes are an extension of politics. I fear that we must be reconciled to the fact that even though some of those which have signed, let alone those which have not, would, if they come to ratify, be only too ready to put in all kinds of safeguards and protections, they would not be too overawed by whatever example we have tried to set.
I know that the doctrine put forward in the debate is that we must be a model and so on. "Up to a point, Lord Copper", if I may quote that phrase from Evelyn Waugh. Of course we must be a model up to a point, but not to the point where we remove safeguards in a belief, which is idealistic but is bound to be naive, that everyone will do the same and place their national interest in a lower place in order to elevate the high and noble purposes of the Bill. I do not think that will happen and we should not build too much hope on that.
The position of the United States came into the debate. It is not just Senator Jesse Helms who holds views that some regard as internationally extreme. It is a considerable range of responsible Senators, Congressmen, American lawyers, politicians and those who think hard about these issues. It is people like Senator Hatch, whom one could not possibly condemn as off the main track of sensible understanding of international values. I heard, alas, one eminent QC—he is not a Member of this House or of the other place—dismiss the whole of the American stance as arrogant. That made me very sad. If that is the approach, the chances of getting the United States to be part of the court and to give it the credibility without which it will not be half as effective as we want are very low indeed. I hope that it is not the approach of anyone in your Lordships' House. I am sure that it is not the approach of the Government. I do not even suggest that. However, the American view must be changed if the court is going to work.
I leave aside for a moment the problems of China and India, which have a third of the world's population and do not look too willing to move, although the Indian Government may take a different view in due course. There is the real difficulty that, as the statute cannot be amended for seven years, the very proposition which even President Clinton signed looks a little awkward, although there will be some room for negotiation in the assembly. After all the efforts of the previous US negotiator—the sincere efforts which the
126
noble Lord, Lord Lester, mentioned—to get a workable system, the idea that somehow the United States can find its way back into the system in seven years' time and will go along with it in the meantime is completely unrealistic. It is my view that, if this is to succeed as a project, something will have to give. I am not sure that I can see exactly what that will be, but I am equally sure that if we all stand pat on the present arrangements and keep America out, that will be a disaster for the whole project.
Having said that and fully accepting that we cannot lead the way on this—this amendment conflicts with the Rome Statute as it stands; it was tabled to provide an opportunity to hear the Government's final and reiterated views on the matter—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Extent]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 37, line 41, after ("except") insert ("section 32 (transfer of prisoner to give evidence or assist in investigation) and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 79 to 83 agreed to.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Supplementary provisions relating to the ICC]:
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick moved Amendment No. 136A:
Page 40, line 4, leave out paragraph 1.
The noble Lord said: I should like to raise a number of points relating to Schedule 1. The first relates to the question of immunities. We see that the Bill as a whole is a feast for lawyers; a tremendous input has come from the lawyers. We have been given long lectures on how no immunities should be granted to anyone. There is to be sovereign immunity, no diplomatic immunity or, indeed, any immunity for anyone other than lawyers.
In paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 we find tucked away the most interesting provision in the entire Bill: subordinate legislation conferring privileges and immunities on the ICC. I should like to ask the noble Baroness why it is necessary to confer such immunities on the court. Is it normal for courts to enjoy immunity? For example, only yesterday a story was published in the newspapers concerning a judge in the Czech Republic. He has been accused of taking a bribe in relation to a court case held some years ago. What will be covered by these immunities? Will it be impossible for people to seek redress against judges if they are thought to have behaved in any way improperly? I refer to questions of miscarriages of justice; namely, not matters that would normally be the subject of an appeal.
I notice that the schedule also makes provision for pensions. Those pensions are presumably ones for UK judges to the ICC, to be paid out of UK taxation. That raises the question of the resources to be made available to the court. I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on what resources are to be made available. How much is it thought that British taxpayers will have to contribute? What will be the situation if other governments do not contribute? It is important, if multi-national or multi-lateral funding is to be used for the court, that it should not be dominated by one country or a group of countries.
A criticism that I would level at the tribunals in the former Yugoslavia is that they have been excessively dominated in their funding by Muslim countries. I suggest that that could be perceived as calling into question the impartiality of the court.
I have previously raised with the Minister the question of whether it is appropriate for a court to be partly privately financed. I understand that part of the finance for the equipment used in the Yugoslav tribunals was provided by Mr Soros. Contrary to legend, I have nothing against Mr Soros, in this or any other context, although the French authorities seem to have some quarrel with him. But I question whether it is appropriate for a private individual to fund a court in this way. We regard it as unthinkable that a court nationally should be partly privately funded. I should like the Minister to address the source of the funding, whether it will be evenly spread and whether it will be dominated by particular countries. Those questions give rise to a number of concerns.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 refers to the power to give effect to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to say a little more about that. In particular, will she say how we can ensure that in the minds of judges standards of proof and standards of guilt are the same? What will be done to bring about a harmonisation of standards and expectations?
I have heard from many members of the Bar and lawyers who have appeared before the Yugoslav tribunals. I have not heard unmitigated praise for the way in which the judges operate or for the way in which the rules of procedure of those courts operate. For example, is it intended that we shall have rules relating to the length of time that someone can be detained before being brought to trial? I have heard all kinds of criticism from people who have appeared before those tribunals. I know that they would prefer not to be named, and they will not be named by me. However, I can say that they hold great reservations about the operation of such tribunals. I make that point because, when a similar point was raised earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and others expressed horror that any criticism should be made. The decision whether or not to establish an international criminal court should, at least in part, be based on the experience of those involved with tribunals relating to the former Yugoslavia. Not everyone who has been professionally involved with those tribunals holds the rose-coloured spectacle view of them that has been put forward during the debate.
My final point relates to paragraph 4. The orders made under paragraphs 1 to 3 will extend to Scotland. This paragraph provides that they shall be made only with the consent of both Houses of Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. What will happen if the House of Lords says "no" to one of those but the Scottish Parliament says "yes"?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is at least consistent. Earlier in the debate he expressed scepticism, if not something stronger, about the way in which our own House of Lords had dealt with the case of Senator Pinochet. I believe that he said that the Law Lords somehow had not acted in the judicial way that he would have wished. If he thinks that of our own judges, it is not surprising that he finds it appropriate to express doubts about the court not yet established.
If he is open to it, I believe I can provide him with some reassurance. If he reads the ICC statute, he will find a number of provisions that answer his points. For example, Article 40 guarantees judicial independence in a strong way. Article 41 deals with the disqualification of judges whose impartiality may be in doubt. Article 46 deals with the removal of judges for serious misconduct or a serious breach of duties under the statute. That will be further dealt with in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Article 47 deals with disciplinary measures against a judge or prosecutor and so on who commits less serious misconduct. So there you have a battery of safeguards, coupled with the other safeguards in regard to the need to act judicially in a real sense.
So far as concerns privileges and immunities, Article 48.1 requires the court to enjoy in the territory of each state party such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes. Just as our courts have immunities when exercising judicial functions subject to their removal by impeachment—and there is a similar provision here for impeachment—so all international organisations properly so called have privileges and immunities within the territories of the states which are members and supporters of those organisations. So there is nothing strange or unusual about a privilege and immunity clause.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: The noble Lord says that it is nothing strange—it is. Perhaps he will give a rationale for it. Why should a head of state have no immunity and an organisation like the court have immunity? Is he aware that in countries such as New Zealand judges do not have immunity; judges can be prosecuted for offences or taking bribes? Why should we not have the highest standards for an international court?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Judges here may be prosecuted for criminal offences, just like anyone else. I am talking about immunity in respect of the exercise of their judicial functions and the importance of having independent tenure. The noble Lord asked me why international organisations have immunity. The

129
reason is that they have international legal personality and they are, as a matter of customary and conventional international law, always protected in their international functions by immunities in the states in which they operate. The point I make simply is that that is true of the European Court of Human Rights, of the International Labour Organisation and of every international organisation that is recognised as being international.
So far as concerns funding, that is determined, as I understand it, by the assembly of states parties. I do not think that any of the points raised are new or give rise to any real concern.
Lord McCluskey: I wonder whether I am looking at the same statute as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. The one that I am looking at talks about immunities for judges being immunities which are required to give effect to the statute. You do not have to commit genocide to give effect to the statute; you do not have to commit crimes against humanity or accept bribes to give effect to the statute. Accordingly, immunity is extremely narrowly defined. If one recognises that that is what this states and what the treaty and statute state, there is no problem at all.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am about to fulfil a lifetime's ambition. I am able to say, in respect of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey said, that I have heard what he said, I agree with everything he said and I have nothing to add.
I do not think that there is anything to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said. I understand the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. All the answers that I was going to give included going through Schedule 1, paragraph by paragraph. Those answers have already been given. I do not think that I can assist the Committee further, bearing in mind that the hour has now past 10.41 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, could he at least answer the questions about funding?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Certainly. This will not come cheap. I believe that experience will demonstrate that the number of cases which have to go to the ICC will be relatively few. It will therefore not be possible to give even a general estimate of the cost to the United Kingdom of the ICC. Should we take prisoners at the ICC's request, the conventional figure at the moment is about £25,000 or £26,000 per head per year. I am trying to be as helpful as possible. Our contribution to the Yugoslav and Rwanda tribunals last year was about £5.7 million.
I should say in the context of the Yugoslav tribunal that I have visited it. Sometimes that is helpful. Two senior British prosecutors had been there for a long period of time on a very small remuneration, barely enough to live on. I was unable to find any criticism of the quality of the judges, or of the procedure. I thought it exceptionally fair and exceptionally careful, moderate and scrupulous.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My question related not merely to the total cost but to burden-sharing between different countries.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The burden-sharing will be on a band agreed between the parties. Obviously, it will depend on how many states ratify the agreement. If large states such as the United States do not ratify, we shall not be able to look to them for a contribution.
The kind of figure I mentioned is quite large—£5.7 million. But I wonder how proportionate that figure is in the context of the wrongs that we are hoping to prevent and put right. I believe that this country has a big enough heart to discharge those debts.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 40, line 41, after ("shall,") insert (''unless the contrary is shown on the balance of probabilities,").
The noble Lord said: We conclude this Committee stage with an amendment of exquisite technicality and narrowness. It is so exquisite and so narrow that I may not even be able to present it in the precise form that I should like. It arises from the provision in paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, which states that,
"An order, judgment, warrant or request of the ICC which purports … to bear the seal of the ICC, or … to be signed by a person in his capacity as a judge or officer of the ICC, shall … be deemed without further proof to have been duly sealed or, as the case may be, to have been signed by that person".
The amendment queries whether "without further proof" is adequate and suggests that a tighter test of authenticity would be justified. It introduces the concept that is no doubt familiar to lawyers, but not to me, of the "balance of probabilities". The amendment argues that the balance of probabilities test must be employed. So if the warrant looks less than genuine by 50 per cent, there must be a proper test of authenticity by the judges. The warrant should not merely be accepted on the hopeful assumption that it looks all right, therefore it should be all right.
This is a small matter, but it is part of the general structure of reassurance that we seek to build, not into the statute, which I see is cast in stone, but into our interpretation and handling of how the statute may become law in this land. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that we can end the Committee stage on a happy note, with my being able to give great comfort to the noble Lord. It has been the case for the past 150 years that documents from foreign courts may be admitted in criteria in our courts if they purport to be duly signed as sealed, without any further proof being necessary. The various statutes on the matter, such as the Evidence Act 1851, contain a provision equivalent to that

131
proposed in the amendment. In our view, the ICC should be treated like any other court outside a jurisdiction in this respect. I can tell the noble Lord that in the past 150 years even the lawyers seem to have been satisfied with the provision. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCluskey: The point is that the provision enables one to avoid the need to prove the seal or the signature, but the document, judgment, order or
132
warrant still has to be "of the ICC". So the problem does not arise, except in relation to the formality of proving the signature or the seal.
Lord Howell of Guildford: If the problem does not arise for lawyers, that is an assurance; and, indeed, if it has not arisen for the past 150 years, that is really an assurance. I am comforted. Therefore, I gladly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at eight minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Severn Rail Tunnel: Safety Exercise
  Severn Rail Tunnel: Safety Exercise
  Bus Services
  Bus Services
  Archaeological Sites and Monuments Records
  Archaeological Sites and Monuments Records
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
  Parliamentary Questions: Cost of Answers
  Parliamentary Questions: Cost of Answers
  Self-assessment Tax Returns: Electronic Filing
  Self-assessment Tax Returns: Electronic Filing
  Unclaimed Agrimonetary Compensation
  Unclaimed Agrimonetary Compensation
  Smoking Policy in Government Departments
  Smoking Policy in Government Departments
  Millennium Dome: Sale
  Millennium Dome: Sale
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  BSE Inquiry Report
  BSE Inquiry Report
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Foetuses Retained for Research
  Foetuses Retained for Research
  Organic Food
  Organic Food
  Embryonic Cloning: Professor Donaldson's Briefings
  Embryonic Cloning: Professor Donaldson's Briefings
  Diamorphine Prescription to Terminally Ill Patients
  Diamorphine Prescription to Terminally Ill Patients
  Haemophilia Patients: Information on Product Contamination
  Haemophilia Patients: Information on Product Contamination
  Haemophilia Patients: Recombinant Clotting Factor Treatment
  Haemophilia Patients: Recombinant Clotting Factor Treatment
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  The Hospice Movement: NHS Funding
  The Hospice Movement: NHS Funding
  Sexual Advice to Young People
  Sexual Advice to Young People
  Water Fluoridation
  Water Fluoridation
  Northern Ireland: Law Officers' Meetings
  Northern Ireland: Law Officers' Meetings
  Law Officers: Appearances in Court and Committee
  Law Officers: Appearances in Court and Committee
  Sub-postmasters: Retention
  Sub-postmasters: Retention
  BT Local Exchange Local Loop Unbundling
  BT Local Exchange Local Loop Unbundling
  Universal Banking Services
  Universal Banking Services
  Neighbourhood Warden Scheme
  Neighbourhood Warden Scheme
  Asylum Seekers in Emergency Accommodation
  Asylum Seekers in Emergency Accommodation
  Immigration Clearance Times, Heathrow
  Immigration Clearance Times, Heathrow
  Migrants' Fiscal Contribution to UK Economy
  Migrants' Fiscal Contribution to UK Economy
  Daily News, Harare: Bombing
  Daily News, Harare: Bombing
  Senior Salaries Review Body Recommendations
  Senior Salaries Review Body Recommendations
  Anglo-French Summit, 9 February
  Anglo-French Summit, 9 February
  Black Rod
  Black Rod
  House of Lords: Heating
  House of Lords: Heating